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.

[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.