My Apprenticeship Leads me to Become a Feminist

[Beth-Lock]

I take some satisfaction, in my apprenticeship in womanhood largely under the tutelage of my closest girlfriend, who has led me in sharing with her, some of the experiences of women's culture. It is not like a secret society, or arrived at by watching chick movies that one can only understand, if one has enough estrogen in their systems, but simply immersing oneself in one's new life as a woman and it includes thinking of issues that women live, day to day, and adopting a perspective on life, seeing things from the viewpoint of women's eyes. For example, I often watch some chick flick movies together with her, when they show up on the tv. It eventually became obvious to me, that I had reached the point that I could say that I am indeed, a feminist.

A curious friend might ask, on hearing this, "Why?" Someone who knows my background really well, also knows that at one point, in my male life, I was driven by frustration to become a frank misogynist. (Pehaps it was in part related to unconscious gender dysphoria in some way.)

What explains the big change? Am I trying too hard to be a woman, that is overadjusting, so to fit in. Do I talk the talk, just for show, like the transwomen who deliberately, making fools of themselves, try to walk the walk, with an exagerated wiggle? Or, have my women friends simply brainwashed me?

Actually, neither. I have just exposed myself sympathetically to the sadder stories of women, stories from around the globe, as well as next door, and from my friends, who tell me some parts of their life story. My natural response in the end, has been to get with the program, the women's program, that is, what I initially perceived as 'a sort of' feminism. My closest girlfriend, says that it is okay, that is politically correct, to call myself a feminist, as men can be feminists too, so it does not depend on whether or not you accept my claim to be a woman, either an unhyphenated woman or merely a transwoman.

So, I am a feminist, and this process unfolded, in the stereotypical way which in reality describes quite well, how it happened to me, that is by my consciousness being raised, as I became immersed in the world of womanhood, in large part, simply by living as a woman, and sharing so many of the experiences of womanhood, by means of conversation and empathy, sharing with my women friends, who after all, are now my peer group.

(Note: Later in this thread, I was compelled to withdraw the claim that I was a feminist. I guess that makes me something like a sympathizer or a 'fellow traveller.')

My question to you, is: Where do you stand in relation to feminism? It would be particularly interesting to hear from the MTF transexual community, but of course, hearing from every category of our participants, would be most instructive of all.

[Rianna Humble]

My other self was already a feminist and worked quite hard for women's rights. Of course now some people might say that it was enlightened self-interest, but even in the depths of my denial, I knew that what men do in the name of "male privilege" was basically wrong.

In my political career, I introduced a number of measures designed to redress the balance, but always without supporting extremist moves.

Now, in addition to straightforward women's rights, I also work for LGBT rights - especially the 1st and last letters in that grouping.

On the chick-flick angle, I must confess that my old self did not allow himself to enjoy them. I can.

[ReineD]

The issues women face in some parts of the world violate their basic human rights and people who would wish to change some of these customs are humanitarians, not feminists. On what issues, specifically, do you feel you have feminist views? And in what ways were you a misogynist? I'm just curious. :)

[Beth-Lock]

The issues women face in some parts of the world violate their basic human rights and people who would wish to change some of these customs are humanitarians, not feminists. :)
If you agree with this argument, then in cases where Republicans and Democrats agree on the same policy, could you not call the local Democrat, a Republican?

Or, as Abe Lincoln illustrated: "How many legs does a donkey have? -- Four. Now, if you call its tail a leg: How many legs does a donkey have? Answer is still four, since calling a tail a leg, does not make it a leg." Perhaps this sort of thinking is the origin of the justification for calling people who are not communists, communists in the USA, not to mention fascists, nazis and socialists, depending on the occasion.

In other words, since it is possible to define, I assume, "humanitarian" and "feminist," fairly precisely, why not just stick with using the terms in a way that is governed by those definitions, rather than proposing some sort of elision of the definitions?

Personally, while someone might attribute my motivations to being like a humanitarian, or being humanitarian, in some broader, adjectival sense, I certainly do not think I am acting in the name of, and as a humanitarian. In this case, I would be acting, because I feel it is part of my feminist agenda. Or, the agenda of my own religious beliefs. If others who are motivated, merely by humanitarianism, think I am their allies, fine, but that does not make me a humanaitarian, even though nobody wants to be called an opponent of humanitarian measures, again, in the broad adjectival sense.

Or, to give a short answer: No, feminists are feminists. And if you cannot tell the difference between a feminist and a mere humanitarian, then you have a problem. That is not to say you cannot think in your own mind, that feminists are enough like humanitarians, that you need not bother coping with the fact that feminists add to their agenda, a lot of things a humanitarian would not agree with. But in that case, just keep those thoughts to yourself and don't assume that I would share them.

Right now, I am imagining in my mind's eye, a great humanitarian like the leader of the United Nations, demonstrating outside the UN building, and burning his bra! Jeepers, I did not even know he wore a bra.


On what issues, specifically, do you feel you have feminist views?:)

That is a tall order. Most feminists who have done much thinking, would be able to fill at least one book on their feminist views. To give a thumbnail sketch of my feminist philosophy, I do not go along with the American approach, of reducing feminist issues to extreme, and ideologically pure issues, rather than practical ones. If you go that route, your views become absurdist, and nobody who is not a feminist, can bring themelves to support you. A number of years ago, an early British feminist in a television feature, pointed that out, and spoke of the need for getting men on the side of women in this. American feminism is too prone to turning the feminist reality into a coterie, or exclusive club.

One of the extemist conclusions of taking the American route, is saying that that you cannot be a feminist if you are not a woman. That of course is the basis of a sort of feminist separatism that is contrary to a lot of high minded philosophies of life, including arguably, Christianity. Perhaps in that, the Bibilical quote that 'God is no respecter of persons,' means that not only does God not give special status to the rich, but He also does not give special status to women or any single ethnic group, or people sharing a specific skin colour.


And in what ways were you a misogynist? I'm just curious. :)

Now I have already written a book on that, or at least part of a book, namely my autobiography. It started with giving undue honour to the thoughts on women, of a few nineteenth century philosophers, which were misogynistic. Then I had a climactic personal experience, which left me feeling misogynism coursing though my very being.

I am told that feminists often have a personal incident, that causes them to link up the feelings aroused by a personal experience, with feminist theory, (if they are intelligent enough to form such linkages between the abstract, theoretical and their real life, of course, for feminism is very intellectual). Take my word for it, I had to seek psychotherapy for a hatred of women, at the time it was triggered.

It turned out to be a stepping stone to becoming a transsexual, in an odd way, because it released me of a lot of romantic feelings towards women, and thus weakened my bonds with my male identity, since all red blooded males, want to bed, if not exactly romance, a woman, don't they? (It did not turn me into a gay man, you should note. I never took that route.)

Maybe there is simply a lot of truth in the saying that extreme opposites are closer together than views that only differ by a small degree. That is, the continuum stretching from liking women, through to being neutral, and on to being antiwoman, is not a straight line, but forms a circle in which the extremes join up.

Let me apologize in advance for the long answers, but then feminism is by its very intellectual nature, a matter of giving long answers to short questions.

[noeleena]

Hi,

So are we on the same line as those suffragettes who went against the over lords = men who wonted control over every thing including women we were nothing more than a household item. or sex item,

is the femminst movement of to day any thing like in the 1800's & early 1900 's i think not , & nore would my many women friends i know & work with would say the same as i,

I think we need to work out what is a femminst of to day or those of the 70's because i wont aline my self with them , they are biggited have an attitude & apart from any thing else they have thier own agender & it does not include any of the women i know ,some 500. & certinly not likely to.

One they dont accept people who are different trans are one group im in another i know because iv spent time with some of them & thier attitude is pretty dismale to say the least

I was born intersexed & wether im male or female or the mix of both & even though im a woman, they have not done any thing here for our ....women.... in fact quite the reverse,

Have a look at the Suffragette's & youll see some details that may open your eyes, & think differently, any way i can work better by my self with people than belonging to a group that does not have the betterment of all women note the word .....ALL....
not just one small minority self centered group.


...noeleena...

[Beth-Lock]

So are we on the same line as those suffragettes who went against the over lords = men who wonted control over every thing including women we were nothing more than a household item. or sex item,

is the femminst movement of to day any thing like in the 1800's & early 1900 's i think not ....

Have a look at the Suffragette's & youll see some details that may open your eyes, & think differently....


Well, I would agree with the feminists of the 1800's, that women should have the vote, and also, should not be told by men that they can't wear pants. I would also agree that alcohol use of men should be better controlled than it is today, although few today would support the first, great feminist issue, prohibition.

I remember my grandmother, born in the 1870's I think, saying one day, that she was not one of those women who think that they are as smart as men. (And she was a smart woman and before marriage, a school teacher.) Well, if it was a radical feminist issue of the 1800's, to think that women can be as smart as men, then I support that too.

If it was a feminist issue of the 1800's to be an abolitionist, that is to be against slavery, then I support that too. (Mark Twain, be damned, at least as far as he wrote things to justify slavery, from the male point of view.)

Did I miss any suffragette issues?

[Kathryn Martin]

This thread is dripping with male privilege.....

[noeleena]

Hi,

Then to day is that the same movement, or i should say is the movement to day the same as it was then just a few issues will of cause be different. though what i see its not.

We still have slavery, women put down , sex when men wont it & rape killings just the same,
We may in many ways have a better life yet do we.

We have over one millon people who through our forum write to different govt dept's, large consortiums & many other large commanys that are now bowing to the demands put on them through our forum & our signing of partisions plus other ways & we are seeing the results of that,

if the feminism movement can match that then id like to see what they do as a movement for the betterment of not only women ,what are they doing over in the arabic lands & many other places, is this not what its about ,

The ? i will ask what is the feminist movement about, what do they do as a movement. today or even over the last 6 months this is what is importaint , allso looking at all sides is importaint ,

Thank you,

...noeleena...

[Julia_in_Pa]

I'm a member of of NOW (National Organization of Women).
I belong to various organizations that advocate and promote the arming of women.
I've been a long time financial supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Systematically removing men from positions of power in government, politics , private business and as heads of households is the ultimate aim for many of the organizations I belong to and support.
Men have done nothing but enslaved women in the name of religion and economic gain for centuries and slowly but surely things are changing concerning reversing the roles.

Placing men in subservient roles should be the goal of every woman, GG, IS or TS.


Julia

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Jeepers Julia, is that serious? So the answer to people doing bad things to you(us) is to do bad things to them??
You are gonna be pretty disappointed if making men subservient is a truly a meaningful goal for you..As a more serious matter, I think there is a Star Trek episode about this that is quite instructive...


Beth, I'm glad for you that you have continued to discover yourself and grow as a person...woman, feminist, humanitarian...whatever we call it...its all good...

To me it reads like you are superficially adopting the "ists" and "isms" of the people you are spending your time with...first men, then women... and you certainly know your facts and history ..

to me its much more important what we give back in this world..where do we bring value to others (all others) as people?...thats what matters to me..

I tend not to care what you call it..to me supporting women's rights is just supporting women's rights...and as I say on T issues, its more constructive to simply talk about specific issues than to box yourself in with labels...

[Julia_in_Pa]

Hi Kaitlyn,

Yes I'm serious. This has little to do with my own personal disgust for men but more of an overall plan that has been clearly laid out by the organizations I belong to.
Why would you think that men taking subservient roles in society would be doing something bad to them?
Women have had to live within this hierarchical strata as it pertains to the context of subservience for centuries.
Now it's mens turn. It's been mens turn for ages and we are now becoming much more militant in our tactics in order to drag the change into existence.
My views on men are mild comparatively to my SO and her friends as it pertains to lesbian rights.


Julia

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Julia i appreciate your honesty.

I'll be honest too....

Your view about this is incredibly extreme and its doomed.

It's so extreme in fact, that you place yourself firmly on the outside fringe of meaningful political dialogue, reducing your credibility and effectiveness.

[Julia_in_Pa]

Kaitlyn,

Thank you for your viewpoint however with the clout of NOW (National Organization for Women) supporting my viewpoint and with NOWs political connections I hardly see it as extreme and doomed.
There is massive anger concerning men in all organizations for the advancement of women's rights. I'm merely vocalizing a few that are shared by thousands of women gay straight trans, intersexed or otherwise. Do you think that men taking on subservient roles is doing something bad to them?


Julia

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Yes I do...its bad...

"people" putting "people" in subservient roles is wrong...if men putting women in subservient roles isnt "bad" then what is your problem with it??

what are the specific methods and practices you would employ to make this happen?? what are the specific ways you would keep the peace with your stable of subservient men??
subservient in what way exactly?? the more you drill down , the more impossible it gets..

NOW will have less and less clout as its views become more and more extreme...

Any NOW members care to join this discussion? I'm curious if you'd agree with Julia

[NCAmazon]

Placing men in subservient roles should be the goal of every woman, GG, IS or TS.


Julia

ROFL LOL, I'm sure many guys out there won't mind that and may be into it.

[Stephenie S]

This whole brouhaha is absurd. OF COURSE you are a feminist.

Being a feminist does NOT mean you want to burn your bra.

Being a feminist just means that you believe in the radical idea that women are human beings with all the rights and privileges that being a human being entails.

It's quite simple, really.

Here are a few definitions:

Patriarchy: The role of the male is the primary authority figure where MEN hold authority over women, children, and property. Patriarchy is dependent on female subjugation. "The Patriarchal construct of masculine and feminine is the political difference between freedom and subjugation."

Feminism: The radical idea that women are human beings.

The history of feminism to the present day is divided into three parts.

First Wave Feminism: The 18th century until WWII. Feminism during this period was primarily concerned with basic civil rights such as the right to vote and the right to hold property.

Second Wave Feminism: From the end of WWII until the defeat of the ERA in the 1980s. Feminism during this period was centered on passing the ERA, women's reproductive rights, and equality in the workplace.

Third Wave Feminism: Where we are now. Present day feminism seeks REAL and practical equality for ALL women, racial justice, LGBT rights, class oppression, and continues the fight for women's reproductive rights.

To the continuing GREAT disadvantage of ALL American women, the United States Constitution still does not include a guarantee of equal rights for women. That's right. As a woman, your rights are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. Look it up, girls.

We are now subject to a very well orchestrated and very well funded attack on the rights we fought so hard and long for during the Second Wave feminist period. Reproductive rights, which we all assumed were secure, are under attack in more than 40 States. Politicians and pundits alike treat women as second class citizens on a daily basis.

Are you a feminist? Well you had better be. Or we may wake up one day to find ourselves right back where we started over 100 years ago. Think it can't happen? Better think again.

Stephie

[Anna Lorree]

Feminism versus Humanism, male subservience, reproductive rights, the Constitution. Wow, lots of buzz words in this thread.

Feminism exists on the premise that women deserve equal rights under the law, and that's a good thing. Radical feminism has an agenda to elevate women above men in society, which brings us to male subservience. This smacks of a view that having a vagina makes one "better" than the male half of the population, and is as wrong an idea as saying a particular skin color makes one superior to people of differing colors. Millions of people have died defeating ideas like this, which were made into public policy. Having a vagina does not make a person automatically good, any more than having a penis makes a person automatically bad. In my job I see the full spectrum of humanity in their worst moments. Rich and poor, black and white, male and female. I have seen a LOT of very bad females, just as I have seen a LOT of very bad males. How one behaves is a choice, vaginas don't stop poor decisions from happening.

Reproductive rights are a term used to combine birth control with abortion and education. Birth control is a medication of one form or another (excluding condoms). Should I start HRT, I will not ask for, nor will I accept government money for my treatment. Getting a medical treatment is a personal choice, and I should be responsible for my own decisions in life. I should not expect society to provide for me, but should instead expect to provide for myself. Of course birth control options should be available to women, but there should be no expectation that society should provide it. It's an individual choice to use birth control (just as HRT is a decision I need to make for myself), not a societal choice. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free governmental service. That money was taken away from somebody who earned it in order to give it to somebody else. That's not right.

The Constitution has a lot of archaic language in it, true. However, when you get down to looking at the rights enumerated in it, the wording is generally regarding "the people", which is exactly as it should be. It should not say "men" any more than it should say "women".

Humanism, the idea that we are all entitled fundamental equal rights regardless of color, creed, sex, gender or age, is our best societal hope for peace. As long as one group is always trying to get to the top of the heap, we will continue with violence, war, hate and discontent.

No, I'm not a right-wing Republican. I am a Libertarian, my view is that the government should keep it's nose out of ALL of our lives as much as possible. Government is force, pure and simple, and force used against somebody is evil. Government is a necessary evil, but an evil none the less. I know this won't be very popular, but that's OK. It is my opinion, which I have as much right to and to express as anybody else does. If you feel the need to flame, go for it. My life isn't determined by a computer forum.

Anna

[Babeba]

I think that Beth is right about many things, such as that sometimes it takes an event to really crystallize what you are willing to take a stand for. Crystal mentioned a thread to me from here, where there was a lot of female/feminist bashing, that made her go, "huh. I didn't know until now that I am a feminist."

I don't think that humanism and feminism are mutually exclusive. They work really well together, just like how in the 1800's abolitionists and feminists went hand in hand (William Douglas and his second wife is a good example here), how the civil rights movement wasn't just black power, and how today I feel a lot of women's studies (the ones worth reading) have a lot to do with queer studies or gender studies, each informing each other.

I think we do not exist in a gender vacuum and trying to pretend that one gender can be looked at without at least acknowledging all others is disingenuous. I think that there are a lot of smart women out there, a lot of smart men, and that the genders are complementary to each other, a functioning whole needs some acknowledgement of both because both (well, all) are present in our world.

I think that pervasive stereotypes of women held by both genders are wrong and can lead to violence, and that scares me, but at the same time I don't think that separating boys and girls, or limiting the paternal influence of men on females is the right path. I think that hating anyone for the sake of what you think they are is a sickness that can only hurt you and others.

[Beth-Lock]

Beth, I'm glad for you that you have continued to discover yourself and grow as a person...woman, feminist, humanitarian...whatever we call it...its all good......

I admit that it is a long process, and I am just at the beginning of understanding feminism. In fact, I feel that I am getting beyond my depth right now.



To me it reads like you are superficially adopting the "ists" and "isms" of the people you are spending your time with...first men, then women... and you certainly know your facts and history .....

Not really. I did not pick up misogynism from any living man. Even at the beginning, my learning of the views of certain philosophers is something I got out of a book.
As for feminism, no woman I have known has tried to persuade me, and in fact, they seem to be reluctant to get into answering even my direct questions. I seem to have come to that 'ism' myself. When it comes to all the 'isms' I have pondered over the years, it seems that they nearly all came to me out of books, rather than via living people.



its more constructive to simply talk about specific issues than to box yourself in with labels...

I obviously take the opposite view, and value the use of ideas and concepts. Of course sooner or later you have to decide on specific issues. In my experience, this often results in messy trade-offs or compromises, as the theoretical cases in which the choice you should make is clear, are not the only cases found in our messy, imperfect world. But the concepts and absolute values serve at least as a framework for these difficult decisions, putting the into the perspective of your good intentions.


Being a feminist does NOT mean you want to burn your bra. .

I guess you caught me taking my own joke too seriously, as if it were literally true.


I think that hating anyone for the sake of what you think they are is a sickness that can only hurt you and others.

Right on! But even though I know that, I still fall into that trap all the time. I shall have to work on it harder. So it is difficult for me to be sincere when I critisize, even in my own mind, people who do that. I guess it is an all too human and prevalent failure. Nonetheless, I feel badly for those who get trapped in it.

[Babeba]

right on! But even though I know that, I still fall into that trap all the time. I shall have to work on it harder.]

Working on it harder is all we can do!

[Stephenie S]

For those not conversant with The Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, I post it here for your consideration. It's quite short (for an amendment to the Constitution), and quite explicit.


Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Now. Why do we need the ERA? Can't we be satisfied with the Constitution calling us "Men", as in "All men are created equal"?

I submit the following:

Without the ERA, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee that the rights it protects are held equally by all citizens without regard to sex. The first – and still the only – right specifically affirmed as equal for women and men is the right to vote.


The equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was first applied to sex discrimination only in 1971, and it has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the uniform and inclusive way that the ERA would.


The ERA would provide a clearer judicial standard for deciding cases of sex discrimination, since federal and state courts (some working with state ERAs, some without) still reflect confusion and inconsistency in dealing with such claims. It would also clarify sex discrimination jurisprudence and 40 years of precedent for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who claimed in an interview reported in the January 2011 California Lawyer that the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, does not protect against sex discrimination.


The ERA would improve the United States’ human rights standing in the world community. The governing documents of many other countries affirm legal gender equality, however imperfect the global implementation of that ideal may be.The ERA would provide a strong legal defense against a rollback of the significant advances in women’s rights made in the past 50 years. Without it, Congress can weaken or replace existing laws on women’s rights, and judicial precedents on issues of gender equality can be eroded or ignored by reactionary courts responding to a conservative political agenda.


Without the ERA, women regularly and men occasionally have to fight long, expensive, and difficult legal battles in an effort to prove that their rights are equal to those of the other sex.

****************************************

I realize that MOST of those reading this are dudes. And for dudes, this is meaningless tripe. "Hey, we don't need no stinkin' ERA." "If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers it's good enough for us." But when the Constitution was framed, women WERE property. Women could not vote, or go to school without permission, or hold property in their name, or LOTS of other stuff I could go on all day about.

This view is alive and kicking today. I have a mastectomy patient right now whose surgeon refused to remove her cancerous breast without her husband's permission. Equal rights under the law? I think it's high time, thank you very much.

Stephie

[Anna Lorree]

This view is alive and kicking today. I have a mastectomy patient right now whose surgeon refused to remove her cancerous breast without her husband's permission. Equal rights under the law? I think it's high time, thank you very much.

Stephie

That surgeon is wearing his butt for a hat. His stance effectively required her to ignore her rights under HIPAA, or seek a new surgeon. Even spouses have no legal right to be informed of the other spouse's medical condition.

Anna

[Julia_in_Pa]

I agree, The things that I would do to that doctor. :hwac:

[ReineD]

If you agree with this argument, then in cases where Republicans and Democrats agree on the same policy, could you not call the local Democrat, a Republican?

No, I'm saying there is a difference between basic human rights (no matter the gender) and more subtle ways than the extreme violation of these basic rights that women are discriminated against. In some parts of the world women are punished if they show their face and their hair in public. They suffer genital mutilation at puperty: their clitoral hoods are removed so they won't feel any sexual pleasure and won't be prone to "tempt" men. They are stoned to death, or have their noses and ears cut off for the slightest action that brings dishonor on their husbands and their husbands' families.

Feeling outraged over such customs is a human, not a feminist response by those of us who live in modern societies, in the way that we understand first, second, and third wave feminism.

You're throwing a lot of words around describing yourself as a feminist, but without saying what specifically you believe in, what issues in our society you would wish to change. This is why I asked. I'm not sure where you're going with this. You speak of having climactic personal experiences that changed your views without being specific at all. Just name three current issues (not issues from the turn of the last century that are now resolved), and then we can have a discussion. :)

[ArleneRaquel]

Female suffrage at one time was considered radical, it's now mainstream, so radical feminism is a very loose term IMHO.

[Badtranny]

Let me apologize in advance for the long answers, but then feminism is by its very intellectual nature, a matter of giving long answers to short questions.

This is just silly. Intellectualism itself may be partly responsible for long answers but that's just because the very nature of intellectuals is to analyze and discuss issues from every angle. Feminism however is NOT an intellectual pursuit anymore than abolition is. At one time, these concepts were purely intellectual as the very idea of women being equal to men was so foreign that even women themselves could hardly imagine it. "Feminists" of that time were limited to secret meetings where they discussed and turned over these radical ideas, which became an ideology, which became a movement. Today one hardly needs to be an intellectual to understand the basic premise of feminism; Women are people too.

In regard to humanism, your response to RD was dismissive and insulting as if she was way off the mark, when in fact it was you who completely missed her point. In China, they abort female babies as a matter of law. They've been doing this for quite awhile and people are just now beginning to chafe at this particular government mandate. Is that a feminist issue or a humanitarian one? Feminism can't exist at all without a firm foundation of human rights. Who cares about women voting when women aren't even allowed to be born? We must first establish human rights before we can argue the finer points of women's rights.

Feminism is not some deep complicated issue that only the best and brightest need contemplate. It is a very simple premise based on the idea that women should be politically equal to men. ...and why shouldn't they be? (I mean aside from the parallel parking thing)

[LeaP]

That surgeon is wearing his butt for a hat. His stance effectively required her to ignore her rights under HIPAA, or seek a new surgeon. Even spouses have no legal right to be informed of the other spouse's medical condition.

Anna

Correct. The case cited is a red herring.

Most people agree with the notion of equal rights for the sexes. They disagree(d) on the ERA because of issues related to interpretation and natural use. Of all places, those on this forum should understand the interpretation possibilities with the notion of sex alone, never mind the natural use issues (e.g. marriage, bathrooms, health care differentiation, etc.).

I agree that equal rights need to be better and more explicitly addressed. Perhaps the constitution is the place to do it. The ERA, however, remains controversial for deficiencies that have already been argued to death elsewhere.

Lea

[Beth-Lock]

You're throwing a lot of words around describing yourself as a feminist, but without saying what specifically you believe in, what issues in our society you would wish to change. This is why I asked. I'm not sure where you're going with this. You speak of having climactic personal experiences that changed your views without being specific at all. Just name three current issues (not issues from the turn of the last century that are now resolved), and then we can have a discussion.

That is an interesting suggestion, but would involve an enormous amount of work. Since I would like to get paid for such years or so of work, the only way to accomplish this would be to put it in a book and sell the book at a premium price. If and when I do, I will be glad to sell you an autographed copy, at of course a special price, considering that your copy would be really special.

But I shall give you some clues right now. Seeing I am a Christian and not a humanist, what I would like to see is the kingdom of heaven coming our way, as we pray, (those of us that do), in the Lord's prayer, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That is the filter though which I would view my feminism. Not humanitarianism, which is a more popular filter, judging to what has been said in this thread by others.

Unfortunately, what I consider Christianity has virtually nothing to do with the interpretations of Christianity most popular today in the USA, and which have spread out, globally from there, and whose claims to universality, are undermined when they can be traced back only a century or so, to rather odd sects in the USA, like the 'holy rollers.' These odd but popular views unfortunately have turned many off Christianity, which is bigger than all that. The late pastor in California, Gene Scott, offered an example of what a truly modern and broader Christianity might look like. His views influenced my thinking.


Feeling outraged over such customs is a human, not a feminist response by those of us who live in modern societies, in the way that we understand first, second, and third wave feminism.

Our idea of what is acceptable as 'human' changes down through history. The human race for example, goes back millions of years, into the caveman and neanderthal times, and likely before. What we consider acceptable by humans is a work in progress, and hopefully we will get better, and have got better now, from what we thought before. So, I cannot agree totally, that these values which we take for granted today, are that obviously universal and simply self-evident.

The abhorrent customs you are referring to come from a particular milieu with an extrordinary history. I suspect that that culture became puritanical, due to a period of terrible types of sexual slavery associated with specific types of deliberate sexual mutiliation, to create different types of sexual slaves, and we are referring to the genital mutilation of men. When they decided to clean up this culture in which such abuse was not considered abhorrent enough to be self-evidently unthinkable, given that the culture of the region was patriarchal, they came up with a solution that was extraordinarily hard on women. Now it is time for such current practices as you outline, to become universally abhorrent. So far, they are not considered abhorrent in some cultures. They should be.

[Sophora]

I don't know what I read but it sure was alarming.

I don't really care about feminism. I just want to left alone and be happy. I have seen feminism become exactly like the masculine regime they try to kill.

Should everyone have the same rights? Yep that is one of the reasons I had joined the army reserve(over a decade ago now).

I am sorry but I don't support anything that extreme. Maybe it is my Taoist understanding however I don't see the difference between extreme feminists and the people they fight against.

[Babeba]

Oooh-Kay, credibility lost. I take my prior agreement with the OP back.

This is a forum. A written one. We all write on it, to each other, FOR FREE. three situations does not a paycheck make. If you cannot come up with three feminist issues that are current, that matter to you you are not a feminist.

Besides, if I had to pay to read someone on here, it'd probably be Reine. :hugs:

[MC-lite]

I wouldn't call myself a feminist but I'd say that, as I've progressed through HRT, I've become more compassionate towards women in general, and more atuned to woman's issues. Especially where they apply to me. Before HRT I took the standard male attitude; I'm not a girl, this doesn't affect me, so why should I care.

[Anna Lorree]

Besides, if I had to pay to read someone on here, it'd probably be Reine. :hugs:

Where did that silly "Like" button go?

Anna

[Beth-Lock]

This is just silly. Intellectualism itself may be partly responsible for long answers but that's just because the very nature of intellectuals is to analyze and discuss issues from every angle.

The intellectualism of feminism, was a necessary step, since virtually all the intellectual arguments in our culture, up until then supported the status quo, and the patriarchal model. In order to tear down this model, without being accused of mere nihilism, feminists needed to construct an alternative. Fighting patriarchal intellectualism by feminist intlelectualism, was a kind of fighting fire with fire that was needed to give feminism a sound and acceptable foundation. Otherwise, those arguing for the status quo could undermine, by recourse to the argument, that the patriarchal way was the only way imaginable. Feminists imagined another way. They built an intellectually impregnable foundation for feminsim that could not be dismissed, as mere female emotionalism not backed up by reason.


Feminism however is NOT an intellectual pursuit ....


I would agree with that, if you mean not an intellectual pursuit only.


In regard to humanism, your response to RD was dismissive and insulting as if she was way off the mark, when in fact it was you who completely missed her point. In China, they abort female babies as a matter of law. They've been doing this for quite awhile and people are just now beginning to chafe at this particular government mandate. Is that a feminist issue or a humanitarian one? Feminism can't exist at all without a firm foundation of human rights. Who cares about women voting when women aren't even allowed to be born? We must first establish human rights before we can argue the finer points of women's rights.....

A lot to think about in that!


I agree, on reading my response over, that I was perhaps too enthusiastic in advocating for my own views, and opposing the views of R.D. For that I apologize.

I said: "to give a short answer: No, feminists are feminists. And if you cannot tell the difference between a feminist and a mere humanitarian, then you have a problem." This is a little too rough a way of saying that this distinction can be assumed, like a posulate or axiom in mathematics, rather than trying to argue it. Again, I apologize for putting it in such a baldly rough way.


Oooh-Kay, credibility lost. I take my prior agreement with the OP back.

This is a forum. A written one. We all write on it, to each other, FOR FREE. three situations does not a paycheck make. If you cannot come up with three feminist issues that are current, that matter to you you are not a feminist.

Besides, if I had to pay to read someone on here, it'd probably be Reine. :hugs:

I guess, that means that the potential for logical intellectual debate on this thread, has just about run out. A book is, as I have suggested, perhaps a better venue. Certainly the potential to deal with such complex issues on this forum seems to have run out, or at least that is how I feel about it, in its relation to me.

Obviously it is debatable whether any non-GG can be a feminist, and who is and who is not a feminist, regardless of birth gender, and a lot of associated issues. That I can accept. After thinking it over carefully, I have accepted the verdict of those on the forum that I am not a feminist. That many of my views and feelings parallel feminism, had created the illusion in my own mind that I was a feminist.

But when this sort of debate becomes as personal as it has now become, means that it has likely become too hot to lead to more light, and all too likely just to lead to more heat. So, on that note, I shall bow out.

[ReineD]

... Seeing I am a Christian and not a humanist, [...] The human race for example, goes back millions of years ...

Well, wishing to avoid theological and anthropological discussion, and outside of the more obvious feminist discussions regarding women's rights to be paid the same as men who do the same job, I can define several small ways to further the equality between men and women in our society:

In public:

1. There should be baby diaper changing stations in men's restrooms as well as women's. Just having them in the women's restrooms insinuates it is a woman's sole responsibility to care for infants. Luckily, this is changing but I'd like to see this everywhere.

2. It would be nice if the fashion industry were willing to stop pandering to the views that women must look a certain way in order to be thought of as attractive, by featuring women of all ages and body types in their catalogs. I'm glad to report that I'm seeing more and more of this in recent years, but we still have a long way to go.

3. It would also be nice to no longer have the "sex sells" attitude when featuring products for sale that have nothing to do with procreation. :)

In the home:

4. Kitchen designs should include different counter heights for food prep, to accomodate average men and women's sizes. :)

For children:

5. The Barbie doll needs a radical makeover: she needs to have an anatomically realistic body, fewer skimpy clothes, and more outfits that show her in professional occupations that have traditionally been thought of as men's jobs.

6. There needs to be made avaliable to boys, toys that will encourage them to take responsibility for household chores in the future, which is certainly a reality in our current society with most families needing dual incomes in order to send the kids off to college.

It might be fun for others here to add to the list. See how creative we can all be. :)


Edit - (thanks, Melissa, Babs, and Anna :))

[SandraAbsent]

Some random thoughts that really sum up my views as a feminist:

After Being Convicted Of Voting In The 1872 Presidential Election
Famous Speech by Susan B. Anthony
Stump Speech in all 29 postal districts of Monroe County, New York, in 1873


Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution,
beyond the power of any state to deny.

The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.

For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.

To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion
into every home of the nation.

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States,
entitled to vote and hold office.

The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Ain't I a Woman? Famous Speech by Sojourner Truth
The Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio - December, 1851


Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from?
From God and a woman!
Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again!
And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

1851 is a long time to be fighting this fight. It really comes down to one thing only. If men control the women, they (at least in their heads) control the sex. Disagree with me, ask any man to admit how frequently he thinks about sex. So in summary, its not about financial power, its not about social influence, it is 100% about sex. Peace out ladies!

[ReineD]

So in summary, its not about financial power, its not about social influence, it is 100% about sex. Peace out ladies!

Until they divorce and then he becomes a mean ba$tard. lol. No matter how beautiful she is, she has absolutely no control.

I can think of lots of examples where this is also true. :p

[Babeba]

To add to the list:

7: i have been in many, MANY professional meeting spaces where as an average heighted woman, sitting on chairs meant my feet couldn't touch the ground and my bum never made it to the back of the seat. In these places, chairs ought to be either shorter with the same seat length, or the seat should be shorter with the same height, or they should be adjustable.

8: advertising for science toys generally (and by generally i mean over 90% of the time, according to academic studies) show boys doing and girls watching - unless the 'science' kit is specifically made for mixing up perfumes, bath lotions and other femininely appropriate things.

9: potty parity laws exist in nearly every part of the Western world, even though the average male takes 83 seconds in the restroom and the average female takes roughly 100 seconds more. True parity based on need would therefore mandate 2 stalls for women for every 1 receptacle for men.

10: effective, reversible male birth control equivalent to the pill.

I don't believe that feminism needs to be intellectualized and solely the domain of fancy talkers. I think it needs to be in the streets, in remote towns and villages, in churches and in squares. There are so many types of feminism, and I do not think that most of them require a university degree to understand and get behind.

11: (this one is a little more humanistic, but here goes): in many cultures, it is women who take on a nurturing role to the point where stress related illness is more common in women than in men, yet the medical community spends on average two minutes less time with female patients than male, and female patients are less likely than males to be taken seriously and evaluated for cardiovascular diseases even when the same symptoms are presented; they are more likely to be treated psychosomatically.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

To add to the list:

7: i have been in many, MANY professional meeting spaces where as an average heighted woman, sitting on chairs meant my feet couldn't touch the ground and my bum never made it to the back of the seat. In these places, chairs ought to be either shorter with the same seat length, or the seat should be shorter with the same height, or they should be adjustable.



This one sucks for me...hehe...

i guess if i am a feminist, i would view myself as a difference feminist...a term i grabbed from wikepedia today..

i believe we are different..men and women should be celebrated for their differences.. the hardest places for a woman to truly be rewarded for her womanhood is in the workplace..

Because i am just not comfortable with activism..i tended to act on my views rather than propagate them...for example , i always had a very co-ed team working for me... and i had two pregnancies (an obvious difference) and i worked very hard and made was given a carve out from company policy about time shifting (the company did not change its policy however)...this created friction in my group that fell to me to deal with... so I walked the walk in this case.. but at the time, i just viewed this as the right thing to do and did not consider it a specifically feminist thing..

[Rianna Humble]

if you cannot tell the difference between a feminist and a mere humanitarian, then you have a problem. That is not to say you cannot think in your own mind, that feminists are enough like humanitarians, that you need not bother coping with the fact that feminists add to their agenda, a lot of things a humanitarian would not agree with. But in that case, just keep those thoughts to yourself and don't assume that I would share them.

This is a deliberately insulting statement apparently designed not only to put down the person offering an alternative view on the subject but to quash debate. This is so unlike what I have previously read by Beth-Lock as to make me wonder what happened.


On being challenged to state just three contemporary feminist issues with which she agrees, we get

I Don't Necessarily Work for Free!

Neither do I, but on these forums you don't get paid for taking part in debate - live with it.


I would like to get paid for such years or so of work

If choosing three contemporary feminist issues that you support would take years, then you must be very busy. I wonder how many contemporary feminists would agree that someone can be defined by that adjective without knowing what the adjective stands for today.


On having her comments challenged:


the potential for logical intellectual debate on this thread, has just about run out

Logical debate demands that both parties respond logically to having their statements challenged rather than simply refusing to respond. The lack of potential for such debate is only being demonstrated by the person who refuses to accept counter-arguments. Again, this is so unlike previous comments I have read from Beth-Lock that I have to wonder what happened. It is starting to look like a case of testosterone poisoning.




But when this sort of debate becomes as personal as it has now become, means that it has likely become too hot to lead to more light, and all too likely just to lead to more heat. So, on that note, I shall bow out.

Having one's ideas and attitudes challenged is miles away from the sort of personal attack postulated in this statement.

[Babeba]

I mean that, if a chair is too tall but you can push against the back of it for lumbar support, it's okay. Like a stool. If a chair is too narrow in the seat by a little but you can plant your feet on the ground, you can balance and be grounded. It'd be best for all those chairs to be adjustable in height, but not always practical with stacking them. :)

[Aprilrain]

as an average heighted woman,

Being tall makes me height conscious. I'm realizing how not average woman's heights are! I'm generally the tallest woman in the room but there are many who are at least 5'10"ish and I know quite a few woman who barely break 5' with all heights inbetween. The guy I sold my motorcycle to decided he didn't like it so he sold it. The woman who bought it was like 4'9"!
You can't please everyone and I hardly see furniture architecture as a feminist issue. I have long legs which makes it difficult to cross them under most tables, I wish they were a little higher. I've been in bathrooms both male and female where the sink was not much taller than my knees! Talk about annoying! And don't get me started on that medieval torture device called coach, Airplane seats are awful!

[ReineD]

I guess, that means that the potential for logical intellectual debate on this thread, has just about run out. A book is, as I have suggested, perhaps a better venue. Certainly the potential to deal with such complex issues on this forum seems to have run out, or at least that is how I feel about it, in its relation to me.

Obviously it is debatable whether any non-GG can be a feminist, and who is and who is not a feminist, regardless of birth gender, and a lot of associated issues. That I can accept. After thinking it over carefully, I have accepted the verdict of those on the forum that I am not a feminist. That many of my views and feelings parallel feminism, had created the illusion in my own mind that I was a feminist.

But when this sort of debate becomes as personal as it has now become, means that it has likely become too hot to lead to more light, and all too likely just to lead to more heat. So, on that note, I shall bow out.

You seem frustrated because you believe that some people here don't believe you're a feminist. If you're alluding to my earlier comment about being a humanitarian vs. a feminist, I certainly didn't mean to imply you aren't a feminist. I was trying to cut through the fluff to determine what feminist issues, exactly, you believe need working on. I also pointed out since you alluded to it in your first post, that humanitarian concerns in the non-Western world are not feminist issues. I was hoping to direct your attention to gender equality in the here and now. It stands to reason the majority of men and women who live in the Western world would change the horrible way that women are treated elsewhere.

Obviously anyone can be a feminist: man, woman, transman, or transwoman. It only takes a belief in gender equality and I dare say that in our day and age it is political and social suicide to think any differently. Employers can no longer legally discriminate based on sex, for example. Also, just saying that you are a feminist without discussing specifics is meaningless. It's like telling someone you are a chef and you will provide dinner, without telling them what is on the menu and without producing any food. :p

If you would rather put forth your ideas or theories in a book, of course you are completely free to do this, but then why bring up a topic if you do not want to discuss specifics? ... unless you were simply wanting to make an announcement that you've experienced a shift in your personal beliefs?

At any rate, I'm sure you're aware that the first step in writing a thesis is to do your research: read everything that is available on the subject so that you can bring forth new ideas. :)

[Beth-Lock]

Obviously anyone can be a feminist: man, woman, transman, or transwoman.

Well it certainly is not obvious to me that everybody would agree. Debates on this issue of who can speak for whom are a major part of the post-modernist intellectual scene.


If you would rather put forth your ideas or theories in a book, of course you are completely free to do this, ......(perhaps) you were simply wanting to make an announcement that you've experienced a shift in your personal beliefs....

I guess that was part of it.


At any rate, I'm sure you're aware that the first step in writing a thesis is to do your research: read everything that is available on the subject so that you can bring forth new ideas.

It would not be a book just to present such a thesis but a version of my autobiography to incorporate some of my thinking on this sort of issue. As I was indicating, I am so far from having the necessary intellectual spade work done, that right now, a very arduous task still awaits me. But several people are urging me on, despite my feeling that I should consider that I have reached the point in life that I should put my writer's pen into retirement. While I suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that the prospect of money might lure me out of retirement, (something consistent with the thinking of great minds on the subject of the relationship between money and writing, like Dr. Samuel Johnson no less), finding the energy and ambition to write another book, seems a long shot.

So, though I was caught basically, having gotten beyond my depth in feminist thinking, floating my thinking at an early stage, as in this forum, is useful and a good thing anyway. It has also proved formative, (of my views), since it has led to my changing my opinion on whether or not I am a feminist.

At the beginning, I was inspired to believe I could be like a former minister at my church, with whom I had some rapport, and was subsequently called, a feminist bishop, when he assumed that position in the public limelight. Now I realize that he would never make such a claim for himself, but that in the climate of the time, only others are allowed to say that. In my case, others were of course saying I was not a feminist, (in this forum). They were right, (if not in some way, their pronouncement was a bit like a tautology, for in saying that I was not a feminist, they were knocking the pins out from under me, that supported my taking the opposite view).

A further complication was that the woman that has been supporting my transition, a close friend now, who had initially encouraged me to entertain the thought that I was a feminist, was under the weather and so I could not consult her. A longtime feminist, she has the authority and knowledge to be taken seriously, because to mention just one thing, I believe it was her intervention with our Prime Minister of the time, that was instrumental in seeing that here in Canada, we have passed the equivalent of the ERA.

So, no, I am not a feminist. I shall also have to think more upon these issues to find exactly what I am, in effect, to carve out a niche for my views and commitment myself.

(As I face some surgery, it may be a while before I feel up to making further posts. So my possible future silence should be interpreted in that light.)

[Kaitlyn Michele]

I mean that, if a chair is too tall but you can push against the back of it for lumbar support, it's okay. Like a stool. If a chair is too narrow in the seat by a little but you can plant your feet on the ground, you can balance and be grounded. It'd be best for all those chairs to be adjustable in height, but not always practical with stacking them. :)

LOL...a chair can't be too tall for me!!! unless its one of the giant circus clown chairs..

[Babeba]

Being tall makes me height conscious. I'm realizing how not average woman's heights are! I'm generally the tallest woman in the room but there are many who are at least 5'10"ish and I know quite a few woman who barely break 5' with all heights inbetween. The guy I sold my motorcycle to decided he didn't like it so he sold it. The woman who bought it was like 4'9"!
You can't please everyone and I hardly see furniture architecture as a feminist issue. I have long legs which makes it difficult to cross them under most tables, I wish they were a little higher. I've been in bathrooms both male and female where the sink was not much taller than my knees! Talk about annoying! And don't get me started on that medieval torture device called coach, Airplane seats are awful!


Fair enough on height consciousness! As far as statistics go, straddling 5'4"-5'5" puts me pretty much exactly middle of the road. Yes, some women are much shorter, some are much taller - but in this country most men are taller than me (not all) and it's about 50-50 whether a woman is taller or shorter. Of course, leg length and height often don't match either - my mom is about 5'7" and has the same length legs as my brother at 6'2".

My point is more that there are several professional meeting spaces I have been in where I couldn't reach either the floor or the back of the chair, and it is really hard to feel professional and experienced while your legs are swinging like Little Lord Fauntleroy, and it gets sore on the back after a while to have a tilted seat with no lumbar support or ability to anchor yourself on the ground. It's as much an ergonomics issue as counter height, which I totally agree with Reine on. After seeing Crystal struggle in a fee kitchens with having to bend over so far, if we ever built a dream kitchen together it would have two counter heights!

[Stephenie S]

Christmas!

It's NOT all intellectual and difficult at all. It's SIMPLE.

Feminism is the belief that women are people too and deserve all the rights and privileges that all other people (MEN) have.

Yes there are many facets of feminism. Someone brought up radical feminism for instance. I could list out more than a dozen here. But feminism is NOT complicated. It's simple.

S

[Stephenie S]

Just to name a few:

Liberal Feminism
Radical Feminism
Socialist Feminism
Marxist Feminism
Separatist Feminism
Lesbian Feminism
Anti-pornography Feminism
Sex positive Feminism
Lipstick Feminism
Post Modern Feminism
Post Structural Feminism
Black Feminism
Cultural Feminism
Eco Feminism

But throughout, the one SIMPLE idea is that WOMEN ARE HUMAN BEINGS TOO.

Not lesser human beings. Just human beings.

That's feminism pure and simple. Pay attention!!!!

Stephie

Here's one explained for you.

Power Feminism

1.) Women matter just as much as men do.
2.) Women have the right to determine their own lives.
3.) Women's experience matters
4.) Women have the right to tell the truth about their own experiences
5.) Women have the right to more of whatever it is that they are not getting enough of just because they are women. Respect, self respect, education, safety, health, representation, and money.

Not every feminist has to belong to one of these sub groups. Again, duh. But, simple feminism IS simple, it's not a complicated intellectual pursuit at all.

Stephie

[Aprilrain]

Speaking of anatomical differences, I believe this is the root cause of sexism. One could probably write a book on the subject but suffice it to say we (woman) are fighting an uphill battle against thousands of years of human adaptation. Adaptations that were likely necessary for survival at one time but have become detriments in a modern world. How, exactly, division of labor (one of many adaptations) leads to the devaluing of traditional women's work and the overvaluing of traditional men's work I do not know but clearly this is still alive and well today! If it were not for motherhood, in very patriarchal societies woman would be seen as having no value at all and indeed how many woman have been made to feel as if they have no worth because they could not get pregnant? (even if he was the one who was infertile the blame was put on the woman)

That being said let's be thankful that things are so much better today and work in a peaceful way toward the greater valuing of women in our world, not the devaluing of men, that would only lead to a backlash and women would once again find them selves on the short end on the stick!

[ReineD]

In my case, others were of course saying I was not a feminist, (in this forum). They were right, (if not in some way, their pronouncement was a bit like a tautology, for in saying that I was not a feminist, they were knocking the pins out from under me, that supported my taking the opposite view).

Unless I've missed something, who said that you aren't a feminist?



So, though I was caught basically, having gotten beyond my depth in feminist thinking, floating my thinking at an early stage, as in this forum, is useful and a good thing anyway. It has also proved formative, (of my views), since it has led to my changing my opinion on whether or not I am a feminist.

Well, you could say that you support feminist principles but you are working on defining which specific issues you believe are important. :)



A further complication was that the woman that has been supporting my transition, a close friend now, who had initially encouraged me to entertain the thought that I was a feminist, was under the weather and so I could not consult her.

It would be good for you to develop your own thoughts about this. You can't have a meaningful belief system without any development, based on someone else's thoughts.

:hugs:

[EnglishRose]

Well said, Stephenie. Feminism can intersect with intellectualism but most feminist issues are incredibly simple, rights that women should be entitled to but just don't have.

[Beth-Lock]

Unless I've missed something, who said that you aren't a feminist?:

The implication of the questioning of my bonafides as a feminist by several forum members are clear however. Certainly I drew this conclusion because it seemed so obvious.


It would be good for you to develop your own thoughts about this. You can't have a meaningful belief system without any development, based on someone else's thoughts.

Well, my experience on this forum is the first time anybody accused me of not being an original thinker! Most people with an opinion on the subject tend to tell me to settle down after my brainstorms in which my originality takes off into the wild blue yonder.

Luckily for me, I have enough women friends who are quite bright so that I can draw on their experience as women and their thinking on women's issues, in a constructive way. Even awaiting surgery yesterday, I was able to engage my escort in fruitful conversation about this, (among other things, like how to cope with pain, during which she shared with me a Buddhist technique). I try to escape from the lone wolf model of intellectualism when I can, and these days, this is an issue on which there is an opportunity to do so. Otherwise, intellectual pursuits have proven a rather lonely endeveaour for me, in which it is just a matter of me, my mind and a stack of books.

[ReineD]

No, I meant develop your ideas about feminist issues! :) I'm in no position to judge your opinions or thoughts on other matters.

[Babeba]

Aprilrain,

The interesting thing about cultural sex differences is that every culture has 'em, and yet they are different in every culture. There is no one task other than carrying a baby (impregnating someone?) and giving birth (biological imperative) which is strictly male or strictly female for everywhere in human societies. Even the idea of man the hunter, woman the gatherer was flawed research based on unwittingly sexist methodologies; I remember reading an article by one of Lew Binford's Ph.D students who had gone in the 70's to a northern group that had been studied in the past - women stayed in camp, men went out and hunted, women gathered and prepped food, took care of babies, etc. according to past studies. Well, it was mainly true except that the researcher before had only asked men about hunting and hadn't asked women about their hunting, which was pretty much the same job as men's hunting. He also hadn't asked the men about what they gathered on their hunting trips, just the hunting.

As a discussion of an issue relating to feminism, I am honestly not sure if that was on topic or not...

[Aprilrain]

Aprilrain,

The interesting thing about cultural sex differences is that every culture has 'em, and yet they are different in every culture. There is no one task other than carrying a baby (impregnating someone?) and giving birth (biological imperative) which is strictly male or strictly female for everywhere in human societies. Even the idea of man the hunter, woman the gatherer was flawed research based on unwittingly sexist methodologies; I remember reading an article by one of Lew Binford's Ph.D students who had gone in the 70's to a northern group that had been studied in the past - women stayed in camp, men went out and hunted, women gathered and prepped food, took care of babies, etc. according to past studies. Well, it was mainly true except that the researcher before had only asked men about hunting and hadn't asked women about their hunting, which was pretty much the same job as men's hunting. He also hadn't asked the men about what they gathered on their hunting trips, just the hunting.

As a discussion of an issue relating to feminism, I am honestly not sure if that was on topic or not...

figures! the woman do the men's and the women's work while the men wander around in the woods all day:heehee:

this makes sense for hunter gather societies and many prehistoric artifacts point to a worship of female deities or at least a recognition of the feminine in their societies. once intensive animal assisted agriculture took hold about 5000 years ago people become more possessive of land, patriarchal war like societies begin to dominate. This is our legacy today. I think discovering the root causes of sexism can help us to understand the psychology that continues to drive sexism today.

I think we have come a long way in the last 100 years however we must be ever vigilant, It would not take much for humanity to backslide.

Interestingly enough I have found in casual conversation with GGs that they sorta take the current standards that woman enjoy for granted. I find it curious that these woman are not more concerned about sexism and how it could effect them. Perhaps it is desensitization, I don't know. Maybe its because you guys have not had the "privilege" (sarcasm) of being present around men when no woman are around!!!!!

[Julia_in_Pa]

With militant feminism there is no middle ground it's a one way or the highway proposition.


Julia

[queenie]

In China, they abort female babies as a matter of law. They've been doing this for quite awhile and people are just now beginning to chafe at this particular government mandate.

The practice itself is a cultural one, and not a government mandate as you would call it. In fact, governmental laws are in place to prevent female infanticide, but those who are adamant about having a male child find ways around it through the medical black market. It doesn't change the humanism argument, but if you want to use Chinese practices as a basis, you should have the facts correct.

[ReineD]

The interesting thing about cultural sex differences is that every culture has 'em, and yet they are different in every culture. There is no one task other than carrying a baby (impregnating someone?) and giving birth (biological imperative) which is strictly male or strictly female for everywhere in human societies. Even the idea of man the hunter, woman the gatherer was flawed research based on unwittingly sexist methodologies;

And this forms the basis of any feminist principle! :)

The only difference between men and women is physical: average size/strength (although even this is not consistent among individuals), and the ability to bear children. Any gender role is a social construct. There is no reason women should be thought of any differently than men in the work force with regards to ability, responsibility, and pay scale.

I'm not saying that men and women shouldn't engage in their gendered mating dances in order to attract each other but gender differences do not belong in the workforce.

[Badtranny]

The practice itself is a cultural one, and not a government mandate as you would call it. In fact, governmental laws are in place to prevent female infanticide, but those who are adamant about having a male child find ways around it through the medical black market. It doesn't change the humanism argument, but if you want to use Chinese practices as a basis, you should have the facts correct.

Ugh, this is why I hate using real life examples. I was clearly trying to make a point about the difference between a humanist issue and a feminist one and the argument would have held even if my example was purely hypothetical. Alas, my ignorance of world culture rears it's ugly head again and bites me on the rear, by giving people something to distract them from the root argument. China is indeed suffering from a rather severe shortage of young women true? One way or another there is a serious human rights concern wrapped up in that issue.


I'm not saying that men and women shouldn't engage in their gendered mating dances in order to attract each other but gender differences do not belong in the workforce.

You got that right baby. My earlier career before I stumbled into construction was in broadcasting and the only thing those two occupations have in common is that they are overwhelmingly male dominated. Clearly a woman can handle the physical exertion of sitting in a tiny room in front of a microphone. When I changed careers (not entirely voluntarily) there was nothing that I did as a Sound and Com technician that a woman couldn't have done. Women are not lacking in anything except opportunity.

[LeaP]

And this forms the basis of any feminist principle! :)

The only difference between men and women is physical: average size/strength (although even this is not consistent among individuals), and the ability to bear children. Any gender role is a social construct. There is no reason women should be thought of any differently than men in the work force with regards to ability, responsibility, and pay scale.

I'm not saying that men and women shouldn't engage in their gendered mating dances in order to attract each other but gender differences do not belong in the workforce.

I don't buy that social construction is the only determinant of gender and that therefore the only differences are those you cite. I do accept fully that gender differences, biological or social, are irrelevant to the workplace.

Lea

[Vickie_CDTV]

I have been called many things in my lifetime, but I don't think "feminist" was ever one of them. However...

Growing up, my mother taught me to treat women with dignity and respect. I have never, nor even considered hurting women by hitting, beating, bullying, raping, harassing, looking down upon or thinking less of, touching without permission, not respecting boundaries, or recklessly impregnating or many other things I see some men do on a regular basis (worst of all some of those things the popular culture right now happily endorses.) It did not take being a TV or wearing a dress or associating with TS to convince me to do this, it was just taught to me right from the beginning. I don't know if that is feminism or not, to me it is just treating others as you would want to be treated, it is just that simple to me.

[SabrinaEmily]

I'm a member of of NOW (National Organization of Women).
I belong to various organizations that advocate and promote the arming of women.
I've been a long time financial supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Systematically removing men from positions of power in government, politics , private business and as heads of households is the ultimate aim for many of the organizations I belong to and support.
Men have done nothing but enslaved women in the name of religion and economic gain for centuries and slowly but surely things are changing concerning reversing the roles.

Placing men in subservient roles should be the goal of every woman, GG, IS or TS.


Julia

Misandric garbage. But at least you're honest.

You've illustrated why I am not and will never be a feminist. I don't join with those who want to push down one segment of society to elevate another, typically themselves.

[ReineD]

I don't buy that social construction is the only determinant of gender and that therefore the only differences are those you cite. I do accept fully that gender differences, biological or social, are irrelevant to the workplace.


No, I believe that only gender roles and also perhaps gender presentation are a construct, since they differ from culture to culture. An intrinsic sense of gender goes beyond roles and presentation and for people who are not TS, are tied to their basic biological functions or if you will, their birth sex. I did say "the only difference". I should have said "the major difference among cisgenders?" Sorry. :p

On a different note, I've just received a PM from someone who read this same post asking if I feel that since women and men should be treated equally in the workforce, would I be OK with losing maternity leave. I'm posting my response here because it's a great question and it's on the topic of feminist beliefs/principles. :)


Women do give birth and when they are doing so they are incapable of showing up at the office, not unlike any other physical condition that sometimes prevents people from working, like an illness or a family emergency. I hope you understand that I'm not comparing giving birth to an illness. The point is that employers allow for time when employees, either men or women, cannot work.

That said, birth and recovery from birth do take less time than recovery from a heart attack for example, and so the mother is well able to return to the office within a week barring any complications. I think it would be fair to have a universal rule since husbands and wives are not likely to share a workplace, for all employers to grant "parent leave" so that either men or women could choose to stay with the baby until he or she was old enough to go to daycare. Then it would be up to the parents to decide who should stay home with the baby.

There are women who are the primary income earners and who would prefer returning to work earlier if their husbands could be given leave to stay home.

[Rianna Humble]

Well said, Reine. For a short time in the UK, there were moves towards equalising parental leave rights. Sadly a different government found that giving the father the right to take parental leave in place of the mother would somehow be detrimental to the economy. Still haven't worked that one out myself.

[Julia_in_Pa]

Of course I'm honest.
I'm a honest person. I think the reason why you stated that you'll never be a feminist is due to the fact that you identify as a heterosexual male.


Julia


Misandric garbage. But at least you're honest.

You've illustrated why I am not and will never be a feminist. I don't join with those who want to push down one segment of society to elevate another, typically themselves.

[ArleneRaquel]

By celebrating womanhood how does that put down men ?

[ReineD]

Well said, Reine. For a short time in the UK, there were moves towards equalising parental leave rights. Sadly a different government found that giving the father the right to take parental leave in place of the mother would somehow be detrimental to the economy. Still haven't worked that one out myself.

The way to fix that is to remove the glass ceiling for women! lol

:hugs:

[LeaP]

On a different note, I've just received a PM from someone who read this same post asking if I feel that since women and men should be treated equally in the workforce, would I be OK with losing maternity leave. I'm posting my response here because it's a great question and it's on the topic of feminist beliefs/principles. :)

Here I'm going to take the humanistic route. Both (not either) should be given the same leave. I think the point is not recovery, which might only be days to a week or so, typically, but the care of the child and integration of the family.

Maybe if we cared about children, as a society, to the same degree to which politicians pander to the topic, this wouldn't even be questioned.

Lea

[ReineD]

I think the reason why you stated that you'll never be a feminist is due to the fact that you identify as a heterosexual male.

Julia, feminism is about equality and honoring basic human and civil rights, not one gender having supremacy over the other. I wouldn't want to remove a man from power just because he's a man. I'd want to remove anyone from power who is corrupt, be they man or woman. :)

You can say that men have a long tradition of enslaving women, this is true, but this is changing big time. Long gone are the days when women were chattel. We may not have fully reached equality in the work force, but it's getting there. There are more women in positions of power than ever before and it is increasing.

[Julia_in_Pa]

Reine,

I look forward to your words for they are kind and rational even dealing with a subject that is highly charged.
You and I are in full agreement that women have made extreme advances in the world of equal rights with men, however we have miles to go.

My viewpoints seem radical to those that aren't exposed to the groups and organizations I belong to and are docile comparatively to some outer fringe lesbian organizations.
We all have our battles with being treated equally but we all must band together to continue to systematically remove those that would keep us as second class citizens.


Julia

[SabrinaEmily]

Of course I'm honest.
I'm a honest person. I think the reason why you stated that you'll never be a feminist is due to the fact that you identify as a heterosexual male.


Julia

I actually don't, but that's not the point.

It wouldn't be hard for me to find among my friends and acquaintances plenty of women, cis and trans, of every sexual orientation, who have no love for your anti-male worldview, and who hold the truly radical feminists in deepest contempt.

(And if anyone wants to see how truly psychotic the radfems are, settle down at http://radicalhub.com/ and read as long as you can stand it.)

[Helen Grandeis]

If men are becoming the creatures that are depicted in modern sitcoms, then women will soon rule the world with men being plucked from their fraternity, boyish pursuits only for the purpose of harvesting genetic material. Women will soon be the majority of graduates from college and graduate schools.

[Sophora]

We all have our battles with being treated equally but we all must band together to continue to systematically remove those that would keep us as second class citizens.


This is we disagree. I want to remove those that would keep anyone as second class citizens, be them male or female.

[Julia_in_Pa]

Very good indeed Helen!!
I hope this is actually the case.

Julia


If men are becoming the creatures that are depicted in modern sitcoms, then women will soon rule the world with men being plucked from their fraternity, boyish pursuits only for the purpose of harvesting genetic material. Women will soon be the majority of graduates from college and graduate schools.

[Stephenie S]

I actually don't, but that's not the point.

It wouldn't be hard for me to find among my friends and acquaintances plenty of women, cis and trans, of every sexual orientation, who have no love for your anti-male worldview, and who hold the truly radical feminists in deepest contempt.

(And if anyone wants to see how truly psychotic the radfems are, settle down at http://radicalhub.com/ and read as long as you can stand it.)

I would think Julia has a right to her opinions without being called psychotic.

[SabrinaEmily]

I would think Julia has a right to her opinions without being called psychotic.

I know that I consider myself a radical feminist and I find your comments slightly offensive and dripping with testosterone.

Stephie

If you agree with what's on that site, and the other misandrist (and often transphobic, by the way) things radfems preach, then I intended to offend you, because I find those ideas hateful and contemptible.

I don't believe Julia does. I took her at her word that she's not that extreme.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

I agree Sabrina. Kudos to you for standing up to it.. The ideas on that site are hateful and contemptible.
They are not psychotic, that's a poor choice of words. They are far worse than that.

Stephanie here is a typical hatefilled diatribe...aimed squarely at you and me btw...

http://radicalhub.com/2012/02/24/baltimore-sun-misses-real-story-that-gender-identity-enslaves-females-no-one-seems-to-care/#more-7287

We are squarely on their list of groups to crush... I say give them California and be done with both of them

[Badtranny]

... I say give them California and be done with both of them

HEY!!!!!!

You're not too big for a spanking little Miss.

[Sophora]

I agree Sabrina. Kudos to you for standing up to it.. The ideas on that site are hateful and contemptible.
They are not psychotic, that's a poor choice of words. They are far worse than that.

Stephanie here is a typical hatefilled diatribe...aimed squarely at you and me btw...

http://radicalhub.com/2012/02/24/baltimore-sun-misses-real-story-that-gender-identity-enslaves-females-no-one-seems-to-care/#more-7287

We are squarely on their list of groups to crush... I say give them California and be done with both of them

I don't know why I clicked on the link but the comments made me feel sick especially this one:

"Gender identity is bullshit."

Really? Stephanie, I don't care if you are really a radical feminist or not, however I hope you are not so blind that those girls would string you up if they found out you were born male.

[ReineD]

(And if anyone wants to see how truly psychotic the radfems are, settle down at http://radicalhub.com/ and read as long as you can stand it.)

Anyone who has extremist and rabid views, be they feminist, political, religious, or anything else, in my opinion are dangerous. They refuse to acknowledge that human fabric is infinitely varied. They place their own beliefs above all else, all the while condemning those who feel or believe differently. They incite hate and nothing good can come of this.

[Stephenie S]

No, I don't subscribe to the ranting on that web site. But that means little. You can always find ridiculous people willing to write the most offensive things on the fringes of any movement. If you gave me a few minutes I could come up with equally offensive crap written by the religious right. Please read my earlier posts.

Feminism is simple really. It's the concept that women are people, with all the rights and privilages that other people have. That's all.

Yes, I consider myself a Radical Feminist. Let me try to explain my position for you. I believe that MALE controlled capitalism is the defining feature of women's oppression in our society today. I think that the total reconstruction of society is the only way we will be able to overcome this oppression.

Now listen. You will be able to find another woman who considers herself to be a radical feminist who may have a slightly different take on this. These thing are not writ in stone. Notice please that I said NOTHING about trans issues, I said NOTHING about female supremacy. I don't hate men. And I think that most post-op trans woman are women. The fact that there is a SMALL number of feminists who hold a slightly skewed view of transwomen does not effect my desire or my ability to be a feminist.

Some lesbians are afraid that penis owning transwomen just want to have sex with them. (ick!) This is an understandable view as long as there are men with a penis who insist on claiming that they are women. It's a very short step from this to the belief that ALL transwomen want is to have penatrative sex with a lesbian. Is this true? No, of course not. But a wee bit of empathetic thought might lead you to a better understanding of how this sort of thinking arises.

Stephie, the Radical Feminist.

Oh, and BTW, I was not born male. You must be confusing me with someone else. I have been female all my life. Smile.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Cmon step
a "wee bit of empathetic thought" and some attention to detail would have served you well earlier...

The word radical is what causes the confusion..you can't avoid what other "radicals" say..

the point of view that male oppression leads loss of women's rights and it should stop is radical in what way exactly? seems more like common sense to me...

good luck with the total reconstruction of society tho.. this is the radical idea...this will happen only at the end of history..
even if its a good idea, its this idea that is more in line with the people who would say this reconstruction should include the subservience of men or any of the other contemptible ideas on that website

maybe my pragmatism is weakness, i don't know...but i have a hard time being interested in pursuing ideas that are impossible in the day to day world..

btw...i agree with the idea that the idea of a transsexual with a penis is hard for others to fathom.. it confuses the simple issue that we are about gender and not body parts because for most people that are totally and completely the same (gender/sex organs).....like it or not...the penis separates people into groups too

[Rianna Humble]

Some lesbians are afraid that penis owning transwomen just want to have sex with them. (ick!) This is an understandable view as long as there are men with a penis who insist on claiming that they are women. It's a very short step from this to the belief that ALL transwomen want is to have penatrative sex with a lesbian. Is this true? No, of course not. But a wee bit of empathetic thought might lead you to a better understanding of how this sort of thinking arises.

This is one of the things that holds me back from starting a relationship whilst my weight prevents me from becoming whole

[Badtranny]

btw...i agree with the idea that the idea of a transsexual with a penis is hard for others to fathom.. it confuses the simple issue that we are about gender and not body parts because for most people that are totally and completely the same (gender/sex organs).....like it or not...the penis separates people into groups too

I totally agree with this too. ...but at least I'm not one of those trannies that like women! eeeew ;-)

[Anna M]

As someone who lives "in-between" in several different aspects, I find radical separatism fundamentally flawed. It is a black-or-white, binarist worldview with no room for the people who fall in-between: the multiracial, the third-culture, the bisexual, the genderqueer, or any of the myriad other liminal identities that are marginalized by both the majority and the separatists.

My understanding is that third-wave feminism is, at least in part, a response to second-wave feminist separatism and radicalism that was dominated by white, middle-class, cisgender, able-bodied women who did not look at how intersectionality affects the lives of all women. I think our world would be much poorer in social wealth without men in it (even if they sometimes seem to me rather alien... vive la difference!), in similar fashion to how it would be poorer without all the cultural and linguistic variety there is in the world today.

Me? My hope is that one day, all people will be able to have "a room of their own" (to paraphrase Virginia Woolf).

Anna May

[Stephenie S]

Just let me say that I am extremely pleased that we are having a real discussion about something that really matters, I.E. feminism, instead of wondering about how many pink panties is enough. Kudos to the OP!

Stephie, the radical feminist

[ReineD]

LOL. Stephie, I hardly think there would be many discussions about pink panties in this section of the forum. :)

[Sophora]

Feminism is simple really. It's the concept that women are people, with all the rights and privilages that other people have. That's all.

Yes, I consider myself a Radical Feminist. Let me try to explain my position for you. I believe that MALE controlled capitalism is the defining feature of women's oppression in our society today. I think that the total reconstruction of society is the only way we will be able to overcome this oppression.

This kind of thinking I have no problem with. The ones that I have the problem with the most are the ones that take it even further. We should all be on equal footing not one above the other.



Oh, and BTW, I was not born male. You must be confusing me with someone else. I have been female all my life. Smile.

As the person that said that, I am truly sorry. I had thought you were post-op for some reason. Again sorry. and yes I do like that the conversation is not about how many pairs of pink panties one has as well *giggles*

[LeaP]

LOL. Stephie, I hardly think there would be many discussions about pink panties in this section of the forum. :)

Truly. The reaction would be fun, though!

Lea

[Stephenie S]

As Reine pointed out above, that sort of discussion goes on far more frequently in the CD section.

Happy Mother's Day everyone.

Did you send your mom flowers or a card?

My children did not, but I did not expect anything. However, a very close friend and her husband took me out to lunch today and gave me a lovely bouquet of flowers and an equally lovely Mother's Day card signed by them both. I must admit I burst into tears right there in the restaurant. Friends are golden.

Stephie the rad fem

[Rianna Humble]

Did you send your mom flowers or a card?

Unfortunately, the Postal Service doesn't yet deliver where my mum had been since 6pm on 30th January 1996 :cry:

[Stephenie S]

Oh Rianna, I am so sorry.

S

[Babeba]

The way to fix that is to remove the glass ceiling for women! lol

:hugs:

So true!

I actually know several families where it is either the father who has become the stay at home parent, or once both parents are back at work they both take turns taking time off for illnesses their kids have, etc.

On the other hand, the prevalence of many 'better for the baby' practices like breast feeding on demand, cosleeping, elimination communication, etc. make it very different for a mother to leave the baby, even with the father, long enough to go back to work without getting called a bad mother. Even the very idea of motherhood as integral to womanhood, there is so much wrong with that...

[Kathryn Martin]

This kind of thinking I have no problem with. The ones that I have the problem with the most are the ones that take it even further. We should all be on equal footing not one above the other.




As the person that said that, I am truly sorry. I had thought you were post-op for some reason. Again sorry. and yes I do like that the conversation is not about how many pairs of pink panties one has as well *giggles*

Sophora, I think you need to realize that no MtF transsexual is born male. We are all born female but have had the unfortunate fate of having a body that does not match our gender. You seem to think that sex and gender are the same thing. They are not.

On the broader issue of feminism I am completely along the same thoughts that Stephenie expressed. The fundamental transformation of society sought by radical feminism is not about the subjugation of the male members of our society. Essentially that would create the the same inhuman structures except in reverse. And Kaitlyn, if that happens what you will find is that at the heart of feminism is making itself redundant. If society were as it ought to be then feminism would not exist. In this sense we should all be radcal feminists on our way to live in a world in which feminism would no longer be necessary

[ReineD]

Kathryn, what do you see is the difference between a feminist and a radical feminist today? I take it the second wave feminists during the 70s-80s were rather radical (some disrespected women who chose to remain in traditional roles, be wives and raise children), until third wave feminism came along with much more balanced views, giving women the choice.

(I don't consider the rabid feminists, such as the group on the radicalhub.com website, to be anything other than man haters).

[Kathryn Martin]

I don't consider the radicalhub people of any consequence, they are idiots. Anyone who seeks supremacy is mentally ill and is dangerous. I believe they have created if anything barriers. I believe that women should be equal in every respect and that this will require significant fundamental societal change even in this day and age.

in this sense I am with Stephenie and in this sense I am radical about what needs to happen.


Kathryn, what do you see is the difference between a feminist and a radical feminist today? I take it the second wave feminists during the 70s-80s were rather radical (some disrespected women who chose to remain in traditional roles, be wives and raise children), until third wave feminism came along with much more balanced views, giving women the choice.

(I don't consider the rabid feminists, such as the group on the radicalhub.com website, to be anything other than man haters).

[ReineD]

I hear you, Kathryn, and I agree. Maybe both terms, "feminist" and "radical-feminist" are interchangeable. I see equality for all (not just women :)) as being a matter of course. It is something that I take for granted is due every human being and in my view there is no discussion about whether women (or anyone else) "should" be fully equal socially and economically. Maybe others who believe as I do, consider this thought to be radical. I don't, it is just a reasonable and logical progression to our evolution as humans. :)

[Aprilrain]

what do you see is the difference between a feminist and a radical feminist today?

Any group that takes a militant stance is diversionary and exclusive which is, as I see it, sorta the opposite of the very nature of the feminine, inclusive.

Can we agree that all people should have the right to self determination? No one group should limit another group?

[elizabethamy]

To me, feminism has always meant equality. Equality doesn't mean that we are all the same, but that we should all have the same chance. And there are so many subtle and profound ways in which that's not true. Privileged white males (the role I and many of us here have lived in) don't realize the extent of their privilege. One of the things that saddens me the most is the conversion of "feminism" to a negative word. It's a great word, and a great concept, because ultimately who wouldn't want everyone in the society functioning to the best of their ability? Sometimes the hardest things really are simple to understand, just terribly difficult to live by.

2 cents.
elizabethamy

[Sophora]

Sophora, I think you need to realize that no MtF transsexual is born male. We are all born female but have had the unfortunate fate of having a body that does not match our gender. You seem to think that sex and gender are the same thing. They are not.


You do assume too much about me. I do realize that no MfT transsexual is born male(I am one remember). Maybe I shouldn't have written "born male" but "born with male primary sex organs." However I hope you know that people who don't like us(ie radical feminists, religious nuts) don't think like that at all. To them, We were "born male." That was the point I was trying to make.

And yes I do know the difference between gender and sex. Thanks btw.

[Babeba]

I don't consider the radicalhub people of any consequence, they are idiots. Anyone who seeks supremacy is mentally ill and is dangerous. I believe they have created if anything barriers. I believe that women should be equal in every respect and that this will require significant fundamental societal change even in this day and age.

in this sense I am with Stephenie and in this sense I am radical about what needs to happen.


What is it that you believe needs to happen? Just curious!

[Kathryn Martin]

I think, that we need to revisit the fundamental structures and conventions of our society to get rid of this notion that from a rights perspective there are differences between human beings.

This part of of every individuals biography but also a redoing of everything that has grown historically in our society. In this case looking to history for modeling a new society will fail as it has for so long. we need to turn our views and concepts inside out.


What is it that you believe needs to happen? Just curious!

[michelleinktown]

Any group that takes a militant stance is diversionary and exclusive which is, as I see it, sorta the opposite of the very nature of the feminine, inclusive.

Can we agree that all people should have the right to self determination? No one group should limit another group?

Nicely said. Oh once again I need 20 characters.

[LeaP]

... we need to turn our views and concepts inside out.

And also start thinking about the things with which we surround ourselves.

I'm at a multi-day offsite meeting in Toronto. I've been sitting all day in a boardroom where there are approximately 20 portraits of past company presidents on the wall - all men. A little TOO much regard for the past, I think.

[ReineD]

It's already changing folks! :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html

This is just the beginning. To quote the article, "there’s a pipeline of women coming into leadership positions that’s very, very deep and very, very wide".

Male graduates are now behind female graduates:

In the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7871192/Male-graduates-falling-behind-women-in-the-job-market.html

In the US: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

Women went from centuries of wearing skirts, to universally wearing pants in only one generation! You will see the same rapid changes in boardrooms.

Also, the more powerful we become, the harder we stand to fall:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57433413/top-jpmorgan-chase-exec-to-resign-over-loss/