Personality Cafe banner

Are you a Feminist?

  • INTP (Woman) Femnist

    Votes: 27 12.3%
  • INTP (Woman) Not Feminist

    Votes: 19 8.7%
  • INTP Don't know/ Don't care

    Votes: 27 12.3%
  • INTP (Man) Feminist

    Votes: 11 5.0%
  • INTP (Man) Not Feminist

    Votes: 42 19.2%
  • *Other type* (Woman) Feminist

    Votes: 21 9.6%
  • *Other type* (Woman) Not Feminist

    Votes: 21 9.6%
  • *Other type* Don't Know/ Don't care

    Votes: 14 6.4%
  • *Other type* (Man) Feminist

    Votes: 4 1.8%
  • *Other type* (Man) Not Feminist

    Votes: 25 11.4%
  • None of the above categories fit me. I'll answer in comments.

    Votes: 8 3.7%
1 - 20 of 795 Posts

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Nope!

I don't agree with feminism(specifically the modern day feminism, not the first wave. They have done little to focus on the actual oppression of women in other countries, such as countries in the middle east, parts of Asia, and countries in Africa, but instead work hard to try and instill the idea that the west is a "sexist" society. I also hate how they use biased data, and keep on trying to make it seem as though if you're not a feminist, then you are sexist. That just isn't true though. I prefer egalitarianism instead).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
I believe in equality between the two genders is important for a society to be fully functional. However, in Sweden, feminism has been taken much too far. For example; many feminists believe in the ideal of a 50/50 "balance" between genders on the workplace, which is insane, since the workplace is not about gender, it's about competence. I am not saying the other gender is more competent than the other, I am saying that some workplaces are dominated by one gender, which will lead to more competence available in that particular gender. Sweden is not the true equal society it is trying to be. Just by being a feminist doesn't mean your belief of equality is the healthy one for a society. The history of feminism has played an important role in society, though.
 

·
Yaybe
Joined
·
4,211 Posts
Men and women should have equal rights. There should be nothing about them (or men) being equal %'s in the workforce/specific job area.

If you are good, stay. If not, leave.

Get hired/paid on merit, not sex.

Whatever happens from there happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,989 Posts
Funny there's more guys answering this call than women.

Momentarily confused by the option to call yourself a male feminist, until I thought it out. I would gladly call myself a male feminist in relation to the orginal purpose of the movement. Equal rights, equal pay for equal work, etc. all that is good.

But here's the thing, and there's no getting around it, we are going to be different even though equal. We are created differently, not just the penis and vagina, but the testosterone and estrogen also.

I remember someone saying people should not say to anybody that they throw like a girl, because it's degrading to girls. If I say that it's only because most girls I know can't throw anything over 20 yards. Now granted if I say that to a guy, I'm being a dick to the guy. On average guys are created stronger. I know of a few women who crosstrain and have closed that gap(kinda sexy by the way), but they are the exception.

I think feminism is like a lot of other things that it's original purpose was moored to a good cause, but many have brought the term or idea to stand for something that is to the extreme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
, ... since the workplace is not about gender, it's about competence. .. .
Competence???? I hear this argument used all the time. Rarely have I experienced this competence. The work place is about the "right fit". And there always seems to be a "fit" for the managers brother in law, son, nephew, drinking buddy. A limited number of people (white males) have been afforded the privilege of defining what this "fit" is. Feminism has opened up the dialogue and challenged the idea that the drunk'n brother-in-law of manager X should even be considered for a job opportunity. This is not a bad thing.


Am I a male feminist? I have done nothing to actively promote women's issues in society. I have done nothing to dissuade male privilege in society. I am a little man trying to manage his little life. I try to promote the activities of competent people in my workplace because it makes my little life easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
Are we really going there?

I'm for equality as far as it can be managed, but people are not equal.

I'm not for abolishing femininity and masculinity, but I think there's a bigger focus on those than it should be. There are definitely areas to improve upon, at least.

I don't give a rat's ass that there are few male nurses and female engineers in the field, and I think it's stupid to try changing that by, say, giving "gender points" in certain studies at universities. Might as well discuss the frequency of attached earlobes.

However, I do believe that we're better off with more nurture-strong men and more math-smart women. Like with the latter; too many girls give up on math too early because they believe it's something they'll never become good at. Stuff like that. There's power in diversity, and the more paths that lie open for an individual early on, the better.

Am I a feminist? It entirely depends on who I ask.
 

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
I voted Other type male feminist.


 

http://users.spin.net.au/~deniset/cconfpap/gdeffem05.pdf
But the issue is not who is (or is not) a feminist. The issue is: what is feminism? To define feminism in terms of who is a feminist is to define feminism as an ‘identity’ (and it does get defined that way, despite the taboo against definition). This is one way of blocking any discussion of what feminism is, even of surreptitiously introducing anti-feminism as ‘feminism’ itself. If ‘feminism’ is anything that anyone who identifies as ‘a feminist’ says it is, but we’re disqualified from disagreeing because it’s her ‘identity’, then anything goes, including male supremacist practices masquerading as women’s ‘choice’.

I would argue that those who identify as feminists have a responsibility to define what is meant by ‘feminism’, especially those who have the social power to set the agenda. There are already a number of covert definitions around, including the main one, i.e. feminism is about women, women’s equality or women’s rights. I don’t think this is adequate because it makes it look as though women are the problem, whereas I believe the problem is the system of male domination. A crucial aspect of that defining is going to involve saying what feminism is not, that is, of criticising many things which have been said in the name of feminism, and sometimes being thoroughly intolerant of some of them. The current stance of pure tolerance can only impede this necessary task of criticism and clarification.
I guess if there is a basis for it's definition I would most broadly put it as the political views answer to the woman question.
Since it's often the liberal type that is treated as synonymous with feminism losing sight of the diverse political views that constittue answers to the woman question. Because the abstract equality of liberalism is swallowed up rather readily and is already normative and thus not a challenge in our nations where such struggles have already largely been won.
Which explains exactly why people deem a feminist movement irrelevant in western liberal societies because their highest aspiration is that of legal equality. But to which the way people view the differences with other countries often serves as a reactionary means.
The positive element of feminism is when it adequately expresses the struggle of women, but needs to be noted how it is an appearance (not that such issues are unreal, but that women do not constitute a class, basically fuck class unconscious feminists and the ones that don't ground things in class relations and instead end up with the arbitrariness of social class).
They should import their message into larger political projects rather than be confined to itself.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm
Today, we already can discern the signs of a kind of general unease — recall the series of events usually listed under the name of “Seattle.” The 10 years honeymoon of the triumphant global capitalism is over, the long-overdue “seven years itch” is here — witness the panicky reactions of the big media, which — from the Time magazine to CNN — all of a sudden started to warn about the Marxists manipulating the crowd of the “honest” protesters. The problem is now the strictly Leninist one — how to ACTUALIZE the media’s accusations: how to invent the organizational structure which will confer on this unrest the FORM of the universal political demand. Otherwise, the momentum will be lost, and what will remain is the marginal disturbance, perhaps organized as a new Greenpeace, with certain efficiency, but also strictly limited goals, marketing strategy, etc. In other words, the key “Leninist” lesson today is: politics without the organizational FORM of the party is politics without politics, so the answer to those who want just the (quite adequately named) “New SOCIAL Movements” is the same as the answer of the Jacobins to the Girondin compromisers: “You want revolution without a revolution!” Today’s blockade is that there are two ways open for the socio-political engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the “long march through the institutions,” or get active in new social movements, from feminism through ecology to anti-racism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not POLITICAL in the sense of the Universal Singular: they are “one issue movements” which lack the dimension of the universality, i.e. they do not relate to the social TOTALITY.

And I'm not sure if people get what is meant in regards to abolishing gender, as it seems to me in someways such an ideology is already normative to how people view the division of labor in the ideal ie, both men and women can and or should do X.
When such a division of labor is broken, the descriptors of masculine or feminine, characteristics associated with one's biological sex because independent and purely descriptive. Suddenly both men and women can be masculine because they can both do the same thing and possess the same traits, but then the idea of masculine or feminine becomes confused and people sense that ambiguity and often reject it's use. Which I think doesn't reflect just an attempt to appeal to dominant values when people say such things are human. What is masculine and feminine depends on a clear real world segregation and separation of the sexes in order for the ideas to emerge. When people operate on what seem like obsolete ideas, its often in fact a reflection of their conditions as there is uneven development in regards to sex and labor.
The goal should be to make the assumed essence isolated within an individual abstracted from the world irrelevant in practice, so that a woman at some type of work doesn't have her sex be of any significant relevance considered unwarranted.
One would perhaps instead be viewed as a human individual proper (which in many cases many already are).
I Am a Woman and a Human: A Marxist-Feminist Critique of Intersectionality Theory | Unity and Struggle
For several pages, Fanon argues that black people must embrace blackness, and struggle on the basis of being black, in order to negate white supremacists social relations. But to stop there reproduces our one-sided existence and the forms of appearance of capitalism. Identity politics argues, “I am a black man,” or “I am a woman,” without filling out the other side of the contradiction “…and I am a human.” If the starting and ending point is one-sided, there is no possibility for abolishing racialized and gendered social relations. For supporters of identity politics (despite claiming otherwise), womanhood, a form of appearance within society, is reduced to a natural, static “identity.” Social relations such as “womanhood,” or simply gender, become static objects, or “institutions.” Society is therefore organized into individuals, or sociological groups with natural characteristics. Therefore, the only possibility for struggle under identity politics is based on equal distribution or individualism (I will discuss this further below). This is a bourgeois ideology in that it replicates the alienated individual invented and defended by bourgeois theorists and scientists (and materially enforced) since capitalism’s birth.
And a few extras.
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/111/1/Scharff_Young_women's_disidentification_with_feminism.pdf
Exemplifying a postfeminist logic, two broad patterns were discernable in the research participants' talk: feminism was either considered as valuable, but anachronistic and therefore irrelevant to the present, or fiercely repudiated as extreme and dogmatic. While most research participants reported they would not call themselves a feminist, their stance towards feminism shifted depending on the cultural resources they drew on to discuss feminist politics. Reflecting the broader cultural currents of neoliberalism and individualisation, the respondents frequently rejected the need for a collective movement by positioning themselves as individuals who were capable of negotiating structural constraints autonomously. The research participants were aware of persistent gender inequalities, but located them predominantly in the public sphere and/or 'other' parts of the world, claiming they had not personally experienced gender discrimination. Feminists were overwhelmingly portrayed and constructed as unfeminine, man-hating, and lesbian. Although the respondents could not name any concrete examples of feminists who corresponded to this stereotype, the construction of 'the feminist' haunted their accounts. As the performative approach illustrates, discussions of feminism gave rise to complex negotiations and performative citations of normative femininity. Performances of femininity were racialized and classed, intersecting with feminist dis-identification in multiple ways. The perception of feminism as inclusive or exclusive figured as an important theme in the interviews. This thesis adds to our understanding of feminist dis-identification by employing various theoretical tools, drawing on empirical accounts, and by revealing the structuring role of heteronormativity in negotiations of feminism.
Women’s right to exercise choice has been one of feminism’s central political claims. Where second wave feminism focused on the constraints women faced in making free choices, choice feminism more recently reorients feminist politics with a call for recognition of the choices women are actually making. From this perspective the role of feminism is to validate women’s choices without passing judgement. This article analyses this shift in orientation by locating women’s choices within a late modern gender order in which the ideal of choice has increasingly been associated with a new form of femininity characterized as self-determining, individuated and ‘empowered’. Instead of offering an effective analysis of the changing social conditions within which the relationship between feminism, femininity and individual choice has become increasingly complicated, choice feminism directs criticism at feminist perspectives characterized as overly prescriptive. This critique fails to appreciate how feminist ideals have been recuperated in the service of late capitalism and neoliberal forms of governance. By failing to engage critically with processes currently impacting on the social organization of gender choice feminism aids in the constitution of an individuated neoliberal feminist subject which performs cultural work vital to the reproduction of neoliberal governmentality.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274973156_The_Dynamics_of_Gender_Hegemony_Femininities_Masculinities_and_Social_Change
Denying the relevance of gender in favour of complying with the values associated with the rights of the ‘free individual’ does not fundamentally undermine or interrogate the social con-struction of masculinity, offer critical tools for reconstructing gender difference, or chal-lenge a hierarchical gender complementarity.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2449/1/Postfeminist_media_culture_(LSERO).pdf
What has not yet been examined, however, is the relationship of neoliberalism to gender relations. But it appears from this attempt to map the elements of a postfeminist sensibility that there is a powerful resonance between postfeminism and neoliberalism. This operates at at least three levels. First, and most broadly, both appear to be structured by a current of individualism that has almost entirely replaced notions of the social or political, or any idea of the individual as subject to pressures, constraints or influence from outside themselves.
Most people are so vague in their words that it makes it impossible to really deduce the content of their points. Things like there being differences between men and women, I'm for equality and such are as empty as a motto into which anyone can project their own content into. Hiding real disparities of opinion because everyone has a positive connotation to such words.
Oh I love freedom, liberty, democracy and peace! ;)
 

·
EvilShoutyRudolph
Joined
·
5,099 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
I don't understand why it's such a controversial subject. It's simply really: treat people based on attributes you care about, not on gender or sexual orientation or whatever. I think most people believe in equal rights, but unfortunately a vocal minority want to be treated as "higher priority" and make up nonsense so they can pretend to be oppressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
Competence???? I hear this argument used all the time. Rarely have I experienced this competence. The work place is about the "right fit". And there always seems to be a "fit" for the managers brother in law, son, nephew, drinking buddy. A limited number of people (white males) have been afforded the privilege of defining what this "fit" is. Feminism has opened up the dialogue and challenged the idea that the drunk'n brother-in-law of manager X should even be considered for a job opportunity. This is not a bad thing.

Am I a male feminist? I have done nothing to actively promote women's issues in society. I have done nothing to dissuade male privilege in society. I am a little man trying to manage his little life. I try to promote the activities of competent people in my workplace because it makes my little life easier.
So in the eyes of your view of feminism, the drunk'n dude is not as equal because he is not as competent as the one you vouch for? It seems to be an efficiency problem rather than an equality problem. What I said in my post before was that a prioritization to divide genders 50/50 is stupid, and should promote the activities of competent people instead, as you said.
 
1 - 20 of 795 Posts
Top