The future of feminism?

cornflake · May 31, 2017

Without meaning to be lectury myself -- Anna's post struck me, in how different it is from Laer's.

LC -- I'm just trying to explain what you seem not to see that other people do. This, I think, might be a good example. Anna's post is discussing feminism, but it doesn't read as lecturing, pontificating or the like. Her post is more about linking her personal ideas to larger social discussion and asking questions that seem to arise out of that. Your post is more of a lecture -- this is feminism, there are black women who have it very bad; in China.... the only place you say I is in terms of you understood something then saw wider implications, which you outline in the same style, then say 'the feminist frontier is everywhere.'' Well gee, uhm, thanks?

Can you see how one post is more discussion-oriented, one is more pontificating? You do ask a question, but it reads like a teacher delivering a lecture about a basic subject and then asking the class 'so what do you think about communism [that I just explained to you?]' It's much more (from my reading of it) 'here, I bring you information; now that you've learned this, do you have further thoughts?'

I'm not trying to be harsh or anything -- you asked in the other post to explain how to spot what you're doing. This seemed like an example of what I believe other people are seeing in your posts that you're not.

kuwisdelu · May 31, 2017

Laer, you're certainly right about one thing: feminism certainly looks different to different cultures and different people.

I think if the future of feminism is anything, it has to be intersectional. People today are getting better at this. We're finally breaking down the idea that there is a singular shared experience of womanhood. It wasn't long ago that feminism was only for straight, white, able-bodied, cis women. Today, it can still be a struggle for trans women, women of color, and disabled women to have a voice.

But intersectionality is hard. It can often be difficult to find communities that are able to hold and give space for multiple identities at once, and there is push back against having too many identities, too many labels, too many genders.

I've been in too many situations where I've had to remind white women that their well-meaning critiques of gender roles in other cultures is, itself, culturally biased, and suggest maybe talking with women from that culture before judging it and assuming they know best. Culture and gender is complicated.

For me, the future of feminism is not having to choose between being a trans woman, or a Native woman, or an autistic woman, but being able to be all of those things at once, and people being able to respect all of those things at once.

It also feels frustrating that "professional woman" still feels like a whole different identity on top of those, that I'm not allowed to intermix either.

Laer Carroll · Jun 1, 2017

cornflake said:
Without meaning to be lectury myself -- Anna's post struck me, in how different it is from Laer's. … Her post is more about linking her personal ideas to larger social discussion and asking questions that seem to arise out of that. Your post is more of a lecture.

Thanks for the insight. The problem is still foggy for me, but I'm beginning to see it better. I've been trained by my work as a systems engineer to see the big overall picture and describe it in reports without personal bias. Lots of those descriptions ended up in reports to paying customers, including Congress persons. Lots of incentives to write them a certain way, creating habits that are hard to break. With occasional promptings by zanjan and others I'm trying to shift gears.

kuwisdelu said:
I think if the future of feminism is anything, it has to be intersectional. People today are getting better at this. We're finally breaking down the idea that there is a singular shared experience of womanhood. It wasn't long ago that feminism was only for straight, white, able-bodied, cis women.

I'd add RICH to those qualities, at least rich enough to be able to spend time organizing and demonstrating. That was the situation when I became an activist in the mid-60s. I've seen the situation improve in the years since then, but slowly. Poor black or Latin women, for instance, still have a hard time merely surviving. They don't have time or energy to be activists. This makes it harder for those of us who do have that time to understand the differently racial or gendered or able.

Anna Iguana said:
I do wonder … whether "feminism" will survive under its name, because of the "fem-" in its name.

Maybe the name will change because men are (very slowly) entering the ranks of femactivists as we come to understand that patriarchy hurts us as well as women, though less so and in different ways. I can't imagine that the word "maleism" is going to replace "feminism" however!

Venavis said:
My niece should be able to be in a STEM field without anyone telling her she can't because she is female, being ogled, or any other type of misogynistic behavior. Conversely, my nephew should be able to work as a teacher or a nurse without anyone treating him as less of a man for it. Both my niece and nephew should be able to have the hobbies of knitting, legos, sewing, hunting, dollmaking, karate, ballet, and playing video games without being treated badly because it doesn't fit their 'gender role'. A man able to cry without being judged as weak. A woman able to be angry without being dismissed as a bitch.

That remark about men crying hits home with me. When my wife and I lost our daughter she was able to mourn and adjust must faster than I did. It took me two years before I was able to shed even one tear for our horrible loss. Boys in the culture I grew up in are told so often and in so many ways that "big boys don't cry" that it becomes not only shameful but nearly impossible to weep.

Venavis said:
The end goal of feminism is a world in which gender is completely irrelevant when determining what a person does with their life and how they are treated.

We talk a lot about what "should" happen. But what WILL happen? And WHY?

I hope I don't come across as too lectury when I say that there are two powerful forces that will work to fight discrimination based on gender - and race, and social status, and immigration status.

One I mentioned already: that work depends more and more on brains than brawn and has since the 1800s. Muscle work has been replaced with machines, which must be controlled by brains.

I mentioned the second force in another post: knowledge is almost impossible to keep from spreading. It is invisible, weightless, can move at the speed of light, and can be copied without destroying the original. The world is bathed in knowledge nowadays. And the disadvantaged can soak it in and use it. This is why the Taliban, Boko Haram, and the like murder and mutilate women who seek an education. Or even use a smartphone. A smart knowledgeable woman is more dangerous to them than any weapon.

Venavis · Jun 1, 2017

Laer Carroll said:
We talk a lot about what "should" happen. But what WILL happen? And WHY?

A stable culture has no need for things like bigotry and patriarchy. You're seeing a resurgence of those behaviors right now because there are several forces at work to actively destabilize things because they gain a short term advantage by doing so.

Cultures that are more economically stable have less of that shit.

Unimportant · Jun 1, 2017

One of my colleagues has this great teaching exercise on intersectionality for first-year university students. She asks the class to list the stereotypes that are associated with black people (or, here, Maori) compared to white people. And the students come up with lazy vs hardworking, stupid vs smart, smelly versus non smelly, etc. Then she changes the black/white labels to poor and rich. Do the same lists apply? Then she changes the labels to fat/normal weight. Do the same lists apply? I sat in on her class and watched the light bulbs go off over the students' heads. It was fascinating.

Education and raising awareness is amazingly powerful.

Snitchcat · Jun 1, 2017

Laer Carroll said:
This makes it harder for those of us who do have that time to understand the differently racial or gendered or able.

Bolding mine.

I'm sure you mean well, but the bolded text... just... no. It's saying "White/Western/[insert your default ethnicity here] is the norm; all others are a deviation thereof".

I'm not sure "differently gendered" is okay either, but, I'm clueless there. Am I being over-cautious about this term, too?

Ari Meermans · Jun 1, 2017

Snitchcat said:
Bolding mine.

I'm sure you mean well, but the bolded text... just... no. It's saying "White/Western/[insert your default ethnicity here] is the norm; all others are a deviation thereof".

I'm not sure "differently gendered" is okay either, but, I'm clueless there. Am I being over-cautious about this term, too?

You know, I don't think you are. But I'm pretty sure Laer meant "different than our own" there. This is the reason I carp so much about precise and correct terminology all over the board. It's vital that we use accepted language. Sometimes, it's hard to come by, but we need to read, research, and strive to find that language.

kuwisdelu · Jun 2, 2017

Venavis said:
A stable culture has no need for things like bigotry and patriarchy. You're seeing a resurgence of those behaviors right now because there are several forces at work to actively destabilize things because they gain a short term advantage by doing so.

Cultures that are more economically stable have less of that shit.

I feel like that's quite a presumption. A stable culture could be patriarchal and full of bigotry and stay that way because the oppressed are pressured not to destabilize it by challenging that oppression. In fact, isn't that how it's been for most of history? Disrupting patriarchy and bigotry has been a destabilizing force for a long time.

Venavis · Jun 2, 2017

kuwisdelu said:
A stable culture could be patriarchal and full of bigotry and stay that way because the oppressed are pressured not to destabilize it by challenging that oppression.

You can't build a stable anything on shaky foundations. Said societies are, by their nature, inherently unstable because the oppressed eventually rise up. That is how it has been for most of history.

Anna Iguana · Jun 2, 2017

Venavis, an implication of your comment, as I understand it, is that history would be a linear, forward march toward greater equality. That's far from clear to me (and so, Laer, it's not clear to me that an intersectional-feminist future is assured). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

Some political scientists and historians use the concept of "stasis" to describe societies in balance (that is, not undergoing upheaval or revolution). I'd use stasis and your term, stable, as rough synonyms. Equality is only one possible way to achieve stasis; mutually reinforcing inequalities can act and counteract in ways that leave a society static--operating mostly the same--for a long, painful time.

Aggy B. · Jun 2, 2017

Anna Iguana said:
Venavis, an implication of your comment, as I understand it, is that history would be a linear, forward march toward greater equality. That's far from clear to me (and so, Laer, it's not clear to me that an intersectional-feminist future is assured). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

Some political scientists and historians use the concept of "stasis" to describe societies in balance (that is, not undergoing upheaval or revolution). I'd use stasis and your term, stable, as rough synonyms. Equality is only one possible way to achieve stasis; mutually reinforcing inequalities can act and counteract in ways that leave a society static--operating mostly the same--for a long, painful time.

Yes. And just because folks rise up to overthrow a particular system that is oppressive there is *no* guarantee that the system the revolution puts in place will be any better. (See: the history of England/Britain, post-colonial India, post-colonial China, South and Central America throughout the 20th century, Russia, France during the Napoleanic wars, etc etc etc.) It is entirely possible for an oppressed group to create a similarly repressive regime with no break in between. And certain groups of people (women, PoC, LGBTQAI, the disabled, folks with mental health struggles) tend to struggle under any regime that does not have (or at least strive for) equality.

Patriarchy can be undone, but it is such an integral part of so many systems in the world right now that moving toward equality is difficult because even the most liberal movements still tend to be tainted by centuries of destructive social norms. (Thanks to colonialism, this happens even in places where there were different cultural structures more recently than there have been in "Western" culture.)

Snitchcat · Jun 2, 2017

Post-colonial China? Were you referring to HK and Macau? Those are specific areas that are still "separate entities" (though Macau prefers to be back with China).

"Post-colonial SARs" is probably better.

SAR = Special Administrative Region.

Aggy B. · Jun 2, 2017

Snitchcat said:
Post-colonial China? Were you referring to HK and Macau? Those are specific areas that are still "separate entities" (though Macau prefers to be back with China).

"Post-colonial SARs" is probably better.

SAR = Special Administrative Region.

I was thinking more of the British decision to trade opium for goods from China. A decision which would eventually influence the rise of Mao as China sought to distance itself from the corruption of the West. (Which in turn led to re-education, and the internment of intellectuals as political prisoners who were seen as operatives for the West.) The fact that the British never established a proper colony on the mainland did not mean the effects of their efforts to colonize were not destructive or that there was no backlash against those attempts.

Of course, Taiwan - a holdover from the traditional, pre-Communist government in China - has hardly been a bastion of personal freedom either. So, again. Alternatives to repressive regimes are not always less repressive/better, just different. And stability achieved through oppression does not always lead to equality when it eventually is overthrown.

Venavis · Jun 2, 2017

Anna Iguana said:
Venavis, an implication of your comment, as I understand it, is that history would be a linear, forward march toward greater equality.

No, because there are always sociopaths and those of a similar ilk who wish to gain power for themselves. But in a more stable society, they have less opportunity to do so. There are safeguards in place to prevent such abuses. Those do, sadly, sometimes fail, and there are always outside forces that such scumbags can take advantage of, such as natural disasters. That prevents progress from being linear, but it is occurring. Much slower than I'd prefer and here in the US strides are definitely being taken in the wrong direction, but the simple fact that there is considerable outcry against those strides is giving me hope.

In a truly economically stable society, no one would starve to death or otherwise perish because they cannot afford to have their basic needs met.

kuwisdelu · Jun 2, 2017

Venavis said:
In a truly economically stable society, no one would starve to death or otherwise perish because they cannot afford to have their basic needs met.

That makes no sense to me when it's perfectly possible to legislate oppression regardless of economic stability. It doesn't matter if I can financially afford an abortion or hormone therapy or surgery if it's difficult or impossible to obtain those things legally.

Anna Iguana · Jun 2, 2017

Thank you for explaining, Venavis, and I'm not trying further to persuade you. My experiences of psychology, politics, and people suggest a different view. Most people (not just sociopaths) tend to adapt to whatever they have, and want novelty and/or more. It's how our brain chemistry works. Most people aren't satisfied for long by a stable, fair allocation of resources, so communities with such allocations seem unlikely to be stable and persist.

Venavis · Jun 2, 2017

kuwisdelu said:
That makes no sense to me when it's perfectly possible to legislate oppression regardless of economic stability. It doesn't matter if I can financially afford an abortion or hormone therapy or surgery if it's difficult or impossible to obtain those things legally.

I agree. And those things being impossible to obtain legally is part of what makes a society unstable economically, particularly for women. If a single misstep can send you crashing down, then clearly there are instabilities.

Anna Iguana said:
Thank you for explaining, Venavis, and I'm not trying further to persuade you. My experiences of psychology, politics, and people suggest a different view. Most people (not just sociopaths) tend to adapt to whatever they have, and want novelty and/or more. It's how our brain chemistry works.

I won't play the who has better credentials game here, but this is not an opinion I came by from nothing. However, I think it is possible we are having separate conversations.

Most people aren't satisfied for long by a stable, fair allocation of resources, so communities with such allocations seem unlikely to be stable and persist.

Regardless, things like a social safety net, making sure people don't go hungry or die for want of available medication and are judged on their merits rather than their gender or skin color seems a worthy goal. I can only hope that the human race grows up enough to work toward such a society. Then, perhaps, we can test our respective theories.

Anna Iguana · Jun 2, 2017

Venavis said:
Regardless, things like a social safety net, making sure people don't go hungry or die for want of available medication and are judged on their merits rather than their gender or skin color seems a worthy goal.

I have never argued otherwise, anywhere, and it seems insulting or irrelevant for you to conflate this position with the position you've been arguing 'til now. You'd been making a claim, as far as two of us could see, not about what should happen, but about what would happen.

Venavis said:
I won't play the who has better credentials game here

Oh, good, because nobody brought up that game but you.

mccardey · Jun 2, 2017

Venavis said:
Regardless, things like a social safety net, making sure people don't go hungry or die for want of available medication and are judged on their merits rather than their gender or skin color seems a worthy goal. I can only hope that the human race grows up enough to work toward such a society. Then, perhaps, we can test our respective theories.

Never mind all that - what about women-only screenings of action movies? :e2faint:

Venavis · Jun 2, 2017

Anna Iguana said:
I have never argued otherwise, anywhere, and it seems insulting or irrelevant for you to conflate this position with the position you've been arguing 'til now. You'd been making a claim, as far as two of us could see, not about what should happen, but about what would happen.

Oh, good, because nobody brought up that game but you.

I am done.

Venavis · Jun 2, 2017

mccardey said:
Never mind all that - what about women-only screenings of action movies?

I'm clutching my pearls! Someone, bring me a fainting couch!

Laer Carroll · Jun 2, 2017

Ari Meermans said:
… This is the reason I carp so much about precise and correct terminology all over the board. It's vital that we use accepted language.

I'm a member of or contribute monthly to over a dozen different organizations which support efforts to fight discrimination of any kind. But it seems to me that we need some kind of umbrella organization to help us coordinate our efforts. Nothing very formal perhaps, or prescriptive. But some way to stand together.

Because as Franklin said, "We must hang together or we'll hang separately."

A common vocabulary might help create that. Perhaps we could retire "minority" since women are a majority by a few percent. "Disadvantaged" is more inclusive, but it's a bit clumsy. Maybe a substitute for LGBTT2QQIIAAP which is an example of an acronym getting way out of hand.

Anna Iguana said:
Laer, it's not clear to me that an intersectional-feminist future is assured. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

No, you're not. I just wasn't clear. I identified two forces that point in that direction. But there are lots of historical forces operating toward that direction AND resisting it.

One of them is science fiction. It speculates about the many different possible futures and can help people choose some over others.

Aggy B. said:
It is entirely possible for an oppressed group to create a similarly repressive regime with no break in between.

Absolutely. You mentioned several. I'd add to a very recent set: many of those arising from the "Arabic Spring." And Syria, where the forces opposing Assad are as cruel and regressive as his bunch are.

Helix · Jun 2, 2017

Laer, you seem to always return to a few examples -- Pakistan, Syria, and other countries in the same region. It might be of benefit to expand your horizons. At the moment, it looks as though you're stuck in a particular chasm, with no interest in climbing out.

kuwisdelu · Jun 2, 2017

Laer Carroll said:
I'm a member of or contribute monthly to over a dozen different organizations which support efforts to fight discrimination of any kind. But it seems to me that we need some kind of umbrella organization to help us coordinate our efforts. Nothing very formal perhaps, or prescriptive. But some way to stand together.

Because as Franklin said, "We must hang together or we'll hang separately."

While working together is important, an "umbrella organization" sounds like bureaucracy, which seems antithetical to to the goals of activism.

A common vocabulary might help create that. Perhaps we could retire "minority" since women are a majority by a few percent. "Disadvantaged" is more inclusive, but it's a bit clumsy. Maybe a substitute for LGBTT2QQIIAAP which is an example of an acronym getting way out of hand.

I often say "marginalized peoples".

When I do say "minority", I often say "underrepresented minorities", which is an important distinction. For example, US universities often tout "diversity" by pointing to their population of international students while ignoring underrepresented minorities domestically. International students are often minorities, but they are rarely underrepresented on college campuses.

As a sidenote...

"An umbrella organization." "A common vocabulary."

These are things which would make things easier for outsiders, so I understand why they are appealing. But I also can't but help but notice and feel like they're also indicative to a certain mindset.

People who rail against "political correctness" often ask for rules, and criticize how it's so hard to know what's right and isn't right when it comes to respecting women and underrepresented minorities. Because context is so important. Because we have too many identities. Because change is hard.

I don't remember if it's in this thread or the cultural appropriation one, but someone pointed out how marginalized peoples have to be familiar with the customs and expectations of the majority, but the majority doesn't have to be familiar with the customs and expectations of the minority.

And that's part of the point of intersectional feminism. That it isn't easy, and there can't always be common rules. There can't even always be common vocabulary, because context always matters. The LGBTQ+ community is a perfect example of this. The choice of whether to use the word "queer" or not depends completely on one's audience. If you don't know what pronoun to use, then ask before presuming.

Women and underrepresented minorities often don't have the luxury of assuming. We have to learn to speak the language of the oppressor, and adapt to his expectations. We have to constantly question and interrogate the situation.

I think a major goal of intersectionality is leveling that playing field. Allies are used to feeling safe, and want to know "the rules" for what to do to be a good ally. But it can never be that simple, and I think understanding that is step 1 in being a good ally.

I think part of becoming a good ally is becoming comfortable with that discomfort of having to constantly re-evaluate, re-assess, and re-learn.

mccardey · Jun 2, 2017

kuwisdelu said:
I think part of becoming a good ally is becoming comfortable with that discomfort of having to constantly re-evaluate, re-assess, and re-learn.

To carry our own discomfort is one of the first tasks an ally has to accept. We kick against it because we're used to being sure that our view is the only view.

The future of feminism?

practical experience, FTW

Revolutionize the World

Aerospace engineer turned writer

Semi-benevolent overlord

No COVID yet. Still masking.

Dragon-kitty.

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter

Revolutionize the World

Semi-benevolent overlord

reading all the things

Not as sweet as you think

Dragon-kitty.

Not as sweet as you think

Semi-benevolent overlord

Revolutionize the World

reading all the things

Semi-benevolent overlord

reading all the things

Semi-benevolent overlord

Semi-benevolent overlord

Aerospace engineer turned writer

socially distancing

Revolutionize the World