What is feminism?

[Etoile]

Quick links on sociology, because it's 4am:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~socy/intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism (note Spencer's comparison to an organism)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/

 

[JMohegan]

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?

I am born, and watch my parents, grandparents, neighbors, friends & their parents, etc., as I grow up. I interact with people, and observe the results. I also read fiction and history, watch the news and general tv/movies, and so on.

All of those observations and interactions, collectively, have a profound influence on my behavior and my decisions. If that's what you mean, I understand and agree.

But I don't see how you get from that point, to Etoile's assertion that: "The systematic oppression of women is just that: systematic. Individuals have very little to do with it." That assertion seems incredibly nihilistic. Not to mention the fact that it is easily disproved.

The norms of society are not static. They are constantly changing. And why? Because individuals choose to make it so.

 

[Etoile]

"Systematic oppression" can also be termed as "institutionalized oppression."

Googling that brings up this:
https://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf

But it is really hard to answer your question if you do not understand/acknowledge the concepts of society and social institutions. That is, I would love to explain it to you, but we'd be speaking two different languages...like trying to explain American slavery to someone who doesn't understand race.

 

[JMohegan]

"Systematic oppression" can also be termed as "institutionalized oppression."

Googling that brings up this:
https://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf

But it is really hard to answer your question if you do not understand/acknowledge the concepts of society and social institutions. That is, I would love to explain it to you, but we'd be speaking two different languages...like trying to explain American slavery to someone who doesn't understand race.

I understand that social institutions exist. I just think it's wrong to anthropomorphize them.

I understand the information at that link. Including the statement: "If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions."

What I don't understand is how you, Etoile, get to the point of declaring that "individuals have very little to do with it." In my view, individuals have everything to do with it. They can either choose to maintain the practices, or fight to change them. Once they perceive the oppressive consequences, they have a moral obligation to support the effort to change those consequences. If no one makes that effort, then the oppressive consequences will be sustained.

 

[intothewoods]

I so can't keep up with this thread. I didn't even get to jump in on the Princeton wasp bashing. I'm always excited when Ralph Lauren gets his Jewy Jewison self outed though. JPress too. Nice.

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.

WTFucketyFuck. So shall I add lactivist to your resume now WD? Breastmilk is not the end all, be all of parenting, thank you very much. And I breastfed.

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.

I read some study that said that working mothers now spend more time with their kids than stay at home moms in the 1950s. Kind of interesting.

I think actually more women than not do do breastfeed now for the first 3 months or so.

 

[satindesire]

People actually feel like they have to hide whether or not they're Jewish?! WTF?

 

[satindesire]

I am born, and watch my parents, grandparents, neighbors, friends & their parents, etc., as I grow up. I interact with people, and observe the results. I also read fiction and history, watch the news and general tv/movies, and so on.

All of those observations and interactions, collectively, have a profound influence on my behavior and my decisions. If that's what you mean, I understand and agree.

There ya go. You got it!

But I don't see how you get from that point, to Etoile's assertion that: "The systematic oppression of women is just that: systematic. Individuals have very little to do with it." That assertion seems incredibly nihilistic. Not to mention the fact that it is easily disproved.

I never said I agreed with her assertion, did I?

The norms of society are not static. They are constantly changing. And why? Because individuals choose to make it so.

That's a no-brainer. *laughs*

 

[00Syd]

People actually feel like they have to hide whether or not they're Jewish?! WTF?

Hey man, if I could hide the fact that I'm a woman I might have a better chance of getting a good paying job, or a good price on a car, you know? Being Jewish in some parts of the country/world is just as much of an inconvenience, if not more.

 

[Netzach]

I so can't keep up with this thread. I didn't even get to jump in on the Princeton wasp bashing. I'm always excited when Ralph Lauren gets his Jewy Jewison self outed though. JPress too. Nice.



WTFucketyFuck. So shall I add lactivist to your resume now WD? Breastmilk is not the end all, be all of parenting, thank you very much. And I breastfed.



I read some study that said that working mothers now spend more time with their kids than stay at home moms in the 1950s. Kind of interesting.

I think actually more women than not do do breastfeed now for the first 3 months or so.

There's still resistance, there's still racial/cultural gaps in who does and doesn't - the message is FINALLY sinking in after however long.

The reason parenting has changed has as much to do with what we think about children as what we think about men and women - the idea that it matters what you model and what you do at all is in progress. I know that my mother was raised as more of an inconvenience, but that this wasn't that unusual.

The fact that we bother with considering children as humans and not as property to the limited extent that we do has a lot to do with feminist progress.

 

[Netzach]

Oh, also.

*chuckle*

men actually will lactate under extreme duress and extreme suction to the nipple. We're not that freakishly different actually.

There are survivalist examples of this and plenty of them - it's just never really attempted often for cultural reasons. Much hardship and likely less payoff, I'm doubtful they could keep it going to get someone to terrible twos. Interesting though.

 

[satindesire]

Hey man, if I could hide the fact that I'm a woman I might have a better chance of getting a good paying job, or a good price on a car, you know? Being Jewish in some parts of the country/world is just as much of an inconvenience, if not more.

Oh Wow, I thought that seriously active prejudice against Jewish people here in the states was totally out of vogue these days. Mel Gibson's batshit crazy ass aside.

Who cares who's Jewish and who isn't? I swear to God, I will never understand bigotry!!!

 

[JMohegan]

I read some study that said that working mothers now spend more time with their kids than stay at home moms in the 1950s. Kind of interesting.

What the heck do they assume 50s stay at home moms were doing? And where, according to that study, were the kids?

 

[WriterDom]

What the heck do they assume 50s stay at home moms were doing? And where, according to that study, were the kids?

Sir Winston has addressed this. We were pretty much anywhere we wanted to be other than home. All the kids in the neighborhood were outside for the most part during the 50s and 60s. Unsupervised. The only real rule was if you weren't going to be home for supper let your mom know.

 

[Primalex]

What the heck do they assume 50s stay at home moms were doing? And where, according to that study, were the kids?

It doesn't sound that unreasonable - if you define "spend time with" as "quality time" and not "moms and kids were in the same room". Just think about the time the chores took in the 50s:

- Washing the clothes was an effort of hours - today it's minutes.

- Refrigerators were still not that common - you had to gather the food from the cellar and you had to do much more shopping.

- These days less and less women preserve food on their own - because - right, it's time consuming and work.

...

 

[JMohegan]

Sir Winston has addressed this. We were pretty much anywhere we wanted to be other than home. All the kids in the neighborhood were outside for the most part during the 50s and 60s. Unsupervised. The only real rule was if you weren't going to be home for supper let your mom know.

I was born in '58, to a working dad and stay at home mom. You describe it well, sort of. But not really. In reality, we were subject to a sort of collective supervision, involving all the moms in the neighborhood.

But I'm interested in what ITW's study claims about what was going on.

 

[Etoile]

I understand that social institutions exist. I just think it's wrong to anthropomorphize them.

I understand the information at that link. Including the statement: "If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions."

What I don't understand is how you, Etoile, get to the point of declaring that "individuals have very little to do with it." In my view, individuals have everything to do with it. They can either choose to maintain the practices, or fight to change them. Once they perceive the oppressive consequences, they have a moral obligation to support the effort to change those consequences. If no one makes that effort, then the oppressive consequences will be sustained.

To me, the two bolded statements say the same thing. Individuals have little to do with institutionalized oppression, which is conducted by an institution. There are individuals who break away from it, and as you say, they have recognized their moral obligation. But institutionalized oppression is conducted by the institution. I guess I don't understand what's not clear. If you understand the first bolded statement, how is the second (mine) unclear?

 

[JMohegan]

It doesn't sound that unreasonable - if you define "spend time with" as "quality time" and not "moms and kids were in the same room". Just think about the time the chores took in the 50s:

- Washing the clothes was an effort of hours - today it's minutes.

- Refrigerators were still not that common - you had to gather the food from the cellar and you had to do much more shopping.

- These days less and less women preserve food on their own - because - right, it's time consuming and work.

...

When I was little and my mother went shopping, she took us along. We practiced counting while picking out apples, and manners when we spoke to adults in the checkout line. At home, we learned about personal responsibility by helping with chores. And my mother did her finest talking, listening, lecturing, etc., while we were seated at the kitchen table with a light snack and she was preparing dinner.

What I'm saying is that I don't necessarily see chores & meaningful interaction as time spent either/or. I'd say that depends on the mom.

 

[JMohegan]

To me, the two bolded statements say the same thing. Individuals have little to do with institutionalized oppression, which is conducted by an institution. There are individuals who break away from it, and as you say, they have recognized their moral obligation. But institutionalized oppression is conducted by the institution. I guess I don't understand what's not clear. If you understand the first bolded statement, how is the second (mine) unclear?

Let's take an extreme example, slavery. As oppressive an institution as it gets.

Some white individuals, born in slave-owning households, may have been raised to see slavery as a benevolent form of care-taking for a race of people who would not otherwise be able to care for themselves. Those white individuals may not have had oppressive intentions, but those white individuals were oppressing African Americans nevertheless.

There would have been no slavery without Southern slave holders, Northern slave traders, and many others, all willing to support and maintain that odious practice.

Individuals had everything to do with it. Whether they had oppressive intentions, or not.

 

[intothewoods]

What the heck do they assume 50s stay at home moms were doing? And where, according to that study, were the kids?

I just read the blurb on a friend's Facebook page months ago, so I don't know all of the details. I found this link , but it doesn't have the study itself. My guess would be that housework/cooking takes less time, and that there is less time spent indepently. From my scientific studies of Mad Men episodes, I would say more TV watching, but perhaps that's just the Draper household.

I don't think parenting is necessarily better in every way or anything. I just don't think the 1950s were perfect. I think a lot of parents today micromanage their kids to an insane degree, for example. At the end of the day, you have to parent in the world we live in though, so comparisons are somewhat useless.

Oh, also.

*chuckle*

men actually will lactate under extreme duress and extreme suction to the nipple. We're not that freakishly different actually.

There are survivalist examples of this and plenty of them - it's just never really attempted often for cultural reasons. Much hardship and likely less payoff, I'm doubtful they could keep it going to get someone to terrible twos. Interesting though.

I was going to say this too!

 

[Seurat]

I swear to God, I will never understand bigotry!!!

QFT? I don't really understand the meaning behind the letters, but I know I like the statement. I think the QFT fits.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm going to be that annoying Marxist bitch and say that I really believe the whole question is now more a matter of class than sex/race/whatever. That is not to say sexism, racism, etc. don't exist. They do. Obviously. But I think, realistically, sexism and racism (as byproducts of classism) are things that the lower and working classes have to deal with on a much larger scale than the middle and upper classes. Thus, as Netz said earlier, making most of the "Feminist" concerns purely academic.

One of my best friends and I were discussing this this weekend. (She's black.) This rich bitch we are unfortunately acquainted with did the "ew, icky brown person" thing to her, and the following conversation ensued between the two of us afterward.

Me: Can I be a bitch and say something?
Her: Of course.
Me: She wants to be a racist cunt, but, by rights, shouldn't I hate you more than she does, with her being the rich elitist white person with the noblesse oblige shit and me being the poor white trash from the rural area?
Her: *Laughing* Yes!
Me: I guarantee you if you were a rich black person, she wouldn't have cared.
Her: Yep. If I'd been dressed up and still had my hair straightened, she wouldn't have batted an eye.
Me: Then, she'd have just wondered what such a "nice-looking black person" was doing with such a trashy-looking white girl.
Her: God, I hate people.
Me: Me, too.

(For the record, we weren't dressed up because we were MOVING stuff.)

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the conversation, but for some reason, I thought about this thread as it was going on, so I decided I would share.

 

[satindesire]

QFT? I don't really understand the meaning behind the letters, but I know I like the statement. I think the QFT fits.

it means "Quoted For Truth" darlin'!

 

[rinka]

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.

(...)

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.

I think this is one of the keys to sustainable change in traditional gender roles. Sweden has done a lot in this field, but it's a slow process. It started with the right to daycare for every child, a feminist demand from the 70s. Sweden also have an extensive general parental leave insurance - earlier maternal leave. Over the last few years this has been altered to be shared equally between parents. Each parent gets 240 days to dispose how they like. 180 of these can however be transferred to the other parent, 60 days can not.

So it's quite possible (and encouraged) to split the care for your child 50/50 during that first year or so until it starts daycare. And if you've been primary caregiver for a few months I'd say you're more likely to drop off and pick up your kid at daycare. More likely to get to know kid's friends other parents and so on. Get a headstart to be a more involved parent.

I do think this makes a difference. Not overnight, but still.

 

[rinka]

I'm going to be that annoying Marxist bitch and say that I really believe the whole question is now more a matter of class than sex/race/whatever. That is not to say sexism, racism, etc. don't exist. They do. Obviously. But I think, realistically, sexism and racism (as byproducts of classism) are things that the lower and working classes have to deal with on a much larger scale than the middle and upper classes. Thus, as Netz said earlier, making most of the "Feminist" concerns purely academic.

One of my best friends and I were discussing this this weekend. (She's black.) This rich bitch we are unfortunately acquainted with did the "ew, icky brown person" thing to her, and the following conversation ensued between the two of us afterward.

Me: Can I be a bitch and say something?
Her: Of course.
Me: She wants to be a racist cunt, but, by rights, shouldn't I hate you more than she does, with her being the rich elitist white person with the noblesse oblige shit and me being the poor white trash from the rural area?
Her: *Laughing* Yes!
Me: I guarantee you if you were a rich black person, she wouldn't have cared.
Her: Yep. If I'd been dressed up and still had my hair straightened, she wouldn't have batted an eye.
Me: Then, she'd have just wondered what such a "nice-looking black person" was doing with such a trashy-looking white girl.
Her: God, I hate people.
Me: Me, too.

(For the record, we weren't dressed up because we were MOVING stuff.)

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the conversation, but for some reason, I thought about this thread as it was going on, so I decided I would share.

This is where intersectionalism enters. And I'd say it's extremely relevant in a discussion about feminism. No one is only woman or only poor or from an ethinc minority. All these identities and systems interact. Being an immigrant, have a disability, diverting sexuality... it all affects our identity and our social status.

Gender is a big one though. Lots of people in all these categories are women.

 

[Kojote]

This is where intersectionalism enters. And I'd say it's extremely relevant in a discussion about feminism. No one is only woman or only poor or from an ethinc minority. All these identities and systems interact. Being an immigrant, have a disability, diverting sexuality... it all affects our identity and our social status.

Gender is a big one though. Lots of people in all these categories are women.

Maybe I don't understand it completely right, but it appears to be what i kept saying over and over again...


And for the ones before I'm too tired to answer right now:
I never ever said the problems addressed by feminism don't exist.
But I keep saying that it has gone too far.

As a man I often get confronted with the issue.
Once I said jokingly to my girl that she should go to the kitchen and make me some food (actually I say this often because we decided that her cooking won’t lead to the hospital like mine). Some other woman freaked out about my chauvinistic behavior.
She pulled out the 'feminism machine gun' and pulled the trigger. Till I kicked her out.

This metaphorical gun is pulled out often. Preferably by women who don’t have that much to complain about.
And that's one big reason why it has gone to far. It became a cheap instrument of striking against somebody a woman disagrees with if he happens to be male.

And to clear that out: It also seems to be a cheap instrument of striking against males out of caprice, too.

It’s getting misused and I disdain that.

That doesn’t mean that there are no real points in the discussion. Most of you here are right to some extent.
But most of you seemingly can’t forbear to add the additional unnecessary punch to the argument.

I don’t like that personally.