Feminism

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Elenka
The fastest runners in my grade are all girls.

Hear, hear!!
(Note to Mooters: I'm on my school's cross-country running team. Enough said. )

And what was that about a challenge? Heaven knows I like them.

But granted, many people do take it too far. When anything remotely male-oriented pops up, I know people who will sjump on the words and miss the meaning. Exempli gratia: "Herstory."
My history class really is "his story" because the textbook, research info, and the whole damn nine yards were written by middle-age white males, but that's beside the point. When people show disrespect for males in order to hike up female rights, it's pointless, and just as unfair.

Methinks equality is an empty dream, but oh how I like to dream it.

[crickhollow]

The feminist movement had its place. Emphasis on the word had.

[Elenka]

I suspect a lot of anti-feminists here....

[Wayfarer]

Pointed question:

Why is it that women who call themselves 'feminists' are so interested in masculine endeavors?

[mirrille]

I suspect because they don't subscribe to the rather silly notion that so many of the traditionally "masculine" activities are really all that masculine after all. It's rather intuitive if you think about it for a few seconds. I don't think that my genitalia are really a factor in how good I am in say, business, politics, law, medicine, scientific research. In fact, it would be safe to say that an overemphasis on genitalia in ANY of those fields will get you into trouble very quickly, unless you are a doctor or scientist and that happens to be your area of specialization, but even then, you have to be very professional and nonjudgmental about it.

[BeardofPants]

Bravo, Mirrille!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Pointed question:

Why is it that women who call themselves 'feminists' are so interested in masculine endeavors?

Because they were denied to us for so long!

[crickhollow]

ok, new question: We've got this whole war-with-Iraq thing looming on the horizon. IF America were to reinstate the draft, do you think that it ought to include women as well?

[Wayfarer]

Youre right, mirelle, let me put it the other way.

Why is it that people who call themselves femenists are so against feminity?

The original example-being insulted by the word 'girl'. Can someone who dislikes being referred to as female really be called a feminist?

[Lizra]

Oh yes! I am a very girly girl type! But I easily call myself a feminist. Lots of lesbians are/were very vocal in the feminist movement (they had to put up with double anti-woman stuff), so this is probably where you might get the notion that all feminists are "butchy", but that's not true. Many women my age aren't embarrassed to call themselves feminists, but it seems to have become a dirty word now. I just don't want to be told to be quiet and make the coffee and do the housework! It really was BAD back in the early sixties, and it was quite a "battle" to get to where we are today. Similar to the plight of blacks in the past, the strories of how bad it was seem unbelievable today! Unfortunately they were actually even worse! (in my opinion)

[osszie]

The idea (belief, theory, philosophy, etc.) that women should be given just as many opportunities as men to make the same stupid mistakes.

[Elenka]

Originally posted by osszie
The idea (belief, theory, philosophy, etc.) that women should be given just as many opportunities as men to make the same stupid mistakes.

Hmm. Interesting way of putting it.

[mirrille]

I think the whole "femininity" thing is very artificial, or at least depends heavily on culture and upbringing. What is considered feminine in one culture may be considered masculine or neutral in another (and vice versa, or course.) I think that in our culture, "femininity" entails a large dose of weakness and subservience, as females are considered the "gentler" or "weaker" sex. This a large part of the problem. If you spent a lifetime being told by other people that you were weaker and therefore were destined to a lifetime of disenfranchisement, wouldn't you rebel against the stereotype?
To make a point of it, my grandparents are still of the belief that my worth as a person will be largely dependent on how well I marry. My grandmother has told me bluntly that the most important thing in life for a girl is to be beautiful - i.e. to be beautiful to men, and for that reason. I don't resent her for it, because that is what she was brought up to believe. In her day, that's what it meant to be female. But I reject that view because I find that to be a very narrow, empty sort of existence. I know that I am a smart, capable individual who can do much better than that if given the slightest chance, and anybody who uses an artificial measure of "femininity" to hold me back can just get ready for disappointment. I am myself, and I have characteristics that may or may not conform to some outside view of what a female should be. I've often been accused of being "girly" or even "dainty" , but in most cases it's been in reference to how I dress, talk, move, smile, etc. I'm not ashamed of that, because that's part of who I am, but by the same token, I am not ashamed of my personal characteristics that do NOT conform to the stereotype- e.g. my choice of career, hobbies, etc. I refuse to be bounded by a stereotype, and I suspect that most other people who reject the concept of "femininity" as a model for proper female behaviour and lifestyle have a similar motivation for doing so.

[jerseydevil]

Going back to the discussion of "girl", I knew someone that was always extremely offended when I referred to people of the female gender above the age of 18 as girls. I didn't do it in a demeaning way, but society has put underlying meanings with many words. Maybe this is going a bit far - but woman has always seemed to contain a sexual undertone, where as lady seems to always bring about images of woman in white gloves. I never used girl in a deragatory way - but she always gave me a speech on how men aren't called boys. To me it was just a word. My mother was a very strong person - and I am in no way sexist.

On the topic of woman being able to do everything men can do. No one should be prevented from persuing their dreams. At the same time - requirements should not be lowered. In the US fire departments have actually lowered the strength requirement in order to get more female firefighters. We're talking about people's lives here. Firefighters need to go into burning buildings and possibly carry people out. If they are unable to perform this job - male or female - they should not be in that profession. I can not be a NBA basketball player nor can I be in the Philharmonic Orchestra. Not that I had any asperations to be either one - but people have to accept the fact that they can not always do what they would like to do. Just look at the number of people that strive to be stars and how few there actually are.

Feminism has gone way too far. No one should be discriminated against, but at the same time special treatment shouldn't be given. To me being given it is just as insulting, because it means you were unable to accomplish it on your own merits. I used to work with someone who I am friends with, she is a black woman. She was actually moved from one division to our division because of quotas. I used to tease her about how she filled two quota requirements by being a black woman.

A couple of weeks ago I did get into an argument with my brother's friend from Georgia concerning the golf course controversy that didn't allow women members. He said women should be kept out and I argued that they shouldn't be prevented from joining. His argument was that he had no desire to join and most woman would have no desire to join the golf club. I pointed out to him that at least he had a choice of joining or not. A woman has no choice in the matter since they are barred from joining. He actually told me afterward that he had changed his mind on the matter and my argument made sense. I still don't understand why he felt that his desire or lack thereof to join a club would have any bearing on why someone else should be allowed or not allowed to join.

[Elenka]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
At the same time - requirements should not be lowered. In the US fire departments have actually lowered the strength requirement in order to get more female firefighters. We're talking about people's lives here. Firefighters need to go into burning buildings and possibly carry people out. If they are unable to perform this job - male or female - they should not be in that profession

There is something I'll agree with. We shouldn't lower our standards-instead we should not discourage any type of people from trying. If women need to work harded for something like that, so be it. Just don't disourage them or say they can't.

[mirrille]

Very few people I know would be offended by being called a "girl", although I can completely understand why in certain contexts, it might be offensive. 18 is as good a cutoff as any, I suppose. As an example, a general rule would be to not refer to women as "girls" (i.e. children) in any professional setting. It's demeaning. What you call your friends is totally between you and your friends, and always only use what they are comfortable with. Different people have different comfort levels and sensibilities. I'm over 18, but I rarely mind being called a "girl" because I know I look young for my age. I still get mistaken for 16. Fair enough...
As an example of how things can go wrong, I did remember watching the news and seeing this Aboriginal chief being interviewed over some casino controversy - involving location, planning, irate neighbors etc.. And what stuck for me was that this reporter was trying to ask him some hard questions that he obviously didn't want to answer. In reply, he addressed her as "young lady" and then dismissed her question. My immediate reaction was a big "oooooooohhhh...that is sooooo bad." Because of how he said it and how it was obviously a dismissal. Because she was a professional doing her job and he addressed her as you would a 14 yr old who did something naughty. I guess you had to hear it to catch the nuance, but it looked very bad . Well, it was downright rude. In contrast, calling her Miss so-and-so or a simple "miss" or "ma'am" would have been more polite, and is the standard for that kind of interaction.(i find in the US, people are much more likely to call me ma'am, which I find somewhat amusing - Here, it's more a term reserved for married women. You'd have to look pretty matronly or have a baby in tow before anyone could safely use it on you - but that's another discussion. ) So again, it's not the fact that he referred to her as a female that was bad. It was the fact that her referred to her as a child.
About the firefighter thing, I don't think standards should be lowered either, but I do think that recruitment should be opened up to both sexes. I mean, if the requirement is that you have to be able to haul a 400lb person down 20 flights of stairs, then that requirement is there for a good reason. And any person, man or woman, who can pass the standard physical is good enough for the service. As far as I know, that's the way it works in Vancouver, although it might be a more recent development. But I think that's as it should be. Still not very many women in the fire department, but the option is open to anyone who wants to try. The good thing is that you can train for a physical test like that and if you work at it enough, you can pass. It's harder to get a sex change just so you can fulfill the requirement of being a man, and a sex change doesn't make you a better firefighter.

[crickhollow]

This summer I held an intern position in the HR dept. of an oil refinery. They had quotas to fill as well. In some of the more physical jobs in the refinery, they have women working who can't do the job. They are just not strong enough. Instead of transferring them to another unit, they are kept there, but the men on the crew have to take up the slack. How unfair!

[mirrille]

I ahbore these unfair quotas.
But rather than using them as an argument against equality, as is common among people who can't think, we should be using them as an argument against discrimination (racial, sexual, religious etc. )in all its incarnations. The quotas that you mention are a blatant form of discrimination, the very injustice that they seek to correct.

[Aeryn]

Okay I'm all for equal oppurtunities for women, races BLAH BLAH BLAH
I personally think that women who strive to be equal with men lack ambition.
Women are unique, beautiful in their own right (Men too are beautiful *ergh*), I think that all this b****ing about not having equal oppurtunity stems more from a persons perspective than anything else.
Yes, it was bad back 'in-the-day' but that is just what it was BACK in its own time. Times have changed, and will continue to change. If everthing and everybody keeps trying to conform to what everyone wants...where will WE as a people be?

[Sween]

i better not make a comment on this or ill have women comming to linch me and not in the good way