I don't mind feminists but I wouldnt want my sister going out with one

Has feminism gone too far?:rant:

"A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women."
what do you mean has it gone too far? everyone should be equal black, white, pink, green, tall, short, man, girl. lets not go back to the dark ages when the white middleclass man ruled. gees:gag:

Radical feminism, that women should rule over men, would be going to far.

But I agree with Natalie that there is nothing wrong with equality that liberal feminists promote.

Originally posted by IanMitchell
Radical feminism, that women should rule over men, would be going to far.


I like when they say "there would be no wars if women ran the world" when you know there would, only the causes of war would change.

I can see it now......

Britain declares war on France over "big bum" insult.


(only kidding ladies)

It was pushing it a bit in the early/mid eighties with the separatist feminists which just encouraged divides. Don't see how it can be seen to have gone too far these days.
Equality for all:thumbsup:

maybe all 'isms' are bad.
Anything can be taken to extremes and is generally a bad thing when it is.
Equal rights is fine, enforcing equality in all things is detrimental to both sexes. For example, positive discrimination to bring workforce levels upto equal numbers in male dominated industries.

Originally posted by miniminch
Has feminism gone to far?:rant:

With the dawn of feminism came the possibiliy of a woman prime minister and you gave us Thatcher. Let's face it girls - you messed up big time there - you were rubbish:o

Feminism is now one of those things that I class with doo gooders meddling and no I cannot stand it.

It is offensive to the women who fought for our rights int he first place and the pendulum has swung too far....

Moon

every one should be equal, but some are more equal than others. ( quote from somewhere or other)

So while all the women are working whos having the babies?
I await the pain. aaargh

I can understand that some woman are useless at stuff but so are some men so why sterio type all woman ??????????

If two people are doing exactly the same work , they should get exactly the same rewards. Also ,in career structures , allowances must obviously be made for women to have children,
Having said that , I think that men and women are different in many ways, not only physically.[When women were fighting for equality,by the way, not many of them were queing up to work in the mines or rolling mills,refuse collection...etc...]
I think ,generally,their thought processes are different---they seem to look at things ,less logically---more personally.There's been absolutely nothing,certainly in the U.K. in thepast 75 years to prevent girls or women playing chess---yet only about 5 or 10% of serious chess players are female.They also seem to build their lives more round the Home,for obvious reasons.
When women have gained power they have been as guilty as men in control-freakery,bloodthirstiness and mis-management.They have lived different lives from men for hundreds of thousands of years.You can't change that in a century or two. Their brain structure is different and they're physically different.
Why is it so difficult for people to admit that men and women are different in many ways ,for various reasons. ?
Where they are the same,well admit that too.----but so many take one extreme stance or the other.

Originally posted by jonsastar
every one should be equal, but some are more equal than others. ( quote from somewhere or other)


It's actually rather a bad mis-quote from Animal Farm

Originally posted by ladyovmanor
I can understand that some woman are useless at stuff but so are some men so why sterio type all woman ??????????
men are useless at lots of things yes!!! but then again so am i! just had to get my colleague to get top off some juice

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe all 'isms' are bad.

What about "escapism"? I like that one.

Originally posted by JonJParr
What about "escapism"? I like that one.

Or "cubism", everyone likes Picasso.

Originally posted by nick2
Or "cubism", everyone likes Picasso.

Cubism sucks, (my opinion)

Entrepreneurism is a good ism though, that one sort of keeps the world turnin. ish

Originally posted by miniminch
Has feminism gone too far?:rant:


In short - no. I could go on for hrs about this - but wont! And just to add that feminism isnt just about men and women being equal but also that all women are equal too.

To elaborate a tad..feminism should allow women to make free choices and be treated equally. This means a woman who decides to go out and work should be given equal rights, opportunities AND pay as men. It also means that women who choose to stay at home and work at bringing up the next generation are 'just as equal'. Yeah, I know this is simplistic as economics, relationship brkdowns etc may mean that these choices arent exactly 'free' (and many women have both roles) but just wanted to make this point as quick as poss. Sometimes feminism is seen as representing the 'middle-class prof' woman which is wrong.

Yes, men and woman are different (wow?!) but there are always exceptions to the rule. Just cos I'm a so-called 'typical' woman cos I can't park my car doesn't mean that all women are the same! Just wanting to keep this light....

Originally posted by IanMitchell
Radical feminism, that women should rule over men, would be going to far.

But I agree with Natalie that there is nothing wrong with equality that liberal feminists promote.

Women usually do rule over men, - it wasn't Herod who wanted John the Baptist's head on a plate :P

The latest manifestation of 'Radical feminism' ...gangs of teenage girls out on the town binge drinking is taking things too far for this old fart.

But I've nothing against equality in the workplace or in the home. In fact I've a daughter who is an IT expert, whose husband is a district nurse; which is quite a role-reversal from say twenty or even ten years ago.

what about men who want to stay home and make house?

Originally posted by threecolours
In short - no. I could go on for hrs about this - but wont! And just to add that feminism isnt just about men and women being equal but also that all women are equal too.

To elaborate a tad..feminism should allow women to make free choices and be treated equally. This means a woman who decides to go out and work should be given equal rights, opportunities AND pay as men. It also means that women who choose to stay at home and work at bringing up the next generation are 'just as equal'. Yeah, I know this is simplistic as economics, relationship brkdowns etc may mean that these choices arent exactly 'free' (and many women have both roles) but just wanted to make this point as quick as poss. Sometimes feminism is seen as representing the 'middle-class prof' woman which is wrong.

Yes, men and woman are different (wow?!) but there are always exceptions to the rule. Just cos I'm a so-called 'typical' woman cos I can't park my car doesn't mean that all women are the same! Just wanting to keep this light....

I like Feminists, but not the butch ones like Kirky knows......

Dont know what the fuss is about - women kissing other women - its all goooooood :thumbsup:


Mat;)

Originally posted by mat1978
I like Feminists, but not the butch ones like Kirky knows......

Dont know what the fuss is about - women kissing other women - its all goooooood :thumbsup:


Mat;)

I think you've got the feminism and lesbianism threads confused.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you've got the feminism and lesbianism threads confused.

Oh c'mon mate, we both know they're one and the same........:P

Originally posted by jonsastar


So while all the women are working whos having the babies?
I await the pain. aaargh
We're working and STILL having the babies ourselves.
Multi tasking.

I think some of these movements fall into the trap of helping to keep one lot of homo sapiens removed from some other (as distinct from bringing people together). We can group ourselves as muslims against christians or black people against white or northerners against southerners or Dore folk against Pitsmoor people.

Or women against men. Which is feminism's inherent stance isn't it? I've read some feminist literature and that's how it appears to me.

For sure patriarchy sucks and I agree with a lot of the things that feminism is fighting for - but why is feminism's view of social justice limited to things like women's equality of pay to men. There's other (arguably) larger injustices out there across different divides such as the things that we all do to the third world.

When feminism succeeds and men & women are economically equalised won't people in the third world view us all (including women) just as poorly as women once viewed the male establishment?

I dunno, those are just my strongly held views. I believe in androdgeny & colour-blindness!

Isnt feminism just another way to have a pop at Anglo man.
All beit the first of many ism's to take a pop.

Originally posted by miniminch
Has feminism gone too far?:rant:

Clearly not, if the abortion debate (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24775) is anything to go by! There's clearly a long way to go!

Originally posted by purplepippa
Clearly not, if the abortion debate (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24775) is anything to go by! There's clearly a long way to go!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't feel that feminism and abortion share any common underlying factors. Feminism is about justice and equality. It's about women receiving the same chances as their male counterparts. It's about the removal of the glass ceiling and equal pay.

To compare and link it with abortion only serves to trivialise the issue. Let's not forget that abortion is about the destruction of life!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't feel that feminism and abortion share any common underlying factors. Feminism is about justice and equality. It's about women receiving the same chances as their male counterparts. It's about the removal of the glass ceiling and equal pay.


Ok, I'll correct you ;)

Feminism *is* about justice and equality, I agree. It is also about women having control over their bodies, their fertility, their lives. It is not at all representative to say that feminism is about equal pay only. It is also vital in the movement to stop violence against women, trafficking of women and children into prostitution around the world, giving women choices, freedom.

If women are forced to carry and give birth to unwanted pregnancies, they certainly do *not* have the justice you are talking about! That is totally unjust.

Equal pay for equal work ==> Good
Feminism ==> Lazy

My wife is a feminist when it suits her. When it comes to cooking and cleaning she is a feminist (i.e., Lazy...leaves it for me to do) When it comes to ANYTHING to do with the car or home repair she plays the traditional woman. (i.e., lazy again!)

Hope she gets a promotion so that we can hire a maid...I hate my dishpan hands!

:thumbsup:

There are so many different forms of feminism- so far we have mentioned Radical [in which men are viewed as "biological enemies", and patriarchy posited as the cause of oppression], and Liberal [in which women seek a dialogue with men, and acknowledge other variables such as capitalism when discussing oppression] forms of feminism. It is more realistic to think in terms of feminism[s]. Other varieties include Marxist feminism, Postmodernist feminism, Black feminism, and Post-Structuralist feminism.

Unfortunately, the media image of feminism[s] revolves around the dungaree-clad, bearded madwomen of the Radical feminist variety. Some, such as Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin, have advocated a kind of "sexual apartheid". Dworkin is on record as viewing all heterosexual sexual congress as "rape", because the relations between the sexes here mirror those between sex offender and victim. Comment would be superfluous.

It is possible to find some good, scholarly work in the feminist camp, and I speak as a traditional Tory not usually sympathetic to the cause. Modern day "Post-feminists", such as Sheila Scraton and Bev Skeggs acknowledge that men too can endure inequalities and discrimination [especially, working class men], and see the wider picture in terms of a cluster of variables rather than blaming men and patriarchy in a reductionist, essentialist way. They see that Radical feminism, "went too far", and that Postmodern perspectives result in a cul de sac of relativism. The problem is that the stereotype of the lesbian, men-hating, lentil-guzzling Rad Fem is hard to get rid of.

Originally posted by timo
[B]There are so many different forms of feminism ... Liberal [in which women seek a dialogue with men, and acknowledge other variables such as capitalism when discussing oppression] forms of feminism.

Great post timo, but what I find hard to understand and what I still am unsure about is why have 'Liberal feminism'? Why not just be a liberal and fight against oppression in all its forms? Sod gender - align oneself to humankind and not a gender!

Originally posted by purplepippa
trafficking of women and children into prostitution around the world

Young boys also get sold into prostitution.

Anyway, each and every person on this planet is different to the rest. Statistically women tend to exhibit more female attributes and men more male ones. To assume everyone is equal is fanciful, but to judge someone based on them appearing to falling into a certain demographic is clearly no good either. So try to judge everyone on their own merits, even if it seems hard to do.

It's about equality of opportunity.

Thanks for the kind words. Re why females, and particularly female academics, align themselves with feminism[s] rather than joining certain parties- probably because they perceive society to be gendered. In other words, because women in general endure greater inequality of opportunity. Post -fems like Scraton and Skeggs view things in a more sophisticated way, and acknowledge that in some areas men face a "glass ceiling" too [i.e, the "crisis" in working class masculinity in sink estates such as Meadowell, Newcastle- third generation male unemployment etc].
According to Social Trends, the figures for female managerial staff were around 14% fairly recently. In some areas, it would appear that women are under-represented. However, here is where Timo blots his copy book with the pc types; I personally believe that genetics [especially the issue of testosterone in males] plays a part here. Much feminist analysis revolves around a social constructionist model of society, and human relations, which tends to ignore the biological variable. Usually social structural "causes" of "oppression" are posited, such as patriarchy, capitalism etc. I think that genetic predisposition, as well as environmental issues, play a part in the position of women in all human societies. Despite what most feminists say, and imply, human beings DO have instincts [unlearned patterns of behaviour], and there ARE innate differences in male/female disposition and behaviour.

I'm not so convinced about that Timo. Certainly genetics is always going to play some part, but I think that gender roles are more to do with how society expects people to behave in the majority of cases. For example, you'd probably class going down town, getting hammered and starting fights as a traditionally male role, and I suppose in the past it would have been unthinkable to have gangs of ladettes roaming the streets; but this is changing. In fact, I read somewhere that women start drinking at an earlier age than men.
Certainly there are inequalities, such as the fact that there are less women in management roles, not because of their ability, but presumably because many have to give up their careers to bring up their family. Let me pose a question though. If we were a truly equal society, wouldn't equal amounts of men give up their careers to look after the family while their partner continued her career? Surely that would allow more women to climb the career ladder for longer? Would women, or indeed men, want such a state of affairs?

Wow! Nice to debate with someone knowledgable on this forum.

We have insincts for sure but our socialisation can curb much of our instinct-driven behaviour. In other words: that's what your parents do when they bring you up. I'm on the nuture side of the debate. I see social constructivism adding weight to the view that we should aspire towards androgeny, colour (and race) blindness etc.

For example SC posits that our gender identities are the product of our (traditional) upbringing. Then if we develop a more androgenous child raising environment, those old gender identities won't be propogated to the new generation. Feminism (Liberal or otherwise) is by its very nature fixated on gender and therefore propogates the old divisions.

Conversley Timo, if I believed in your biological/nature stance (which I don't buy fully), I'd be more inclined to support feminism. That view puts forward the idea women are different, less physically powerful, slaves to their biologically mother thing etc. In that case lobbying and campaigning for womens rights and equality would be necessary.

Very interesting post e-man! Food for thought there.Personally I've got very little sympathy for anyone who blames their chromosomes for their inability to parallel park or understand the offside rule etc. I remember there was someone on this very forum that said she couldn't cut her lawn because she was a single mum!:loopy:

At the end of the day, all these social roles are usually invented or reinforced by nutcases with an axe to grind, be it radical feminsts or your beer swilling, football loving mate.

It'd be an odd world indeed if we were completely unconstrained by social roles!

When I worked in reception class with 4/5 yr olds we had activities every morning. Every child could choose what they wanted to play with in a large school hall.
At one end stood a large pile of wooden bricks same size as normal ones. Ineviitably the girls outlined houses and played house. The boys outlined spaceships, castles etc, and tried to play war with no imput from us on their original choice. An occasional boy would play with the girls and vis versa. Doesn't it all depend on the amount or not of testostorone we inherit boy or girl.

PS And they did have to write about it afterwards.

Hazel

Hey Hazel,

There is a large body of clever experiments and studies looking at this and the results are certainly inconclusive at the moment. In response to what you noticed amongst your pupils, it would be argued that in the first 4-5 years of life they have already picked up their gender identities, in the same way that they will have picked up things like accent etc. These then will be reinforced by their peers.

If this thread has turned into "Nature or Nuture" it may run and run...!

Originally posted by Cyclone
what about men who want to stay home and make house?

As maybe directed at me...

OK fair point there but cos the thread was about feminism I just commented on women. Yep, one of the ideals behind feminism to me is about freedom of choice and trying not to judge other people's choices. So, course 'men can stay at home and make house' - I hate cooking/cleaning so...any offers!? *joke*

There is evidence, from the work of Dean Hamer, that gender may not be 100% socially-constructed [i.e, the product of socialisation]. Hamer's work in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that the old, "Sex is biologically determined, and Gender is a social construct" mantra beloved of mainstream social scientists is outdated. Hamer shows how even the ways we think about our gender identity may be rooted, at least in part, in biology.

Traditionally, most social scientists have an antipathy towards genetic, or even partially genetic explanations. However, I think this is sometimes due to an ignorance of the literature of Sociobiology, Genetics etc. Genes and environment "work together" in a sense. For example, we may inherit the genes which work together to produce schizophrenia. However, the symptoms may never materialise in our lifetime, unless they are "switched on", so to speak, by environmental stimuli, i.e, extreme stress.

My position here is that we cannot ignore the biological variables in any account of the social. Conversely, we are not just "slaves" to our genes- environment is still massively important. The problem with most feminist accounts is that they, in the main, engage in either an extreme social constructionist perspective where biological causality is ignored, or [like Dworkin and Firestone and other Radical Feminists] they suggest that men are biological enemies of women. Neither approach accurately describes human behaviour or the imbalance in social inequality between men and women.

Timo, I guess I can agree with you in that there is some biology in the social. But there's also a lot of social in the biological. I could start off a whole new argument by suggesting that determined socialisation can override biological drives, but does it work the other way round?

But you're well read so I guess you know that the nature and nurture types never tend to agree on these things!

Nice debating with ya!

E-man,
Very nice to debate with you too. We appear to agree that it is a case of nature via nurture [as Matt Ridley would put it]. Far too many people think it is either the social or the biological. I'm interested in building bridges between the social and life sciences. Pehaps this is moving too far from miniminch's original idea though.
Re feminism being "good" or "bad"; I am aware that Radical Fems would not be interested in my [male] views, as in their eyes I am a Patriarchal agent! Nevertheless, for what it is worth, I think that some feminist theory/ protest has been for the good. Think of how much longer women would have had to wait for the right to vote, were it not for the Suffragettes. Some "Second Wave" theorists like Anne Oakley did a good job of digging beneath commonsense assumptions about the politics of housework etc. Modern day post-Fems like Bev Skeggs are doing some interesting things re a synthetic, post- Postmodern ideas. Re the "bad", I think much 70s and 80s Radical Feminism was absolutist, reductionist, anti-male poison.
There are still female academics in depts of the arts, humanities and social sciences [in British Unis], largely in their late forties and fifties, who continue to fight the battles of the "Second Wave" of feminism[s], i.e, 1960s to late 80s. They remain suspicious, chippy and resentful towards men. One can spot them a mile off. However, female students of these subjects don't appear to have the same "problems" with men, and are largely relaxed in male company. They realise that there ARE inequalities based around gender in society, but that women in general [and particularly middle class women] have a degree of choice, independence and freedom unparalleled in British history. It is nice to hear them , occasionally, pay lip service to the bravery of women like Wollstonecraft etc.

I dont agree with feminists at all,
Women have got so many more opportunities then, say 50 years ago and theyre still not happy!
I think most people treat men and women equally now.

But then again I hate sexist men who think all women should be housewifes, and jokes like
'why are womens feet smaller then mens?'
'so she can get closer to the sink'

hehe, insulting but a tinsy bit funny

Originally posted by helenem2004
I dont agree with feminists at all,
Women have got and theyre still not happy!
I think most people treat men and women equally now.

But then again I hate sexist men who think all women should be housewifes, and jokes like
'why are womens feet smaller then mens?'
'so she can get closer to the sink'

hehe, insulting but a tinsy bit funny

Erm, but i'm sure that many would argue that wome have 'so many more opportunities then, say 50 years ago' BECAUSE of feminists.

Oh no, this debate is definitely over Timo - I'm agreeing with you far too much. We're in agreement that historically feminism was extremely important, and necessary. But in this post-modern age I think it's time for new paradigms in gender relationships such as androgeny.