Is there an oversight by feminist upon societal bias towards female sexuality? (1 Viewer)

[Hypersonic]

First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women), journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women). I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

 

[Paschendale]

Declaring a position to be insufficient because it is not all-encompassing is an empty cop out to discredit a legitimate enterprise. No movement ever involves every possible aspect. The racial equality movements of the 1960's didn't address every single problem for all blacks, nor for all races. That hardly makes it an invalid endeavor. Feminism is a perfectly legitimate movement. You can take issue with any individual parts of it that you like, but the "it doesn't include everything" is a meaningless argument to make.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women), journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women). I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

Plenty of feminists do. As you yourself have pointed out, there's lots of kinds of feminists. Saying you don't support "feminism" is almost meaningless, and it's also really silly considering that you're obviously aware feminism isn't just one thing.

I do, plenty of other feminists here do, and so no, I don't think this is an oversight by "feminism." Plenty of feminists do pay attention to these issues.

 

[Hypersonic]

Declaring a position to be insufficient because it is not all-encompassing is an empty cop out to discredit a legitimate enterprise. No movement ever involves every possible aspect. The racial equality movements of the 1960's didn't address every single problem for all blacks, nor for all races. That hardly makes it an invalid endeavor. Feminism is a perfectly legitimate movement. You can take issue with any individual parts of it that you like, but the "it doesn't include everything" is a meaningless argument to make.

The above bold is actually a cop out. There is a huge difference between civil rights and the women's suffrage movement. A big factor is that blacks were enslaved for centuries and had no rights. White women did....See the following

Racial equality addressed the idea of "white racism" in the United States which was displayed by the numerous lynchings, Jim Crow, lack of voting rights, inter-racial marriages (See Emmit Till--he was killed for whistling at a white woman), blacks being told to enter the back of the building. The civil rights era not only addressed racism which was acted out against people of color but it challenged the racial bias (noticed the keyword "bias") of the majority which was fashioned since the creation of the United States. With respect to the woman's suffrage movement, it developed to combat white male patriarchy, and it did not address the issues that women of color faced. If any philosophy that is based on equality of the sexes then it would be feminism. I do not think feminism serves as a template of equality because there are plenty societal arenas where there is outright sexual discrimination against men and there aren't many feminist that speak out against it.

 

[Hypersonic]

Plenty of feminists do. As you yourself have pointed out, there's lots of kinds of feminists. Saying you don't support "feminism" is almost meaningless, and it's also really silly considering that you're obviously aware feminism isn't just one thing.

I do, plenty of other feminists here do, and so no, I don't think this is an oversight by "feminism." Plenty of feminists do pay attention to these issues.

When I say I don't support feminist I do not support any philosophy that has a schism just as I do not support any religious philosophy that claims to be universally applicable, yet also has divisions from within for example I do not believe in Islam as its idea of theology has several variations from within (Shia and Sunni come to mind as an example). If something is universally true, I don't believe it would have division from within its philosophy. I support the idea of feminism but I do not support it in its current state.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

When I say I don't support feminist I do not support any philosophy that has a schism just as I do not support any religious philosophy that claims to be universally applicable, yet also has divisions from within for example I do not believe in Islam as its idea of theology has several variations from within (Shia and Sunni come to mind as an example). If something is universally true, I don't believe it would have division from within its philosophy.

Different branches of feminism are, essentially, different philosophies all together.

You have a "religious philosophy" by the rejection of religion. You have an idea about what religion is and what it does.

 

[Hypersonic]

Different branches of feminism are, essentially, different philosophies all together.

You have a "religious philosophy" by the rejection of religion. You have an idea about what religion is and what it does.

Yes but anything universal does not have branches...That is my point.

For example I have an idea about equality, in that I believe all human beings should not be denied nor restrained what they aspire less it is something that harms another. This idea of thought encompasses the right to vote, the right to sell one's body (unless he or she aspires to infect others intentionally), the right to do drugs etc. I firmly believe if the idea of feminism is to address societal patriarchy, and to develop equality among the sexes, then it should address all aspects that effect women AND men, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic. I guess when it comes to feminism, I take an analytic and philosophic approach as to how it addresses women and society. A minor example who be societal expectations of men and women. I mentioned earlier how in sports journalism, men are not allowed to go in the female changing rooms yet women are allowed to go into male changing rooms. some may see that as an arbitrary example but it seems that society tends to oversexualize the female body and create rules for men and not for women. The same can be said about defending oneself. It's socially unacceptable for a man to hit a woman (even if he is legitimatelly defending himself), but its ok for a woman to hit a man because women are biologically weaker.

 

[Fiddytree]

Contradictions are part of every movement, part of every philosophy. In fact, having a unified, fully consistent ideology would have actually been detrimental to the cause. For many of the benefits women finally justly earned, it was on behalf of a modified patriarchy. The reforms were good and just, but it still objectified women to a "natural role." All that changed was the surrounding rationale to what was needing to be done.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by: "rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development." Was it more appropriate in that it was typically more limited in scope? Was it appropriate because it held no contradictions? Was it more appropriate because you seem to think it was more universal? Each potential conclusion would be rightly critiqued by any women's, political, and/or gender historian.

 

[Fiddytree]

With respect to the woman's suffrage movement, it developed to combat white male patriarchy, and it did not address the issues that women of color faced.

Well, not really. It claimed to do so, but it was rather more limited than that. It really centered on the white upper and middle class, and not on the working class, destitute, or immigrant classes. It also claimed to service the working and other classes, but through the lens of the middle or upper class woman, so not really there either. It would be pretty hard to ignore the xenophobic and class-drenched commentary of the mainstream movement. This is why a Marxist feminist critique of white upper-middle class first and second wave feminism somewhat thrived.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Yes but anything universal does not have branches...That is my point.

For example I have an idea about equality, in that I believe all human beings should not be denied nor restrained what they aspire less it is something that harms another. This idea of thought encompasses the right to vote, the right to sell one's body (unless he or she aspires to infect others intentionally), the right to do drugs etc. I firmly believe if the idea of feminism is to address societal patriarchy, and to develop equality among the sexes, then it should address all aspects that effect women AND men, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic. I guess when it comes to feminism, I take an analytic and philosophic approach as to how it addresses women and society. A minor example who be societal expectations of men and women. I mentioned earlier how in sports journalism, men are not allowed to go in the female changing rooms yet women are allowed to go into male changing rooms. some may see that as an arbitrary example but it seems that society tends to oversexualize the female body and create rules for men and not for women. The same can be said about defending oneself. It's socially unacceptable for a man to hit a woman (even if he is legitimatelly defending himself), but its ok for a woman to hit a man because women are biologically weaker.

And the way doesn't have a nose. Your first statemement makes as much sense as this.

It is very easy to include these examples under feminism in a variety of different ways, including yours. You can even include it more directly by means of ethical responsibility within movements, or indirect sexism, and probably other ways.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes but anything universal does not have branches...That is my point.

For example I have an idea about equality, in that I believe all human beings should not be denied nor restrained what they aspire less it is something that harms another. This idea of thought encompasses the right to vote, the right to sell one's body (unless he or she aspires to infect others intentionally), the right to do drugs etc. I firmly believe if the idea of feminism is to address societal patriarchy, and to develop equality among the sexes, then it should address all aspects that effect women AND men, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic. I guess when it comes to feminism, I take an analytic and philosophic approach as to how it addresses women and society. A minor example who be societal expectations of men and women. I mentioned earlier how in sports journalism, men are not allowed to go in the female changing rooms yet women are allowed to go into male changing rooms. some may see that as an arbitrary example but it seems that society tends to oversexualize the female body and create rules for men and not for women. The same can be said about defending oneself. It's socially unacceptable for a man to hit a woman (even if he is legitimatelly defending himself), but its ok for a woman to hit a man because women are biologically weaker.

Nothing is universal. You always have people who zig when others zag. Name one religion, one political movement, one philosophy that is universal.

 

[Hypersonic]

Contradictions are part of every movement, part of every philosophy. In fact, having a unified, fully consistent ideology would have actually been detrimental to the cause. For many of the benefits women finally justly earned, it was on behalf of a modified patriarchy. The reforms were good and just, but it still objectified women to a "natural role." All that changed was the surrounding rationale to what was needing to be done.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by: "rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development." Was it more appropriate in that it was typically more limited in scope? Was it appropriate because it held no contradictions? Was it more appropriate because you seem to think it was more universal? Each potential conclusion would be rightly critiqued by any women's, political, and/or gender historian.

Ok...White men were a privileged bunch. The women's movement was more about white women's rights than about people of color. Which is why you have black feminist like Angela Davis and co. Who highlights the struggle of white male patriarchy and racism. Women of color experience not only racism, but sexism. The first wave of the women's suffrage movement didn't address that. That is what I mean

 

[Hypersonic]

Nothing is universal. You always have people who zig when others zag. Name one religion, one political movement, one philosophy that is universal.

If nothing is universal, then feminism is null and void, because the main goal in feminism is equality.

 

[Hypersonic]

And the way doesn't have a nose. Your first statemement makes as much sense as this.

It is very easy to include these examples under feminism in a variety of different ways, including yours. You can even include it more directly by means of ethical responsibility within movements, or indirect sexism, and probably other ways.

My approach is like MLK's, when he speaks on the content of one's character as oppose to one's color. A philosophy on equality has no schism, and if it does its not universal

 

[CLAX1911]

If nothing is universal, then feminism is null and void, because the main goal in feminism is equality.

Name one thing that is universal.

Why does something have to be universal to matter?

 

[Fiddytree]

Ok...White men were a privileged bunch. The women's movement was more about white women's rights than about people of color. Which is why you have black feminist like Angela Davis and co. Who highlights the struggle of white male patriarchy and racism. Women of color experience not only racism, but sexism. The first wave of the women's suffrage movement didn't address that. That is what I mean

Okay, but the women's suffrage movement from the conservatives to the more radical Alice Paul concentrated on the white middle and upper classes. So I do not see your analysis as all that spot-on, let alone the ultimate conclusion you bring forth.

 

[SassySmartie]

First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women), journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women). I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

For starters, many of the double standards you've cited are directly related to the societal gender roles that women are weak. Feminism does not endorse that view and did not create those double standards.

 

[SassySmartie]

Ok...White men were a privileged bunch. The women's movement was more about white women's rights than about people of color. Which is why you have black feminist like Angela Davis and co. Who highlights the struggle of white male patriarchy and racism. Women of color experience not only racism, but sexism. The first wave of the women's suffrage movement didn't address that. That is what I mean

And that is why feminism continues to progress and change and has included women of color and other marginalized disadvantaged groups such as the LGBT community.

The movement may have started with white, middle class women, who would of course not be aware of the plight of women of color. Women of color brought their struggle to light and now most modern feminists recognize the intersectionality of people, which can include their gender, race, sex, socio-economic status, able-bodied-ness and how each individual experiences life in our society through the lenses of their own experiences.

You keep referencing the first wave of feminism, why have you failed to educate yourself about modern feminist ideals?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

My approach is like MLK's, when he speaks on the content of one's character as oppose to one's color. A philosophy on equality has no schism, and if it does its not universal

So do many feminists.

Keep in mind, being a feminist is not mutually exclusive with being pro-equal rights in any other way.

If you ask me what my position is specifically on women's rights, I will tell you I'm a modified first-wave feminist.

If you ask me what I am in general, I'm a fan of the MLK-style meritocracy (which is to say, it doesn't matter what your good at, and your worth shouldn't be judged on what it is; only that you do it).

 

[ChunkySalsa]

First and foremost I would like to add that I am personally against feminism due to the idea that feminism does not universally address the problems of all women (hence the notion of Black Feminist, Muslim Feminist etc), rather I believe the women's suffrage movement was more appropriately in addressing the sexism portrayed by white patriarchy in its time of development. According to some feminist, feminist philosophy is about equality and about challenging patriarchy, however despite this noble cause, feminism does not challenge notions of social biases towards women such as child support (which displays a clear bias towards women), journalism (male reporters are barred from entering the locker rooms of female athletes, but women aren't), and societal depictions of female frailty (men shouldn't hit women, but men are expected to take assaults from women). I've even seen some hardcore feminist (most notably Catherine Mackinnon) assert that softcore pronography objectifies women, and that male objectification is not objectification because pornography is about enticing men and satisfying patriarchy

I would like any self-acclaimed feminist if they would, address some societal double standards that feminism does not address?

So you're anti-feminism because you tripped on basic logic and fell headfirst into the Perfect Solution Fallacy? Bully for bull**** justifications and half-assed rationalization.

 

[Hypersonic]

And that is why feminism continues to progress and change and has included women of color and other marginalized disadvantaged groups such as the LGBT community.

The movement may have started with white, middle class women, who would of course not be aware of the plight of women of color. Women of color brought their struggle to light and now most modern feminists recognize the intersectionality of people, which can include their gender, race, sex, socio-economic status, able-bodied-ness and how each individual experiences life in our society through the lenses of their own experiences.

You keep referencing the first wave of feminism, why have you failed to educate yourself about modern feminist ideals?

I haven't failed to educate myself, I just believe if the core philosophy of an ideal is based on equality, then it would also include men. Feminism doesn't. Feminism is about uplifting women. I don't subscribe to any philosophy that demonstrates bias at the expense of other people.

When male sports journalist are barred from female changing rooms not only are such restrictions counter-productive, but it oversexualizes the female body which no contemporary feminist today has spoken out against. Why is it that a naked man's body is ok to display or seen by a female journalist but a woman's isn't? To me a feminist would speak out against it.

So alas, any universal philosophy based on equality that has to progress is not universal at all.

 

[Hypersonic]

So do many feminists.

Keep in mind, being a feminist is not mutually exclusive with being pro-equal rights in any other way.

If you ask me what my position is specifically on women's rights, I will tell you I'm a modified first-wave feminist.

If you ask me what I am in general, I'm a fan of the MLK-style meritocracy (which is to say, it doesn't matter what your good at, and your worth shouldn't be judged on what it is; only that you do it).

But unfortunately meritocracy does not exist and if it does, it is localized not universal. I am a black man, and a graduate student, and in many areas of the united states regardless of being highly educated, my skin pigmentation restricts me from attaining basic things like "respect."

Let me also add that one of my main criticisms of feminism is the lack of knowledge regarding religion. For instance, certain feminist argued that Islamic society is sexually repressive towards women. Many feminist have targeted the Hijab, Niqab (burka) as sexually repressive. My main critique is if a religion who has operated for over 1,500 years develops a dress code based on moderation why would feminism challenge that? Especially since such a faith is centuries upon centuries older than the formation of feminism itself.

 

[Hypersonic]

So you're anti-feminism because you tripped on basic logic and fell headfirst into the Perfect Solution Fallacy? Bully for bull**** justifications and half-assed rationalization.

So instead of challenging me with wits you prefer to use profane language...got it.

 

[nota bene]

And that is why feminism continues to progress and change and has included women of color and other marginalized disadvantaged groups such as the LGBT community.

The movement may have started with white, middle class women, who would of course not be aware of the plight of women of color. Women of color brought their struggle to light and now most modern feminists recognize the intersectionality of people, which can include their gender, race, sex, socio-economic status, able-bodied-ness and how each individual experiences life in our society through the lenses of their own experiences.

You keep referencing the first wave of feminism, why have you failed to educate yourself about modern feminist ideals?

Are you familiar with Camille Paglia's argument that feminism is such a "big tent" that there is room for feminists who are pro-life?

 

[SassySmartie]

I haven't failed to educate myself, I just believe if the core philosophy of an ideal is based on equality, then it would also include men. Feminism doesn't. Feminism is about uplifting women. I don't subscribe to any philosophy that demonstrates bias at the expense of other people.

When male sports journalist are barred from female changing rooms not only are such restrictions counter-productive, but it oversexualizes the female body which no contemporary feminist today has spoken out against. Why is it that a naked man's body is ok to display or seen by a female journalist but a woman's isn't? To me a feminist would speak out against it.

So alas, any universal philosophy based on equality that has to progress is not universal at all.

You are gravely mistaken if you think that the feminist movement has not benefitted men. The gender roles and patriarchal societal expectations are harmful to both men and women. Men now have paternity leave, the stigma of men staying home to care for their children is dwindling, the expectation that men marry young and carry the full financial brunt of caring for a family is diminished. Because women have fought for work/life balance, fought for equality in the work place and education, men also benefit from a more balanced approach. Your changing room scenario is silly and I won't entertain such ridiculousness. I really have a hard time taking your stance seriously.