What is feminism?

[JMohegan]

FMLA leave is always unpaid and that 50 employee thing stands. And they may be punitive about it if you rile them with legal language - if you're a "right to work" state consider yourself fucked.

They could also be punitive about that threat to walk if the leave wasn't granted.

I hear you, though, of course. The law is only as powerful as the awareness, perseverance, and means of those determined to see it enforced.

 

[Kojote]

One of the most firmly entrenched notions, embedded in that intangible inheritance, is the notion that women are responsible for the care of children. Hardly anyone questions the assumption that the mother, rather than the father, should, would, or even could take on that role.

The result, in a patriarchal society, is that child care options are hard to come by. Big companies build fancy dining rooms and on-site gyms, instead of on-site daycare centers. The government sends those young men, opting out of military service, to staff nursing homes rather than child care facilities. Employers in general view fathers who take time off for child rearing as not being serious about their careers. And men in general see male assistance with child care as a form of charitable generosity, rather than fundamental responsibility.

A related result is the fact that the child care role itself is considered lesser in terms of importance, and the skills required to do it well devalued. Women's work. Females seeking traditional male roles frequently disdain it, and it doesn't even appear on the radar screen of most males.

So the first thing you can do to address the shortage of child care options in Germany is to cultivate the notion that child care is the responsibility of parents, regardless of gender. And as you build your company, spend time thinking about creative ways to address the parenting needs of employees - through flexible schedules, shared jobs, or whatever.

Can't deny that.
But I think it changes slowly, anyway.
Twenty years ago a father taking time off for child rearing would have been asked if he forgot his pills. Ten years ago he would at least have gotten some funny looks and today there is actually a grudging acceptance of it sometimes.

Not enough anyway...

As for my company:
Hey. It's rather small. Two people. Me and my girl.
But a qualified woman could get the first job and even bring her baby with her.
Having two younger siblings I am pretty used to the sound crying baby's and can even change diapers.
Qualification and mental flexibility will be the factors. Not gender or children.

 

[Kojote]

The law and what businesses will actually get away with because going to court has high price tags all around, are two different things. This is part of why sexual harassment almost always goes unmentioned and unpunished, even post Clarence Thomas.

That's one of the real big problems. You are absolutely right here.
(But when anybody starts to point at the system about this I will again start to point at the people who let it happen through their ignorance... )

 

[WriterDom]

Shouldn't we be more concerned with the 1/3 or so of fathers in America whose responsibility seems to end with ejaculation? Leaving a young mother and child to fend on their own?

Or else they become dependent on the State which is a hard cycle to break once it gets established.

 

[satindesire]

Shouldn't we be more concerned with the 1/3 or so of fathers in America whose responsibility seems to end with ejaculation? Leaving a young mother and child to fend on their own?

Or else they become dependent on the State which is a hard cycle to break once it gets established.

I think a lot of people ARE concerned with it, doesn't mean we should ignore dads that actually want to be good dads. Encouraging things like Paternal leave, well, that's just going to give men positive reinforcement, which people need.

 

[JMohegan]

Can't deny that.
But I think it changes slowly, anyway.
Twenty years ago a father taking time off for child rearing would have been asked if he forgot his pills. Ten years ago he would at least have gotten some funny looks and today there is actually a grudging acceptance of it sometimes.

Not enough anyway...

As for my company:
Hey. It's rather small. Two people. Me and my girl.
But a qualified woman could get the first job and even bring her baby with her.
Having two younger siblings I am pretty used to the sound crying baby's and can even change diapers.
Qualification and mental flexibility will be the factors. Not gender or children.

Okay, good.

Now that we've reached broad agreement on a specific, tangible example, let's address two of your earlier statements, quoted below.

You blame men for the whole problem. And you accept accusing the 'innocent' ones along with the guilty ones.
Do you really think that will solve the problem?

We've agreed about that intangible inheritance, and the notion that there's a certain culpability in letting the inheritance pass through unchallenged. Right? So in that sense, there are no 'innocent' men in an entrenched patriarchal society. Only varying degrees of 'guilt.'

I actually don't like the word 'guilty' in this context, unless one is talking about a literal crime. I think it is more helpful to talk about the extent to which individuals are perpetuating a wrong (either through apathy or overt, bad behavior), or the extent to which individuals are actively working toward that which is right. Fighting to expand options for child care, and so on.

That’s why I say: Yes. Feminism has gone too far.
Stop it now and reunite with the males who deserve it (by treating women equal) and let them fight by your side against the remaining chauvinists and all those other problems yet to be solved.

Having observed that child care should rightfully be a parental responsibility, rather than a burden placed solely on women, and having further observed that child care options in Germany remain very limited, and that this is still largely considered to be a woman's problem...... doesn't that make the assertion that "feminism has gone too far" seem rather silly?

 

[WriterDom]

If men were meant to care for newborns their nipples and breasts would be functional. If the dad can take off from work it's a nice luxury. But the impact on the child is minuscule at best. Compared to no Dad at all its like the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.

 

[satindesire]

If men were meant to care for newborns their nipples and breasts would be functional. If the dad can take off from work it's a nice luxury. But the impact on the child is minuscule at best. Compared to no Dad at all its like the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.

No, fathers aren't necessary for SURVIVAL, but neither is formal education, love, multiple pairs of shoes or the internet.

We're beyond cave-man days of loincloths and clubbing deers to death to drag home to the tribe. Children need fathers for a lot of reasons beyond just making it to puberty alive.

 

[WriterDom]

No, fathers aren't necessary for SURVIVAL, but neither is formal education, love, multiple pairs of shoes or the internet.

We're beyond cave-man days of loincloths and clubbing deers to death to drag home to the tribe. Children need fathers for a lot of reasons beyond just making it to puberty alive.

That's kind of my point. Not to be so concerned what a "good" dad does when there are so many fatherless homes in America. Kids will seek out a father figure if there isn't one at home. Be it a gang or smooth talking older guy who shows her love she never got from her father then runs when the pink + comes up.

 

[JMohegan]

If men were meant to care for newborns their nipples and breasts would be functional. If the dad can take off from work it's a nice luxury. But the impact on the child is minuscule at best. Compared to no Dad at all its like the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.

Somehow men manage to fly without wings. Sounds incredible, I know! Obviously they weren't meant to. And yet, the fact is that somehow it's done.

Just to be clear though, WD - when I say that a father should take responsibility for child care, what I mean is that he should feel personally responsible for child care, in the same sense that he feels personally responsible for the need to pay mortgage or rent. That may mean he becomes a stay-at-home dad for some or all of the child-rearing years, or it may not.

A father leaving mother & child to fend on their own is an extreme form of the same fundamental problem (abdication of paternal responsibility.)

The unsuitability of many parents to be parents at all is a related, but not identical, issue. Regrettably, that unsuitability applies to many fathers and mothers.

 

[WriterDom]

Yes, men can fly to get some *inferior* formula before the baby starves to death but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. When there is a perfectly good female teat there to suck on.

 

[satindesire]

That's kind of my point. Not to be so concerned what a "good" dad does when there are so many fatherless homes in America. Kids will seek out a father figure if there isn't one at home. Be it a gang or smooth talking older guy who shows her love she never got from her father then runs when the pink + comes up.

People don't know how to be good parents instinctively, at least, not ALL the time. Guys need to learn how to be a good dad, that's why we need MORE visuals, more examples of good fatherhood. So I don't agree with you. We need to see good dads more and bad dads less. Bad fathers are everywhere, good dads are few and far between.

 

[JMohegan]

Yes, men can fly to get some *inferior* formula before the baby starves to death but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. When there is a perfectly good female teat there to suck on.

A colleague of mine stayed home for roughly the first four months of his son's life. His wife was busy finishing up a project that meant a lot to both her career and the family's finances.

She pumped her own breast milk and stored it in the frig so it could be fed to the baby while she was at work.

 

[Kojote]

We've agreed about that intangible inheritance, and the notion that there's a certain culpability in letting the inheritance pass through unchallenged. Right? So in that sense, there are no 'innocent' men in an entrenched patriarchal society. Only varying degrees of 'guilt.'

I actually don't like the word 'guilty' in this context, unless one is talking about a literal crime. I think it is more helpful to talk about the extent to which individuals are perpetuating a wrong (either through apathy or overt, bad behavior), or the extent to which individuals are actively working toward that which is right. Fighting to expand options for child care, and so on.

In this setting a man would have to undertake something to expand the options for child care (to stick with the example; interchangeable with something else) to cancel out the innate male perpetuation of discrimination against women.
Right so far?
(Doesn’t that sound like the ‘original sin’ crap a bit? Don’t like that…)

It would mean that I was born guilty and have to do something to earn the right not to feel guilty.
I am comfortable with helping women to achieve equal rights. But I don’t feel comfortable with being born guilty.
And if I apply some logic to this issue I am born guilty of starving Africans, too.

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit disproportionate?

There are differences between the sexes and there’s nothing we can do about it (and even if I won’t).
And our society is far from being perfect. It’s not even close to being fair.
But to blame a responsible male who doesn’t actively discriminate women and doesn’t turn away from the problems to be an abetter is ridiculous.
It’s like accusing somebody who lives in the same house as a drug user to be a confidant. He should have smelled the dope…

How would this help?
The catholic moral law from medieval times combined with the original sin deemed everybody guilty (they actually used it to sell letters of indulgence). But it didn’t stop many people from sinful behavior.
They were already guilty. Nothing to lose anymore…

The only difference appearing to me is that I find responsibility rightful and the moral laws from those days silly. But that’s just my point of view…

Having observed that child care should rightfully be a parental responsibility, rather than a burden placed solely on women, and having further observed that child care options in Germany remain very limited, and that this is still largely considered to be a woman's problem...... doesn't that make the assertion that "feminism has gone too far" seem rather silly?

Shouldn’t the first one to blame for this specific problem of some german mothers be the respective father?
There are not enough child care options for children under 3 years. Not even enough for older children (even though the german government promised a place for every child). But there are also not enough street workers, not enough nursing staff and so on.
It’s not that the government or the establishment picked women’s problems to worsen the situation and got all gender unrelated or male problems solved.

But feminism only addresses the female problems. Per definition.
Rather selfish, isn’t it?


Look…
It’s the flipside of the coin.
I never wanted to decrease the worthiness of the problems of gender discrimination.
All I asked for is to integrate them into a bigger picture addressing all problems and to stop blaming men for being men.
And more often than not discussions about feminism diminish to exactly that: Blaming men for everything at hand.

Who can really wonder for the men to defend themselves?
If nothing else we learn exactly that from this kind of argument and do nothing else than our female counterparts.

And what is that good for?
Instead of discussing feminism issues over and over again some actions could be taken.
Is this thought that wrong??

 

[Kojote]

People don't know how to be good parents instinctively, at least, not ALL the time. Guys need to learn how to be a good dad, that's why we need MORE visuals, more examples of good fatherhood. So I don't agree with you. We need to see good dads more and bad dads less. Bad fathers are everywhere, good dads are few and far between.

I support that strongly.
Good examples are much to less present. And should be moved to the focus stronger.

True for much other things, too...

 

[where]

I support that strongly.
Good examples are much to less present. And should be moved to the focus stronger.

True for much other things, too...

OK, it sounds like you have finally got a handle on feminism. Go make me a sandwich and bring me a beer.

 

[JMohegan]

In this setting a man would have to undertake something to expand the options for child care (to stick with the example; interchangeable with something else) to cancel out the innate male perpetuation of discrimination against women.
Right so far?
(Doesn’t that sound like the ‘original sin’ crap a bit? Don’t like that…)

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And so on.

I'm not talking about original sin. I'm talking about apathy, and passive acceptance of the status quo. To be clear - I don't believe it is possible for one man, alone, to eliminate that which is unjust in society. All he can do is try. And if he doesn't at least try, then he is culpable in some measure.

 

[JMohegan]

Shouldn’t the first one to blame for this specific problem of some german mothers be the respective father?
There are not enough child care options for children under 3 years. Not even enough for older children (even though the german government promised a place for every child). But there are also not enough street workers, not enough nursing staff and so on.
It’s not that the government or the establishment picked women’s problems to worsen the situation and got all gender unrelated or male problems solved.

But feminism only addresses the female problems. Per definition.
Rather selfish, isn’t it??

Is the fight against racism selfish? How about the fight for gay rights, is that selfish too?

Or could it be that these fights exist because clearly identifiable problems, relating to race, sexual preference, or gender, do still, themselves, exist?

 

[Etoile]

I also have very little patience for people who point to "society" as a culpable party. To me, that's the ultimate cop-out.

When people start anthropomorphizing the concept of society, they stop addressing reality as I see it.

Oh. My. God. You too? Marx, Foucault, Derrida, et al would be rolling in their graves.

There are norms and then there are how people deal with those norms, but there's definitely a set of norms out there, I guess this is "society."

According to my Sociology textbook, Bingo.

Thank you. There is indeed a whole branch of very respected science that deals with studying the entity known as "society." In fact, I've enjoyed my sociology classes so much, that I'm planning to get my MA in sociology.

You can't just dismiss the interconnectedness of people. We do NOT operate in a vacuum. Can individuals step outside the norms of society and behave properly/improperly? Absolutely. But there IS a society out there.

BTW, I think the term "privilege" is more commonly used to refer to "intangible inheritance" - though both certainly work.

 

[where]

But feminism only addresses the female problems. Per definition.
Rather selfish, isn’t it?

no... actually, feminism addresses gender issues, these things also affect men, so it's a feminist agenda that has helped promote paternity leave for example. in terms of health there has been a lot of work by feminists looking at health inequalities and how to reduce them which in large part has actually been aimed at men, so it's not just selfish.

now go fix me some food, goddamit!

 

[satindesire]

But feminism only addresses the female problems. Per definition.
Rather selfish, isn’t it?

No, because we can't make a social "program" or social mores like feminism to cover everyone of every spectrum all at once and still make it agreeable enough to enough people to gain support. One specific social program like gay rights, feminism, the right to choose, etc...those aren't selfish, they're just addressing a specific concern that some people share with other people.

That's like asking if the program to save the whales is selfish because it doesn't cover EVERY animal.

That's like asking if PETA is selfish. Just because it's a specific topic, doesn't mean it isn't worth supporting.

 

[Keroin]

Instead of discussing feminism issues over and over again some actions could be taken.
Is this thought that wrong??

I'm going to jump in briefly before getting to work.

Kojote, your broad point seems to be "There are all kinds of discrimination so why don't we all work together on all of the problems instead of singling out female problems."

That's no different than saying "There are all kinds of environmental problems, why don't we all work together on fixing the environment instead of singling out one area."

The answer is that we are talking about big problems that need to be broken down into smaller problems and categorized in order to be dealt with. And it's no surprise that people will tend to throw their time and energy into problems that directly and immediately affect them.

Like you, I have limited time and money and energy. I can't support every cause, no matter how worthy. As someone who grew up on the ocean, plays on/in the ocean, and made a living on the ocean, that is the aspect of "the environment" that I will naturally want to dedicate myself to. As a woman, who has experienced sexual harassment on the job, lower pay for equal work, etc, women's rights is the aspect of "discrimination" I will naturally want to dedicate myself to.

Discrimination against women directly and immediately affects me.

I care about discrimination against black people but I am not black and therefore that discrimination will never affect me in the same way it affects a black person. I care about the rights of third world farmers but I am not a third world farmer so I will never care as much about it as they do. Do you see what I'm saying?

Feminism exists because no one cares more about the well being of women or is more motivated to fight for their rights...than women.


Side story...

In the stunt biz, we were paid an "adjustment", which we called a "bump" but is technically "danger pay". How much you are bumped depends on how difficult/dangerous the gag is, how many times you have to do it, and various other details. Interestingly, if I was doing the gag in a bikini and stiletto heels, I would get the exact same bump as my male co-worker who was wearing an army uniform - with every protective pad known to man on underneath - and combat boots. I'd walk away bloody and bruised, (if I walked away), and he would walk away with no more than a slight pain in his hip, (if anything), but our pay did not reflect this and none of the men thought anything of it, (and the business was mostly men).

And then, one of the guys had to do a gag dressed as a girl. Heels, skirt, the whole nine yards.

Suddenly, things changed. Suddenly, we were getting an extra $200 or more strictly on the basis of wardrobe (or lack thereof).

 

[JMohegan]

Society exists. The system exists. The systematic oppression of women is just that: systematic. Individuals have very little to do with it. This is basic philosophy here.

Oh. My. God. You too? Marx, Foucault, Derrida, et al would be rolling in their graves.




Thank you. There is indeed a whole branch of very respected science that deals with studying the entity known as "society." In fact, I've enjoyed my sociology classes so much, that I'm planning to get my MA in sociology.

You can't just dismiss the interconnectedness of people. We do NOT operate in a vacuum. Can individuals step outside the norms of society and behave properly/improperly? Absolutely. But there IS a society out there.

BTW, I think the term "privilege" is more commonly used to refer to "intangible inheritance" - though both certainly work.

Marx, et al, can roll away then. If they can't explain things in a way I can comprehend, then to me they are irrelevant.

If sociology rocks your world, rock on! I have no formal education in that subject.

If your study of sociology leads you to believe that you've got something of import to tell me, I'd be interested to hear it. But I can't really "hear" it, in the comprehension sense, if you don't explain it to me in a way that I can mentally process and come up with something that I recognize to be rational thought.

I'm not arguing here. I'm saying that, to me, the excerpt in bold above makes no sense. I understand the concept of interconnectedness just fine. Of course, people interact with one another. But those are individuals interacting.

Without individuals behaving in whatever manner they choose to behave, society does not exist; it is nothing.

 

[satindesire]

Without individuals behaving in whatever manner they choose to behave, society does not exist; it is nothing.

Okay, basically, what it sort of means is that individuals grow up in society (IE the system) learning the norms of society and therefore become part of society.

We grow up learning and therefor absorbing and believing in the things that we are exposed to most.

We are only truly without society and because of that, apart from society, before we are exposed to it. Does that make more sense now?

 

[Netzach]

That's kind of my point. Not to be so concerned what a "good" dad does when there are so many fatherless homes in America. Kids will seek out a father figure if there isn't one at home. Be it a gang or smooth talking older guy who shows her love she never got from her father then runs when the pink + comes up.

I'd have to say I preferred my mother's single parenthood to the shitty-ass bad marriages and asshole dads of my friends by far. It may have been more difficult fiscally, but this idea that no dad is worse than shitty dad is laughable. Consider the source of most DV, most threat to young children being their own parents, and the fact that a lot of maternal violence is violence rolling downhill from the father.

No, while it may counter your fifties rhetoric, there's nothing inherently that important about a father you never see because he's working (in the case of my grandad drinking at the store so as not to have to go home!) and there's nothing that stupid about a father you DO see and who IS involved.

BTW getting mothers to actually nurse remains a major task, and my mother and her sibs were fed on 50's formula even WITH their mother no longer working. So much for the reactionary La Leche nuclear family.