![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I used to be one of those women who said, "I believe in equality between the sexes and all that stuff, but I'm not a /feminist/..." until I realized that every position I held fell exactly within the mainstream feminist movement, and most of the 'bad' things I'd heard about "feminists" were, in fact, entirely untrue. So now, I'm happily a feminist.
And listening to some women just pisses me off. "Well, we're equal now, so I don't think we need to /push/ any further. It'll just upset people. There'll be a backlash." "Oh, well, equality is good, but if a woman dresses in a certain way, you can't really blame a man for thinking she wants sex..." "Oh, I've never seen any evidence of inequality in my life. I mean, sure I work a full-time job and do all the housework and cooking, but that's just the way it is. And if he pisses me off too much, he just won't get sex, so that works."
1. Not so equal. Better. Loads and tons better, but now is the more difficult part...it's not about overt discrimination so much (except for some occupational and military restrictions), but about challenging implicit assumptions about the way men and women are 'supposed' to interact. Not to mention fighting restrictions on birth control and sex education...both of which benefit women to a great extent, since women are the ones who historically suffer more from unwanted pregnancies and the cultural assumptions of sexual indiscretion. And that's only in the broadest mainstream culture. Within the subcultures of America, there are several in which women are not equal at all, and although legal statutes may exist, the culture is oppressive and young women are unaware of their rights or abilities to choose other ways of living.
2. Fuck the backlash.
3. Women are not responsible for the sexual behavior of men, unless they're committing force upon them. Men are not responsible for the sexual behavior of women, unless they're committing force upon them. Doesn't matter is someone is walking down the street completely in the nude, any human being does possess the capacity not to leap upon them and force them into sex. If you ignore that capacity, you get no excuses, no blame anywhere but on yourself. Stop with the fucking clothes already.
4. Just because you haven't noticed any inequality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you're one of those lucky, lucky people who lives in a truly enlightened area with no gender issues at all. Excellent. Figure out what the people around you are doing right, and bring it out to the rest of the world. I live in the state with, at last check, THE highest female mortality rate from domestic violence in the entire country. We're number 5 in the nation for total DV cases, and number 1 in dead women. Aren't we special?
5. I hate headgames. I don't want to 'make a man think he's King, as long as he knows who is Queen'. I want a friend, a partner, someone I can be honest with, and work out an arrangement of domestic chores and so forth that works for both of us, without any manipulation of passive-aggressive little plays. And I sure as hell don't want to use sex as a doggie biscuit for male good behavior...I /like/ sex, theoretically. It's supposed to be fun, and intimate, and something shared between people who at the very least like each other. Using sexual relations as a method of relationship manipulation just makes me feel sad.
*grumble* This, of course, is why I shouldn't read women's forums. A lot of sensible opinions, and then a few that are just, ARGH.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Also, this blog might interest you (if you haven't seen it before):
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/01/26/women-who-dont-call-it-rape/
That article was how I found the blog; I intend to read more of it.
From:
Rar!
From:
Re: Rar!
From:
Re: Rar!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
"Feminism is unnecessary. It's trying to turn women into men."
The hell are you even smoking? One, feminism is about supporting people who don't want to buy into the female sphere of make up and shaving and whatnot-- and you know what? Most feminists also support men doing "women" things, like wearing skirts. It's just less common for men to try to do feminine things than the other way around, for two reasons:
1) women are viewed as inferior already, even if you don't rationalize it that way
2) a lot of the stuff women have to do SUCKS, especially if you haven't been raised to think of it as necessary.
I just love how "well, I don't see any overt examples of inequality" means it doesn't exist. Oh honey, it is there.
And I so agree with you on 5. =/
From:
no subject
People need to just be able to be people, which is, I think, the core of the mainstream feminist movement. Challenging the assumptions not just for the benefit of women, but for men, too. All those stupid myths and stereotypes are just as corruptive and restricting for men as they are for women.
And yeah, most of the people I know who say they haven't seen inequality, if you actually ask about specifics, will point out several cases where there has been. But they just don't think of it that way, because it's the status quo.
Headgames suck.
From:
no subject
Look at me, I am bi, like to dress "pretty" don't like sports all that much, or cars, but love to cook and do makeup etc. All of which is against things that were instilled into me, and..well it's not healthy for men at all.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Amen. Or just "supposed" to behave, even when there are no men around...
(As for clothing... I can see dressing a certain way meaning that yeah, you want looks, and a polite pass is reasonable, but a polite rejection is also fine, and no means no. Even if someone wants it to mean yes. Even if BOTH want it to mean yes. If someone means yes, say it. (And while we're at it, if one eats animal flesh, one is not a vegetarian and don't call oneself that if you eat chicken. It screws up life for those of us who don't eat dead animal flesh. Which is a different rant, but all about meanings and screwing things up for those who use the correct ones.))
From:
no subject
(Oh, certainly! There is definitely such a thing as dressing to get a reaction, and reactions can be gratifying...but the dresser /always/ reserves the right to set the boundaries of acceptable interactions. Just because a woman wants looks, doesn't give anyone the right, then, to touch. And yes, god. If you're interested in someone, SAY SOMETHING. Say yes if they ask you out. Ask them out. Don't moon from afar, and mope.)
(Hee. I can see how that would be very annoying and confusing. I've always been a little confused on whether eating fish still counted as being a vegetarian. Many vegetarians seem to be okay with it, and then some aren't.)
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
(AMEN! Tricky, yes. But one can usually get around to at least expressing some interest if one tries -- and if one is interested enough to think about touching, good LORDS, ask!)
(They are not vegetarians. They are mistaken. They are indirectly annoying me by claiming to be vegetarians (as are the chicken-eaters), because I do not eat animal flesh. I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian: I eat eggs and dairy. They are barely piscian-vegetarians or something, and should just say they "only eat fish flesh" or something.)
(BTW: true story about the indirect messing with true non-flesh-eaters. I was in the hospital after having the minx and despite being registered as ovo-lacto vegetarian, got chicken. The nurse was wroth, since I tiredly said I'd just eat around it, and went to chew out the cook and get me real food. If someone says vegetarian, then don't serve them meat! Even if they're a misguided no-red-meat-eater who thinks "vegetarian" is the right word -- time to learn better!
(I guess she was wroth since I was a nursing mother and she didn't want me fainting or something. O:> )
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But the fringe elements of the feminist movements get way too much attention, and have their views distorted. Welcome to the wonderfull world of spin ;/
From:
no subject
too damned tired. Maybe later.
From:
no subject
I believe that men and women are biologically and culturally different. Some of the differences, like the fact that one sex can bear children and the other can't, are fairly obvious. Others are more abstract and still difficult to come to terms with scientifically, such as how each sex seems to process data differently and communicates differently. To pretend that every person is exactly the same would be foolish, and in some measure would deprive the individual of their right to be who they choose to be.
That said, just because we're different doesn't mean that we shouldn't be equal. We are all human, and as such we deserve to be treated with the same level of respect in the eyes of the law and of society. Whether or not a person is in possession of a large or small chunk of erectile tissue between their legs should have no bearing whatsoever on how they are treated in the courts, at the boardroom table, or in their level of individual rights.
I wish I could say that we had reached a stage of gender equality, but I don't think that's true. We're doing a heck of a lot better than we were, but we aren't there yet. A simple case in point: Here in Canada the Conservative party just won a Federal election and our Prime Minister introduced his Cabinet yesterday. Of the 26 (27?) Ministers, only six were women. We've still got a long way to go.
From:
no subject
There are certainly biological differences between males and females! Wouldn't be a species if there weren't. :D However, the cultural differences are by no means fixed /or inherent/ to either sex. The differences in information processing that are usually touted, such as spacial relations/language abilities are, in all probablity, constructs of the environment and how we treat men and women differently from the moment of birth, not inherent abilities. Additionally, the within group differences on those studies are larger and more significant than the between group differences, suggesting that the tendencies are more of statistical interest than practical interest.
And I strenuously object to the idea that feminists are trying to 'treat everyone as if they are exactly the same'. In fact, that's entirely the /opposite/ of what feminism is about, despite the unfortunate tendency to level that accusation. The idea is "Be who you are, not what society says you should be based on sex." Or race, or geographic location, or whatever. To do that, however, we have to point out that the things that say "men are X" or "women are Y" are wrong, or a lot more complicated than others make them out to be. Don't confuse that with saying that people should behave exactly the same, please!
Your last two paragraphs, of course, I agree with completely.
From:
no subject