How did you become a Feminist?

[raphy]

Re: Re: Re: This is a lot better

Raphy,

Maybe some women resent it. I can only speak for myself and I don't resent the competitiveness as such, but the thoughts that come with it. I was taught to be not competitive, because: it's not feminine. Nice girls do not want to be the best and most certainly not want to be better than an man. And if you did anyway, you would certainly be left over, a.k.a. stay unmarried. For your information: that was the ultimate prove of failure.

Guess what? I stayed unmarried.

I hope I have matured enough by now to know better, but reading something like your statement above still makes me boiling mad. Women of my generation , at least in Western Europe, were brainwashed into avoiding competition.

From your words I assume you are honestly trying to figure it out. It's just that things like this push all my wrong buttons.

*stomping off to kick some really deserving ass*

BT, I was trying to work through my thoughts - At the same time, I'm curious as to what made you so mad in my post? What message did you think I was trying to say?

That women should be more competitive?

That women shouldn't be more competitive?

That women should shut up and learn to deal with men's competitiveness?

For the record, I had no idea what message I was trying to say in my post.

I was just trying to say that in my experience, 'having to be better than the other guy' is not something that's limited to women. Men do it as well, but to us it's natural.

That's all.

 

[raphy]

And your thing about competitiveness will get you in a lot of hot soup, dude. I believe competitiveness is the rule in dog packs, wolf packs, baboon troops and other such arrangements, but we are not in a baboon troop, we are in a republic, a workplace, a household. None of these is supposed to be a baboon troop, where snarling and tearing at one another with fangs determines how things are done. Competitiveness is the law of the jungle, maybe. Co-operation is the law of civilization.

You don't think there's competitiveness in today's society or in today's workplace? Take another look. In every single job I have ever had, there's been competition between colleagues of ALL genders. When I was a technical support representative, there was competition to get the lowest average call times. The women (on the whole - I'm generalizing badly here) didn't like the feeling too much - The men soaked it up. When I was a scripter for a web development company, there was competition to get the best work done the fastest - Who can produce the best website in the least time. They're the ones who got the pay rises, the bonuses and the job perks.

Admittedly, civilization is a new idea. But it beats the heck out of bullying for the sake of getting the chicks, as a way to live. Suppress your animal nature a bit for the sake of living in a society with a little chance for the weak to receive redress when they are despoiled by the strong. That's better. Making a mystical ideal out of the competitive spirit (It made our country great!) is asinine. It make our ape ancestors have a shitty time in their bestial societies, and it does the same for ours, where we let it run its course unchecked by reason.

With respect, I think you're taking what I said a little too far. I don't think I ever advocated 'bullying for the sake of getting the chicks' - Remember, I'm a moderate, not a radical. And I was making no mystical ideal out of anything. I'm not a high enough thinker to be making mystical ideals of stuff - I'm a pretty straightforward down-to-earth kind of guy and I was merely trying to work through some ideas in my head as to why women always feel they have to do better than men in the workplace. And while I was thinking about that, it occured to me that yes, it's true - Women *do* have to do better than men in the work place.. But then, men also have to do better than the other men.

And it's no more male than female. The impulse is as universal as the instinct of the animals we still are. Being civilized and acting rational isn't a department of the feminine, it's a responsibility of anyone who plans to have a tolerable society in which to raise children.

In the interests of maintaining a civilized discussion, I'm not going to allow myself to become offended by this .. But I do wonder where in my post you thought I wanted our society to become irrational, irresponsible or uncivilized?

Being competitive makes you none of those things.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Radical anythings are always a bad idea. I'm all for moderation, me. Unfortunately, often the quiet whisper of moderation gets lost amid the storm of radical ravings.

I consider myself a radical. there is a time and a place for everything, and moderation is- at times overrated.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Many people prefer radicalism because when you're radical you don't have to think.

Moderation is a constant struggle, sorting through myriad facts, thoughts and feeling. And it never stops.

Radicalism sets the world into an nice, neat little package where things will be perfect forever if everyone just shuts up and does what they're told.

I don't think being a radicle precludes thinking. that's a whole other ball of wax (ie are you a leader or a follower type of thing)

Radical is really anywere except right in the middle- and to tell the truth, no one can really agree on were the middle is either. It's a matter of perspective. What's radical today will be retro in the future. Radicals are very often the most independant thinkers. Sometimes thinking for yourself *IS* radical. Bronson Alcott for example was definatly a radical in his day- and a thinker as well.

Sweet---Proud to be a radical.

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Sweet. Radical is too easy a buzzword for cowards or conservatives. Sometimes it gets confused with Activist, which also scares people. But for the radicals and activists, where would we be now in AIDS research, abortion rights, black rights, gay rights, the Vietnam war, etc.

Perdita

 

[cantdog]

Of course there was competition, and competitive spirit. But this is inevitable. Are we not still human?

I am assuming also, there was a smidgen of cooperativeness, as well? Folk didn't cut each other's throats for the perks of which you speak? Not so much as they might have?

I was being too forceful and categorical in my little rant. I'm afraid I do that.



My message was supposed to be, beware seeing competitiveness as the goal or the path to excellence. When that's all there is, life is more and more unpleasant.

You observed that the women seemed to you, on the whole, to have been socialized differently, and to have hesitated to plunge wholeheartedly into the competition. Have you worked in a woman-dominated workplace?

The dynamic is different when there's nearly all women. Equally unpleasant, but the backstabbing and two-facedness can be intense. Men will just put up with a co-worker whom they can't stand, but women want to design a place for themselves in a workplace where they get to deal only with people they have a sympathy for, and they aim to purge the other kind.

It's a different feeling entirely. All-male workplaces tend to look more and more like military culture, which also is unpleasant. But the military puts up with a certain number of asshole co-workers. They just have real issues with chain of command, direct orders, and all that shit. Like the fire service.

Mixed-gender workplaces can be more humane, but each corporate culture is different, and mixed genders is certainly no guarantee.

Yours sounds like a very competitive, top-down place.

But back to feminism...

 

[raphy]

I agree that some people confuse the term Radical with Activist. I don't. An activist is someone who fights for what they believe in. A radical is someone who believes that only extreme measures ever work, at all times.

Now, quite often, radicals become activist in their activities (no pun intended), because often, it's only radicals that feel passionate enough about a subject to actually fight for what they believe in - But no, they're not the same thing.

Radical thinking is useful only in that it allows us as civilized beings to determine where the middle ground is.

For example, on gun control (Picking a topic out of the top of my head)

Radical at one end of the spectrum: No one should be allowed to own a gun
Radical at the other end of the spectrum: Everyone should be forced to own a gun
Moderate is somewhere in the middle: Let people decide if they wish to own a gun, and legislate those who do so.

Although, I do believe that the term is somewhat mis-used these days. Radical, by the strictest definition would be merely someone who thinks 'outside the box'. The word that *should* be used in the above example is 'Extremist', but in today's culture, radical and extremist are used interchangably, and I'll admit to being guilty of that sin.

Extremist thinking doesn't allow for compromise. That is its biggest flaw.

 

[Guest]

Good point about extremist, Raph. Radicals aren't necessarily that for life, or even philosophically. P.

 

[raphy]

Of course there was competition, and competitive spirit. But this is inevitable. Are we not still human?

I am assuming also, there was a smidgen of cooperativeness, as well? Folk didn't cut each other's throats for the perks of which you speak? Not so much as they might have?

I was being too forceful and categorical in my little rant. I'm afraid I do that.

No problem. I'm guilty of the same sin myself. Yes, there was plenty of co-operation. The competitive spirit was very friendly and supportive. Without that competitive spirit, of course, you don't get better. If I can reach a score of 9, that spurs you on to get a score of 10 next time. And if we then help each other, maybe we can both get to a score of 11 the time after that.

My message was supposed to be, beware seeing competitiveness as the goal or the path to excellence. When that's all there is, life is more and more unpleasant.

Oh god, I never meant that at all. My post wasn't meant as a 'this is how you *should be*' .. I very rarely post that. It was meant only as a 'This is what I've observed' and this is how I think it fits into the current discussion.

I never advocated that competitiveness *should be* the path to excellence. I was merely saying that men compete a lot in a work place, deed-wise because men are used to defining their masculinity via their deeds (as you yourself said) and women aren't used to defining themselves that way, so it seems strange or inappropriate to them to have to compete in the workplace - They see it as unnecessary and feel bitter about it.

Like I said, I May be totally incorrect with that theory. I was thinking out loud.

You observed that the women seemed to you, on the whole, to have been socialized differently, and to have hesitated to plunge wholeheartedly into the competition. Have you worked in a woman-dominated workplace?

The dynamic is different when there's nearly all women. Equally unpleasant, but the backstabbing and two-facedness can be intense. Men will just put up with a co-worker whom they can't stand, but women want to design a place for themselves in a workplace where they get to deal only with people they have a sympathy for, and they aim to purge the other kind.

It's a different feeling entirely. All-male workplaces tend to look more and more like military culture, which also is unpleasant. But the military puts up with a certain number of asshole co-workers. They just have real issues with chain of command, direct orders, and all that shit. Like the fire service.

Mixed-gender workplaces can be more humane, but each corporate culture is different, and mixed genders is certainly no guarantee.

Yours sounds like a very competitive, top-down place.

But back to feminism...

I totally agree with you about female-dominated workplaces. I think that goes back to your point about men defining themselves by their deeds. I'm not a woman, so I can't speak for how women define themselves, but I've noticed that a group of women can descend into bitchiness far faster than a group of men.

And not only, as you say, Equally unpleasant, but the backstabbing and two-facedness can be intense. but also, the unpleasantness is for different reasons and takes a different form.

I apologize for the obvious misunderstanding my first post caused. It appears more than one person misread my intent - Easy to happen on a messageboard, especially when the poster (i.e. me) is only thinking aloud and hasn't really formulated his thoughts coherently yet.

 

[raphy]

Good point about extremist, Raph. Radicals aren't necessarily that for life, or even philosophically. P.

I agree - Like I said, I'm guilty of mis-using the word - Blame it on my colloquially pop-culture upbringing. By the true definition, there's nothing wrong with being a radical - That's where new ideas come from.

It's when the majority of the people (or just the ones in power)are extremists that society has to watch out.

 

[rgraham666]

From my favourite book:

COMPETITION An event in which there are more losers than winners. Otherwise it's not a competition. A society based on competition is therefore primarily a society of losers.
…Hundreds of other factors create hundreds of other levels of competition. That's why in serious competition such as hockey or football, there are strict regulations controlling time, movement, numbers, dress language. Unregulated competition is a naïve metaphor for anarchy.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

The intense competition in the working world is one of the chief contributing factors to my mental illness. The pressure got to me. It seemed I could never rest.

And I lost. I never could be the best, nor even that good by most of my peer's standards. And I believed I was a loser. Not a pleasant feeling.

So nowadays I keep my competition strictly to games. It's much easier for me to carry the burden of life without the loser message being drummed into my head every day.

 

[CharleyH]

Raphy quoted from Ashleigh Brilliant, "There are no major differences between men and women, but the minor ones keep being rediscovered with great enthusiasm"

A brief paragraph: Well, actually, there are a lot of major differences between men and women from a bio/physiological/psychological pov . . . each with their own ads and disads. A different topic I am sure, yet just a thought.

Who said embrace difference? Unfortunately, not all trained in Western Civ. do. STILL, and unfortunately, I've experienced it first hand, when walking down the street, at the work place, in my own family. Not only for women, but minorities - the term minority itself just says it all . . . that you are.

I know many stay at home Mom's and all the power to them - they have a choice these days single or otherwise.

My Mother did not have the luxury to stay at home, and not so long ago. A bit of a latch key kid I was, taking care of myself, my friends, my brother, as were many children in the mid-seventies.

I had a point a second ago - LOL - where did it go? Oh probably where feminism travelled in 1990.

Anyhow, there is still a PATRIARCHAL (to use Svenska's word)point of view in not just West society, but many. I understand the Native geneology, and I think the Hopi's are the only ones still in practice - but then, I'm not too up on it, so only say that trying to save myself.

Have baby . . . Mom stays at home. Dad works. Why? Well, perhaps the nurture bond 'choice', but not always (I know many women who wanted to have their husbands stay at home while they continued their career). Perhaps the laws, slowly changing to give Fathers the right to Paternity leave. Our sexism is still defined in language, and squed in law and in health to quote Robert Graves, "Wife, w(b)i(u)tch or whore."

So fit yourselves in there, the men here can only be Fathers, gigalos or studs - LOL - linguguistically, not cunninlinguistically .

 

[cantdog]

John Ralston Saul

Wow, someone else who read John Ralston Saul!

*tipping the bowler*

Have you seen his Dictionary?

 

[Black Tulip]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a lot better

BT, I was trying to work through my thoughts - At the same time, I'm curious as to what made you so mad in my post? What message did you think I was trying to say?

That women should be more competitive?

That women shouldn't be more competitive?

That women should shut up and learn to deal with men's competitiveness?

For the record, I had no idea what message I was trying to say in my post.

I was just trying to say that in my experience, 'having to be better than the other guy' is not something that's limited to women. Men do it as well, but to us it's natural.

That's all.

Raphy,

I know that you were more or less thinking while typing, so I said I should be kicking an ass that deserved to be kicked. Meaning not yours!
I'm done now. We had chopped potatoes for dinner.

What got me so mad was the implication that the male world is competitive, so stop whining and jump in.
That rankles when you have been told time and again to stop behaving like a boy. More so, as it would not be the first time.

Writing this I remember how I had to fight to not be used by radical feminists as a kind of icon. I have been working since I was 18 and never stopped to raise my kid. That was my own choice because I am a single mother and I wanted to work and to have a kid. That was not common behavior back then.
The Single Mother By Choice. Hallelujah!

They mistakenly thought I had a thing against men.
I haven't, at least not men in general. And some women are absolutely hell.

 

[raphy]

Raphy quoted from Ashleigh Brilliant, "There are no major differences between men and women, but the minor ones keep being rediscovered with great enthusiasm"

A brief paragraph: Well, actually, there are a lot of major differences between men and women from a bio/physiological/psychological pov . . . each with their own ads and disads. A different topic I am sure, yet just a thought.

Awww, Charley, I was only trying to lighten the mood of the thread a little. It wasn't a statement to be taken literally. Personally, I think it's quite a cute statement - And I think it depends on how you define major and minor.

 

[cantdog]

Quote:

Have baby . . . Mom stays at home. Dad works. Why? Well, perhaps the nurture bond 'choice', but not always (I know many women who wanted to have their husbands stay at home while they continued their career). Perhaps the laws, slowly changing to give Fathers the right to Paternity leave. Our sexism is still defined in language, and squed in law and in health to quote Robert Graves, "Wife, w(b)i(u)tch or whore."

So fit yourselves in there, the men here can only be Fathers, gigalos or studs - LOL - linguguistically,

(from Charley)

I know, but language changes, it really does.

You have made the point yourself elsewhere that people are more complex than categories, too. But categories can be useful when you are trying to understand things. If you're a wife sometimes and a whore or witch or whatever other times, then you have a handle on it if you can see what you're doing clearer by using the classifications.

I don't like the choices much that you have given me here. Are studs shallow, one-dimensional sort of fellas?

Do Fathers stop being studly on account of their fatherliness?

 

[Guest]

I was trying to find out where Roland Barthes is buried and came upon this entertaining site. This is from the section on feminism. - Perdita

Definition
Feminism is a set of social theories and political practices that are critical of past and current social relations and primarily motivated and informed by the experience of women. Most generally, it involves a critique of gender inequality; more specifically, it involves the promotion of women's rights and interests. Feminist theorists question such issues as the relationship between sex, sexuality, and power in social, political, and economic relationships. Feminist political activists advocate such issues as women's suffrage, salary equivalency, and control over reproduction. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Supporting View
"Because they will try to convince us that we have arrived, that we are already there, that it has happened. Because we need to live in the place where we are truly alive, present, safe, and accounted for. Because we refuse to allow our writing, songs, art, activism, and political histories to be suppressed or stolen. Because we refuse to be embarrassed about the mistakes and faults and choose to move forward with a political agenda bent on the freedom of all." --Tammy Rae Carland in Tres Bien by Le Tigre.

Opposing View
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, 1992 [...]

 

[Guest]

I know, but language changes, it really does.

Do you know the history of English, cant? It takes a really really long time for language to change. P.

 

[raphy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a lot better

What got me so mad was the implication that the male world is competitive, so stop whining and jump in.
That rankles when you have been told time and again to stop behaving like a boy. More so, as it would not be the first time.

Aaah, no. I wasn't saying anything like that all. I think cantdog got the feeling that I was trying to preach as well - Obviously, I had my preaching hat on, subconsciously, while I was writing that post.

Basically, I wasn't trying to tell anyone what to do, or how to behave, merely trying to explain a phenomenon via observational data.

Phenomenon to be explained: The oft-heard woman's statement: "I have to be better than a man to succeed in the workplace"

Observational data: Male-dominated workplaces are usually at least a little competitive, in a deed-based way. Females (in a general sense) tend not to be so deed-based in defining themselves.

Proposed explanation: Thus it is postulated as a theory, that when a female who has not experienced a constant (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) competitively deed-based environment, a mild form of culture shock is encountered. The female has never had to define herself or garner respect for herself based on her deeds before, and as such, feels slighted that she must now do so. Men react inappropriately to this, because they do not understand that this may be the first time she's been in this situation.

The same phenomenon could probably also be observed if the female in the situation was replaced by a male who was not used to defining himself and garnering respect for himself by the deeds he did.

That's about as unemotional as I can put it .. I'm not saying that the situation is good or bad, I'm merely trying to explain why it is.

But that's just me. I'd much rather figure out the whys than the morality of a situation. I let someone else deal with that headache.

 

[CharleyH]

Awww, Charley, I was only trying to lighten the mood of the thread a little. It wasn't a statement to be taken literally. Personally, I think it's quite a cute statement - And I think it depends on how you define major and minor.

LOL - Have you ever seen me pissed off? Definition: calm - lol - just forgot where I was going with it. Where am I going now? As Kafka said, "away from here - always away from here."

Hm, fingers to chin wondering now what the hell I said to elicit CUTE

 

[raphy]

LOL - Have you ever seen me pissed off? Definition: calm - lol - just forgot where I was going with it. Where am I going now? As Kafka said, "away from here - always away from here."

Hm, fingers to chin wondering now what the hell I said to elicit CUTE

No, no, I thought the Ashleigh Brilliant statement was cute, not anything that you said!

Raph, hoping he's headed that one off at the pass.

 

[KarenAM]

Do you know the history of English, cant? It takes a really really long time for language to change. P.

Actually, language change can happen very, very slowly or very very quickly. Usually this depends on the rate at which the society that is speaking the language is changing. In the case of modern English, it is changing very rapidly, in no small part because of feminism.

If this is not appearant, it is because that in individuals, language change is typically very slow. Don't believe me? Go and talk to some teenagers.

Like, for sure!

 

[Black Tulip]

Raphy,

Stop apologizing sweetie. It wasn't so much you, more what your words triggered inside of me. Can't hold you responsible for that, can I?

Still, looking at your explanation, I think it's not so much resentment at having to do something. In my opinion it's more anger at having to do something that has been labelled as not feminine.

The something being competitive behavior. And to make it worse, that behavior tends to disqualify you as a desirable partner.

Now I'm thinking while typing. I do hope I'm not adding to the confusion. LOL

 

[raphy]

Raphy,

Stop apologizing sweetie. It wasn't so much you, more what your words triggered inside of me. Can't hold you responsible for that, can I?

I sure hope not

Still, looking at your explanation, I think it's not so much resentment at having to do something. In my opinion it's more anger at having to do something that has been labelled as not feminine.

The something being competitive behavior. And to make it worse, that behavior tends to disqualify you as a desirable partner.

Oh, I don't know. Some men out there like that sort of attitude in a prospective partner. Me, for instance. I imagine Lou's husband feels the same way. Not all men want a doormat they can walk over. Been there, done that, got bored.

Now I'm thinking while typing. I do hope I'm not adding to the confusion. LOL

I'm a state of permanent confusion anyway, don't sweat it.

 

[Guest]

re. language change and evolution

Karen, I wasn't talking about individual words, that's an ongoing thing. I meant the structure of language, and the structure of English is still firmly embedded in its patriarchal heritage. You need only know a smattering of olde and middle English to see this. P.;