My Apprenticeship Leads me to Become a Feminist

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.