I self-identify as a feminist and I am proud to say that.  I think feminsm is still really relevant in today society's.  When it comes to issues like sexism, patriarchy, and especially violence against women, I find that organizing under a feminist framework is really effective.  For me, feminism is a place when women come first, always; unfortunately there aren't too many places in society where that is so.  Personally, I find radical feminism enlightening.  I know many people who are scared to used the "radical" term, let alone calling themselves a feminist, but I think radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and Monique Wittig and Charlotte Bunch have given feminist theory a whole lot of great ideas.  Society at large is so quick to dismiss radical feminism, but I think that a lot of the mainstream ideas about women today come from ideas that were considered "radical" years ago.

Feminism is extremely imporatnt to me and I think it is still an effective way to bring women together .

I had some trouble deciding between the first option (feminism all the way - let's picket) and last option (feminism is about rights and community). There's also a middle option (the one with the &*#!) that was tempting. Maybe when more people have responded, you could let us know more about each of the options listed (the school of thought behind it, or whatever).

Very cool topic. I used to think all lesbians and bi women identified as feminist, but I've learned that it's not the case.

Not that I believe everything my DVD player tells me :roll:, but that ^ goes against the way feminism / lesbianism is portrayed in "If These Walls Could Talk 2". According to the movie, a lot of feminists thought lesbians were too radical and could be "dealt with" once women in general were dealt with. Lesbians were ostracized somewhat from the feminist movement (IF we believe everything the movie presents).

How does Gloria Steinem feel about lesbians? I know she mentioned it on "The L Word" (there I go trusting my TV again) but I don't recall what her official position is/was.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on this. :?

I think lesbians and feminists receive the same backlash because of the perception that they don't need men... not necessarily as a result of the "feminists sleeping with women" movement (was it that prevalent?) Although if they're both making the same "proclamation" then they'll inevitably be lumped together.

Hey! I've been refraining from posting yet because I'm interested to see what other people think ... and so far am quite intrigued by the poll results. More comments later.

In any case, without going into a history lesson -- there's an interesting article you can check out offering an overview of Lesbian Feminism in the US from the 1970s on: [url]http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/lesbian_feminism.html[/url] ... (I'm lazy and prefer to dig up summaries on the net rather than dragging all my feminist literature off the shelf! :))

I'll summarize. Yes there was a movement of 'political lesbians' in the 1970s. And it was in fact the movement of 'lesbian feminism' that contributed to to securing greater rights for women.

Still, lesbian feminism was NOT mainstream. A lot of feminists didn't want lesbians or lesbian issues brought to the forefront of the women's movement at the time -- true.

There was a movement known as 'Radicalesbians' who came up with a manifesto called 'The Woman-Identified Woman' (1970) which sets out lesbian-feminist politics.

[quote:77c161e854]
Its authors claimed that lesbians and lesbianism are of central, rather than peripheral, importance to the feminist movement. The woman-identified woman, they contended, undermines patriarchy by withdrawing her energy from men, by affirming a connection with other women, and by validating women on their own terms, independent of men. So long as women seek the approval of men and male institutions, they argued, they cannot become autonomous human beings. [/quote:77c161e854]

But then finally there were concessions from the 'main feminist camp'. GLORIA STEINEM (who you referenced, Koma), made this awesome statement that feminism WAS A REVOLUTION, NOT A PUBLIC RELATIONS MOVEMENT. And NOW (National Organization of Women) voted in 1971 to include the issue of lesbian oppression as a concern of feminism.

There's a much longer history than all of this ... but the conclusion of the article sums it up well:

[quote:77c161e854]Lesbian feminism had a tremendous impact on the personal and political experiences of more than one generation of women. In 1972 a woman could be institutionalized for having sex with another woman; by 1973 she could buy lesbian records, read lesbian books, and attend women-only lesbian events. It is little wonder that many continue to identify with lesbian feminism.

But the internecine conflicts over racial and sexual politics forced lesbian feminism to confront its own ideological limitations. In the 1990s, a new generation of feminists calling themselves the "third wave" set out to preserve some of the movement's original insights while prioritizing anti-racist, anti-colonial, and queer- and gender-based theories and struggles. ... [b:77c161e854]However, lesbian feminism is a political ideology that resonates among significantly fewer women today than it did in the 1970s and 1980s.[/b:77c161e854]
[/quote:77c161e854]

"It's not about women's rights -- it's about HUMAN rights."

I chose that one.

I self-identify as a pretty-naive-but-trying Third Wave Feminist. Now I guess I'll put in a little, oversimplified, history... might make this easier to understand and maybe explain some things.

[u:2d1e9bd840]First Wave Feminism[/u:2d1e9bd840]: think the mom in Mary Poppins. Trying to get the vote and wearing pillbox hats. They did more than that, but women's right to vote was their big thing. Biggest criticism: they only cared about middle/upper class white women's rights.

[u:2d1e9bd840]Second Wave Feminism[/u:2d1e9bd840]: think the 60's. Big things on the agenda included abortion rights, pay equity and employment equity, etc. This is the movement that most people think about when they think about the transformation of women over the past 50 years--they got a lot done. Biggest criticism: they excluded a lot of groups in order to present a 'united front'; they didn't want to incorporate lesbians, trans, ability, tra-la-la because it made them too diversified.

[u:2d1e9bd840]Third Wave Feminism[/u:2d1e9bd840] (or 'Young' Feminism): Today. And it's really hard to describe. Everyone and their mother is thrown into here, in theory, without discrimination or segregation. The third wave recognizes the criticisms of earlier Feminisms and tries to avoid them at all costs. As a result, there is no united front of the Third wave.

Third wave attempts to incorporate as many factors as possible into theorizing. [b:2d1e9bd840]Example[/b:2d1e9bd840]: Here's a family with 2.5 kids. What if it's a lesbian family. What if it's a lesbian, chinese family. What if it's a lesbian chinese family with a disability and low socio-economic status and living in Bosnia and laaaa la la la. They then ask how these different factors serve to complicate the issues that family is faced with and in what ways they do so.

Complicated? Just a lil bit. Here's the definition from my introductory textbook:

[i:2d1e9bd840]We are the third-wave feminists. We defy labels, embrace contradictions, and call for complexity. From the outside we appear eclectic, fragmented, and even trite. We prefer to see ourselves as inclusive, open to change, creative, painfully conscious, funny, and really, really smart[/i:2d1e9bd840].

What I really love about the third wave is its emphasis on the subjectivity of it all--nothing is textbook and nothing is the way it is for everyone. If you check out the Feminist Zines rolling around the internet now, it's all about the individual's experience.. it's like reading journals. And you take that one person's experiences and put it into the larger context of patriarchy and power relations and whatever..

it's interesting on a humanistic level.

The third wave puts individual experience into a context where it has value beyond just entertainment--they've really glorified the whole 'the personal is political' mentality.

For me, anyway, that's the biggest selling point.

Thanks for your post, Jay! I think it is not only useful but vital for women to understand the legacy of feminism and what it has accomplished historically -- both theoretically (challenging dominant assumptions and social science paradigms) and practically (pushing for changes in laws etc).

In fact, some of the poll options were meant to correspond with some of these waves, however vaguely.

Some of my concerns today, however, involve the increasing recognition of subjectivity in experiences and social sciences research -- some of what is promoted in the 'third wave'. While I do agree with the importance of story-telling, of feminist standpoint theory (very interesting!), of taking individual experiences and examining them in the context of broader relations of power and patriarchy -- at some point this can fail to recognize broader structural oppression.

My research is in developing countries, where very practical issues of unequal and gendered access to nutrition, health care, and education mean more girls are malnourished, die of diseases, and are illiterate than boys. Feminists should be at the forefront of working on these very REAL issues (I think), challenging the status quo that allows for this differential valuing of male and female, and yet often this is not the case.

And in the 'First' world (so many problems with calling that, but it will have to suffice for now), though women HAVE won the vote etc and if you look at the 'law of the land' you would not be able to point clearly to oppression, it has become more difficult to define and tackle the problem. This may be why feminism has become such a 'dirty word' in some context, as was pointed out earlier. BUT PROBLEMS STILL EXIST. Violence against women is still a big problem in the States! We still have widely disproportionate representation by women in Congress and in the upper echelons of the business world. Wage differentials still exist. So why are we giving into the dominant view and APOLOGIZING for being feminists???

I personally believe that the powerful elite 'win' when everyone stops complaining because they don't think they have the right to complain. It is precisely when things can be made to look good *superficially* that it becomes harder to contest oppression, to find the 'villain' and therefore do something about the issues at hand.

I will reply in greater detail later because I identify very strongly as feminist and have a lot to say on this subject! But as for what you were saying [b:2a939238e3]shadowboxer[/b:2a939238e3] I was pointed to the following link today about countering and dealing wth anti-feminist rhetoric and found it very interesting because lately I've been encountering a hell of a lot of what you were saying about being made to feel like you have no right to complain, like the battle is won etc:

http://mindthegapcardiff.blogspot.com/2005/10/springing-traps-on-counter...

Also for anyone interested in feminism this is an amazingly good resource:

http://www.thefword.org.uk

I don't have time to make a well thought out post, so I'll make a quick one.

I've run into the whole 'what the hell are you bitching about' thing as well. A lot. And I can see how some people might think that, given how much progress actually [i:e244e211d6]has[/i:e244e211d6] been made in north america since the birth of feminism. And on paper a lot of it looks perfect--there's 'equal opportunity' and 'employment equity' and bla bla. But I think a lot of people don't understand that while these things have made it through the legal system, that doesn't necessitate that life has suddenly become equal across the board for women. They don't know about the feminization of poverty and the continued segregation of women in the workplace, though I don't know why.

But aside from that, I think they don't get the premise of Feminism.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what feminism was about in the first place--they seem to think that it was just a whole lot of angry women wanting equality and trying to get it through the legal system. That was, in large part, the biggest assertion of the liberal feminist movement. And to me that seems to be the only type of feminism that people are aware of. If their goals were acheived, then what's left to complain about?

Feminism isn't just about legal documents. Actually, it's not about that at all. Feminism is about the examination of societies and how they serve to make women subordinate through heirarchies and patriarchy and la la la. Attacking the subordination of women through the legal system is only one [i:e244e211d6]method[/i:e244e211d6] of active feminism. It was never [i:e244e211d6]all[/i:e244e211d6] of feminism by any means whatsoever.

And I think that's where people get confused. I think they misunderstand what feminism is about.

And that's probably in large part due to what actually made it into the mass media.

^ EXACTLY! Thanks for your comments, Jay.

And the links from starshideyourfires are great as well. This quote I found particularly good:

[quote:272ee3bddb]At the end of the day, one of the most striking things about anti-feminist rhetoric is that in denying or abusing feminism, or claiming that the movement is over, anti-feminism always proves that feminism is not only absolutely necessary, it still has a long way yet to go.[/quote:272ee3bddb]

Germaine Greer (classic 2nd Wave feminist) has a book out called 'the whole woman' (2000) which is pretty entertaining and challenging. Yes, it is polemical and there's plenty to criticize, but Greer does a good job in pointing out the reasons to 'get angry again', as she says in the introduction. I'm glad to read someone who is unapologetic.

[quote:272ee3bddb] In the last thirty years women have come a long, long way; our lives are nobler and richer than they were, but they are also fiendishly difficult. From the beginning feminists have been aware that the causes of female suffering can be grouped under the heading 'contradictory expectations'. The contradictions women face have never been more bruising than they are now. The career woman does not know if she is to do her job like a man or like herself. Is she supposed to change the organization or knuckle under to it? Is she supposed to endure harassment or kick ass and take names? Is motherhood a privilege or a punishment? [b:272ee3bddb]Even if it had been real, equality would have been a poor substitute for liberation; fake equality is leading women in double jeopardy.[/b:272ee3bddb] The rhetoric of equality is being used in the name of political correctness to mask the hammering that women are taking. When [i:272ee3bddb]The Female Eunuch[/i:272ee3bddb] was written our daughters were not cutting or starving themselves. On every side speechless women endure endless hardship, grief and pain, in a world system that creates billions of losers for every handful of winners.
It's time to get angry again.[/quote:272ee3bddb]

I don't really want to get into this, but I just have to say that I find it funny that the most people chose the "it's not about women's rights, it's about human rights" one. The last time I looked women *are* humans.

[quote:aa266ae406="cosmiccowgirl"]I don't really want to get into this, but I just have to say that I find it funny that the most people chose the "it's not about women's rights, it's about human rights" one. The last time I looked women *are* humans.[/quote:aa266ae406]

That's the point. ;)

Being for women's rights is sometimes to the detriment of other minorities. Okay, you want equality for women, but what about gay rights, black rights, Native American rights, etc.? So picking the "human rights" option means that the bigger problem is not the lack of equality for women, but the lack of equality for all people, including women. To me, it questions why we discriminate against anyone.

Personally, I was born a penguin.

I went for the last one but there was a time when I would have gone for the more...extreme one. I definitely identify as a feminist and that is how people who know me often identify me as well. As I get older I'm increasingly interseted in all aspects of gender politics, though.
Ronia, interseting point about lesbian/bi women. Often, I have found that certain women do not wish to affiliate themselves with any part of feminism. Having said that, queer theory is more popular. I still get frustrated when women will do anything to distance themselves from the whole thing.

^ More rights for penguins!!!!

[quote:4a75122db4="Jay"]Personally, I was born a penguin.[/quote:4a75122db4]

But did you [i:4a75122db4]CHOOSE[/i:4a75122db4] to be born a penguin? Oh wait, that's a different thread! :doh:

;)

But Koma, whether she chose or not -- penguins still need more rights!!!

Oh wait, now I think I'm harkening back to another thread ...

:roll:

[quote:596c943de8="koma"]But did you [i:596c943de8]CHOOSE[/i:596c943de8] to be born a penguin?[/quote:596c943de8]

bwaaahahahahahahhahahah!! that fuckin' OWNED

[b:596c943de8]Feminist penguins unite![/b:596c943de8]

Dyslexic feminist penguins untie!

Shadowboxer ... once again, I find myself agreeing with you. At least, I think we're on the same page. I haven't slept in a day, and I may be reading you wrong.

For me, it's choice one all the way. Sure, human rights is part of it, of course, but if we don't get proper rights for women, we can't possibly fight the bigger war.

Hey there. Glad to see this topic revisited. :)

I'll post something I wrote for an online editorial journal on the topic. It might clarify my position. :)

-------------------------------
Of Boxing and Bordellos – Reclaiming our Anger

I've stopped apologizing for being a feminist. I've stopped apologizing for being strong. And I've stopped apologizing for being angry – angry that in the 'third world', women still suffer legal injustices, suffer from domestic violence and conflicts, have unequal access to healthcare, nutrition, and education and die in disproportionate numbers because of this; angry that in the 'first world', adolescent girls are cutting and starving themselves, rape and domestic violence statistics remain high, women still lack proportionate representation in the higher echelons of the political and business world.

I've stopped apologizing because that isn't the answer. But neither is blind anger.

Feminism has become, by some estimation, the new 'F-word'. Perhaps this is because it has been associated with blind anger and hatred of people, men in particular. But I believe that anger can be a good thing – anger can be a positive and empowering force that we can embrace and leverage to effect change so long as it is anger at injustice, anger at inequality, anger at the structures and systems that perpetuate these injustices.

The Third Wave of feminism has tended to dilute this anger. The 'personal is political' has become a mantra that has reduced our anger to personal experiences of injustice. The Third Wave has come to be about telling our stories, about being inclusive of many voices, of understanding the narratives of women today. I love the breadth and depth of these voices but fear we are losing the political will to harness true anger toward social and political change.

I do not discount the importance of the individual experience to feminism as my own feminist understandings have very much been shaped by my experiences. For instance, it has been as a female boxer that I have re-discovered the rigidity of gender roles, even in this 'modern era' where there are fewer exclusively male domains than ever before. One College Fellow looked at me, shook his head, and said: 'Lady boxer … you ought to be ashamed.' At every bout I've had thus far (I've had five), the announcers have made some reference afterward to the fact that 'Oh, their boyfriends or husbands better be careful! Wow! Men, watch out – these women hit hard.' I cannot imagine this same announcer telling the women to watch out for hard-hitting men lest they get beat up.

The reaction of men (and women) has proven over and over that my skill as a boxer challenges, and in some cases inverts, traditional gender hierarchies. Girls can be smart, but they can't actually hit like a man – can they? The personal is political – so if I take my anger out on a punching bag, I can achieve something. After all, I challenged tradition, becoming the first woman to box in a Varsity Match against Cambridge in 124 years of the sport at Oxford and 98 annual Varsity match-ups, and the first woman to receive an Extraordinary Blue for boxing at Oxford. Yet when I heard another woman comment that because she was a boxer, she had therefore 'done her part for feminism', I began to reflect on the difference between the individual experience and collective action.

My experiences inform my position as a feminist, but my story exists within a broader narrative. I am challenged to understand this 'bigger picture'. And here, many injustices remain. My research on gender policies in Indonesia has led me to examine some of these larger problems. Having worked with Indonesian government ministries focusing on 'empowering' women, it has become evident that structural inequities and social hierarchies still keep women very much 'in their place'. Statistics paint a portrait of a poorer, less literate, more disadvantaged sex, often the victims of violence and sex trafficking.

Women's bodies become the focus of laws and interventions related to domestic violence and sexual health, where they are often reduced to their roles as Wives and Mothers. For instance, when I interviewed the heads of various key organizations dealing with women's issues, they would always say that education for women is critical. Yet if asked education for what purpose, the typical response was that they needed to be educated in order to raise their children better. In one case, where I interviewed the head of Dharma Wanita (for many years one of the most powerful women's organizations in Indonesia), she clarified with the example of fish. If a woman is better educated, she said, she'll know that feeding her child fish (long associated with the poorer classes) is actually quite healthy. This is not to suggest that feeding your child fish is a 'bad thing', or that being a good mother is similarly inconsequential, but should education for women be this reductionist?

Women are also reduced to essentialized notions of their 'dangerous' sexuality. The President makes repeated reference to 'pornographic behaviour' in speeches, and government legislators debate women's clothing and possible regulations of it. When Islamic leaders offer a clarion call for a return to morality, it manifests as an increase in women wearing the Islamic head-covering on Java – a visible symbol covering the female form. Various regional rulings in West Java have outlawed prostitution, but in some cases the definition of prostitution includes a woman having sex with any man who is not her husband, whether or not money has exchanged hands. In making bordellos illegal, this becomes another form of control of women's sexuality and women's bodies, as organizations such as the Indonesian LBH-APIK (the Legal Aid Foundation for Women) have argued. These actions reveal underlying paradigms of women needing to be controlled for the moral good of society.

Beyond my story as a female boxer lies this broader narrative, the experience of one woman against all of these in Indonesia. The Third Wave of feminism has opened spaces for women to share their stories and find their voice. This has been very positive for all those who have been able to speak up. But there remain those who do not have the freedom to do so, who remain silenced.

Therefore it is time to reclaim our anger at injustice. Anger can compel us to speak out as never before, to draw on our personal experiences in order to seek solidarity with others and to work together for change. It is not enough for me to say, with a wink, 'I am woman … watch me box.' Instead, watch me talk about gender inequalities and injustices without embarrassment or apology. Watch me work on gender policies in Indonesia, look for jobs related to women's advancement out of poverty, advocate for women's sexual and reproductive rights.

Watch me get angry again.

I really liked that piece you wrote, shadowboxer.

For me, first and foremost, I believe that all people should have certain rights. Everyone deserves to be paid a fair amount for the work they do. Everyone should have a chance to get an education. Nobody should have to suffer from domestic abuse.

However, I do differentiate between feminism and general human rights, and I feel I can support both. But I think some specific focus is necessary at times. In my mind, being a feminist doesn't just mean that I feel that people should be paid equally, but that women shouldn't be looked down on for not getting married or getting married late in life, or deciding not to have children. It means that I believe a woman should have some say in what happens to her body when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth. I believe that little girls should not be resigned to playing with Barbies if they think toy cars are cooler. Some of my feminist concerns overlap with the concerns with others, and that's okay. I don't think little boys should be prevented from playing with Barbies, either. Also, shadowboxer's comments on her boxing experiences and the sexist comments made me think of how domestic abuse is seen. Domestic abuse against women is sickeningly common, but at the same time, women aren't seen as being strong enough to inflict damage on a man. The idea of a woman hitting a man is treated a lot more lightly than the idea of a man hitting a woman (the idea of a woman hitting a man is treated much the same these days as the references to spousal abuse were in those old Honeymooners episodes: light-hearted and ignorantly). That, in turn, hurts men who are in fact in physically abusive relationships with women, or who are injured by women who hit them, because they're taught that women aren't supposed to be strong enough to hurt them, and that being beaten by a woman is a sign of weakness, and perhaps because they're afraid they won't be taken seriously. So the concerns overlap, there.

Some feminists would jump on me for saying it, but I do think that some of the problems that face women in turn cause problems for men and other groups.

[quote:c213e4a754="BeautifulTroi"]Some feminists would jump on me for saying it, but I do think that some of the problems that face women in turn cause problems for men and other groups.[/quote:c213e4a754]

Oh but exactly! :) This is where gender studies have opened up new fields of inquiry not just into 'women's issues', such that looking at gender as the socially constructed roles of and social relations between men and women provides much deeper analysis. This explores how questions of masculinity and feminity are mutually-constituted and have impact on each other. So what you're saying is now generally agreed upon -- what affects women is invariably tied to men, and vice-versa, and feminist theory is now informed by a much more complex and nuanced approach to try to account for both. Yes, there are still concerns seeking to target the continued INEQUALITY whereby women suffer disproportionately in various fields. But what this implies for men is now increasingly factored into research.

As an example, we can consider the question of post-conflict reconstruction and the violence suffered by women. Typically studies have shown that women suffer more in conflict situations. However, new approaches seek to understand the implications for gender relations, not just 'women are harmed' and how. So, for instance, where men are expected to be the sole providers of their families, they are then under extreme pressure to do so lest they be shown to be ‘less than men’. In the event of conflict or economic crisis, if stripped of this ability, men themselves suffer greatly. This has been shown in some cases to contribute to patterns of violence and conflict -- where men respond to these pressures by feeding back into cycles of violence. In other words, constructed gender roles may harm not only women but men as well, and must be understood and questioned through community dialogue.

Does this make sense? :) The point is -- yes! We need to account for gender matters and therefore study men and constructions of masculinity along with women and femininity, if we are to aim toward feminist goals of justice and gender equality. We can't attain these if we just focus exclusively on women!!

[quote:cdd71d0e7c="koma"]Being for women's rights is sometimes to the detriment of other minorities.[/quote:cdd71d0e7c]

Well, I think that that depends on how you define "being for women's rights." At some points in the past, the feminist movement has been geared more towards "straight white upper class women's rights." That problem is being addressed by more recent waves of feminism, which I think are more inclusive. I personally see a natural overlap, but I think it is important to define myself as feminist, as well as anti-racist and a supporter of gay rights, because other people might support women's rights to some extent while still being homophobic, or support gay rights but not be feminist or antiracist.

I agree with those who say that sexism limits/hurts men, too, in terms of how they are taught and expected to act and express themselves.

Interesting topic. *Story time warning*

When I was younger (i.e. early to late teens), I fancied myself an activist. I went to animal rights days in Washington, DC. I called myself a feminist. I bought every book about women's sports that was ever published because I wanted to support women's sports, Title IX, etc. (now this purchasing power would be a feat, but "back then" women's sports books were few and far between).

Today, I still believe in all of those things but I don't label myself as such (unless pushed). I think this comes in part from terms like "feminist" being considered an insult as I left my teens and entered my twenties. A lot of the men/boys I used to know (my ex's friends) were sexist, racist, meat-consuming assholes who never missed an opportunity to make fun of people who weren't these things. Many of the prejudices were subtle, but many of them also were not ("do you know why women have small feet? So they can get closer to the stove when they're cooking my dinner" :roll: ). I think this influence led me to shy away from the overt "I'm a feminist" statements, and also as I came into my sexuality, I also discovered that there are more similarities than differences in the inequalities faced by all "minority" groups.

Therefore, I chose the human rights answer in the poll because I think that it all boils down to people in power or majorities taking advantage of their abilities to oppress other people. It's less about thinking women don't deserve the same opportunities, and more about thinking someone who is different than you doesn't deserve the same opportunities, or being able to get away with such things because, when it comes down to it, an oppressed group generally doesn't have the ability to overthrow a group in power (and they know it).

This is such a complex issue. We could discuss it for years. I told myself, McCool, just ignore this thread, just focus on your own work, but I’ve been thinking about it all day and now I have to write and get if off my mind

Koma, your post was unusually dwon beat for you and that made me sad. :( Feminism is a human rights issue and men still have the power, but we can’t rely on them to wake up, we have to shake it up ourselves. That’s where the fun part of being a feminist comes in. The early feminist in England had it tough, they would be considered terrorists today. They threw bombs at politicians and engaged in other acts of violence. Those ladies were hardcore. Because they scared the heck out the men for us, we get to do the fun stuff. Any woman who writes, sings, paints or tells jokes (etc) is a feminist. The media is still sorely lacking the perspective of women. Anyone who teaches girls or women is a feminist, anyone involved in the protection of the environment is a feminist, anyone who plays sports on a women’s team is a feminist. Feminism is hanging out with a large group of female friends and shooting the breeze (sound familiar?) These are just a few examples of how it’s easy and fun it is to be a feminist - it’s all about community and taking action on our own. It’s not all about protesting and writing letters and being angry at men. It’s about enjoying the company of women and trying to make the world a little more comfortable to live in for women.

Oh, all my comments refer to being a feminist in the US, it's awhole different ball game in a lot of other countries.

Sorry for making you sad. :(

I respectfully disagree with you, McCool. I don't think being a feminist is engaging in what should be normal, allowed behaviour like conversing, playing sports, and going to school. IMHO, "feminist", like all the other grrreat labels of the world :roll:, only means something when it is applied to (or by) that person.

If normal behaviour is considered feminism only because of the oppression of women, when does it cease to exist? It's fair to say that people will always be oppressed somewhere, sometime. If there's only one man in a knitting circle (heh) and he feels left out, does he suddenly become a "malinist"? Is there such a thing? At the risk of sounding insulting, I think embracing terms like feminist for every day behaviour is like giving in to the oppression, and saying that you'll never, ever be treated equally. But maybe you [i:2959bae455]are[/i:2959bae455] being treated equally, if only in that particular aspect of your life.

I do agree with you that we have to "shake it up ourselves", I just don't see that reflected in daily life so much as in some sort of activism (and it doesn't have to be angry letters... it can be a conscious decision to apply to a mostly-male university, or to tryout for the baseball team).

I guess that feminism, to me, is equated with activism on at least some level. :?

And this is why I always wait for koma to respond, because she almost always says what I feel, and it saves me from alot of typing :)

I hesitate to call myself a feminist (or any -ist) pretty much for the same reason I don't call myself African American; I feel like it... reduces me, somehow, if that makes any sense.

To further the discussion :wink: :

I don't think there's anything wrong with being angry. There are some things (like police departments that don't take reports of rape seriously, or unequal pay) that are worth being angry about.

I also don't think that being feminist has anything to do with disliking men. It is more about wanting women to be to have equal opportunities as men, and not accepting (in an effort not to appear angry) unequal treatment.

Having said that - I don't think that feminism necessarily means letter writing campaigns - I think that you can be a feminist based on every day actions. And I don't everyone who is or identifies as feminist goes around being angry.

I don't know if this is a change of topic or not (I'm hoping not), but what did people think about that article about Ariel Levy's new book, Female Chauvenist Pigs?

[url]http://www.afterellen.com/Print/2005/9/pigs.html[/url]

[quote:e6bb5f6e70]In Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, 30-year-old writer Ariel Levy asks whether the joke is on us when we make sex objects of ourselves and other women and view it as funny and brave. She argues that by being good sports and embracing what she calls “raunch culture,� women are confusing conformity with empowerment.[/quote:e6bb5f6e70]

I don't think I agree with her idea that bois (or lesbians and bi women in general) want to "be like men," but I do think she has a point about the objectification of women by women, and I feel like this relates somewhat to views of feminism in the lesbian and bi community.

[quote:3eb15c1455="wryterzblock"]And this is why I always wait for koma to respond, because she almost always says what I feel, and it saves me from alot of typing :)

I hesitate to call myself a feminist (or any -ist) pretty much for the same reason I don't call myself African American; I feel like it... reduces me, somehow, if that makes any sense.[/quote:3eb15c1455]

Heyyy, making me do all the work. ;) :P

I agree with you. I would much rather be known simply as a kind, thoughtful human being than as any "-ist". Our Utopian ideal is for everyone to be treated the same, and if that were to occur (and let's face it, it never will) then there would be no need for labels at all.

In other words, feminists believe in the advancement of women's rights, but I think as a human being I should believe in the advancement of ALL equal rights. That is what being human is to me (go ahead, call me a humanist :lol: ).

[quote:3eb15c1455="ronia"][quote:3eb15c1455]In Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, 30-year-old writer Ariel Levy asks whether the joke is on us when we make sex objects of ourselves and other women and view it as funny and brave. She argues that by being good sports and embracing what she calls “raunch culture,� women are confusing conformity with empowerment.[/quote:3eb15c1455]

I don't think I agree with her idea that bois (or lesbians and bi women in general) want to "be like men," but I do think she has a point about the objectification of women by women, and I feel like this relates somewhat to views of feminism in the lesbian and bi community.[/quote:3eb15c1455]

*Gigantic "hmmm"*

That's a toughy, but I personally think there's a difference between objectification and sexualization (if there is such a thing); i.e. it's a matter of crossing a line. Where lesbians are concerned, I think they have more leeway because they are more likely to understand that women can be appreciated as sexual beings without [i:3eb15c1455]only[/i:3eb15c1455] being "boobs and bums attached to a body." You know, 'cause they're women too. :P

Admittedly I don't have much experience with lesbians objectifying women... maybe they do, and I haven't seen it? :? But I think there's a danger zone when you start to desexualize and remove all mentions of sexuality and attraction because you're afraid of objectifying someone. It relates somewhat to the notion that feminists have to be ugly, unshowered, unkempt hippies for fear that they will be seen as attractive women (this is a somewhat outdated concept of feminism btw). The issue is not being sexy, the issue is when someone takes it too far, and I just haven't seen lesbians or bi women doing that.

Is objectification of women by lesbians REALLY a problem? *Wondering*

[quote:b223d8a893="koma"]But I think there's a danger zone when you start to desexualize and remove all mentions of sexuality and attraction because you're afraid of objectifying someone.[/quote:b223d8a893]

I'm not really adding anything to the argument here, but this reminds me of a quote from Alice Fisher in [i:b223d8a893]Esquire[/i:b223d8a893] magazine:

[quote:b223d8a893]In the Seventies, lesbianism was perceived as a feminist, political act by the burgeoning women's rights movement, and there were many rules to the sapphic sex act. To avoid the patriarchal power structure developing, lesbians weren't meant to maintain eye-contact, fetishise breasts or even permit one partner to get on top of the other. You have to admire these women for their principles and political commitment - even if it did mean that no-one came for an entire decade.[/quote:b223d8a893]

:lol: :lol:

(Frankly, I suspect the above account to be an exaggeration..... and I think you can get into a loooong argument over whether 'straight' women should be getting into lesbian relationships just to make a political point* :?.... .. (are you sure that the reason they weren't coming wasn't just that they weren't really into it ANYWAY??).......but.... but anyway, I kinda thought that quote was funny).

*Actually, to me, there isn't an argument there. Lesbianism is not something that should be 'used' as a vehicle for feminist politics. If you don't fancy women, you shouldn't sleep with them. I can't help wondering if a lot of the stereotypes that 'genuine' (ie innate) lesbians struggle with today..... that they're man-haters, that they're in some way being lesbians in reaction to men rather than through inborn love of women.... doesn't COME from a lot of feminists in the 70s who basically PROCLAIMED that that they were sleeping with women as part of an 'intellectual', political decision, because they thought it was a more equal relationship. And not because they just fancied women and couldn't help it. :irked: