Militant Feminism Or Simply "a Strong Woman"?

[pampal]

The term feminist is vague.

I went to UCSC and that was definitely a woman dominated university. 7000 women and around 4000 men. Good odds for the guys.Too many GFs' to list

The school itself was great as was Santa Cruz the city, but I did have quite a few run ins with the militant feminist(stereotype).  

I had the misfortune of asking one (unknown to me)militant to dance, she tried to kick me and said I'm a woman warrior, my mistake.

Anyone(male or female) has the right to voice their opinions, but to militant feminists, the only view point

is the female viewpoint. 

Militant feminists don't really go for 

freedom of speech, unless it's their turn to speak.

They claim to be PC but don't allow any viewpoints outside of theirs.

From reading the ladies forum and seeing their posts on other forums, I haven't seen anyone fitting the "militant feminist" stereotype.

[meme]

Lighten up, Ladies! No wonder men get so POed. It does not take ten paragraphs to state a point. Drivel!

Is that a joke?

[meadish_sweetball]

From reading the ladies forum and seeing their posts on other forums, I haven't seen anyone fitting the "militant feminist" stereotype.

It's an easy label to throw out when you have few other valid arguments.

[November Rain]

Sheryl,

Thanks for your post outlining some of the history of the women's movement. Reading that has helped me answer a few of my internal queries that have been thrown up by this thread. And thanks for being part of the women's movement in the 60's & 70's and helping me enjoy a life in which I don't have to consider my gender too much - if that makes sense!

[Jet Gorgon]

Lighten up, Ladies! No wonder men get so POed. It does not take ten paragraphs to state a point. Drivel!

Is that a joke?

No, it is a missile attack. Lighten up, Meme!

[pampal]

From reading the ladies forum and seeing their posts on other forums, I haven't seen anyone fitting the "militant feminist" stereotype.

It's an easy label to throw out when you have few other valid arguments.

Thanks

[Prakanong]

Very interesting topic

I come from a family where the women were all very strong - matriarchal in fact (ecept mabey my mother but both Grans and my Aunty)

My dad was in the navy and a boxer etc and was not scared of anyone but he deferred to his mother!

I agree that some expat men and men who slag off western women are insecure little boys - some comments make me cringe when I hear them.

If I ever say anything like it slap me around the head ;-)

[fruittbatt]

Thanks NR for opening this most interesting topic, and to Sheryl for a comprehensive history of the women's movement in the 60s and 70s.

Like Meme, I'm proud to be considered a feminist in terms of standing up for women's rights where structured inequality based on gender exists.

One reason that feminism as a mode of analysis has been discredited in the last two decades is because a minority of white, western, middle class women (and men) is obviously far more equal than the vast majority of other women and men in the world. The world simply cannot be carved down the middle in terms of gender regardless of ethnicity, social position, educational opportunity, age, wealth etc etc etc.

There is a minority of male posters on TV who are stuck in a pre-feminist age and who blame their unsuccessful history of relationships with women on women's "liberation". These dinosaurs will always knock women with intelligent views because they feel so totally threatened by the ways in which the world around them has changed.

Other male posters have real grievances about divorce and property settlement and custody issues. Courts of law, in their zeal to affirm the rights of women and children, have often left ex-husbands in a lonely, depressed, and extremely bad financial situation. Sometimes these vulnerable men will also lash out at women posters who make unjust general assumptions based on gendered stereotypes (eg.....men have greater financial power/ farang men marry Thai wives because they are losers and can't get western women etc. etc).

For those of us women who are strong enough to say exactly what we think, and who are fortunate enough to be here, to be independent and financially secure, perhaps we can afford to ignore the jibes of the intransigent dinosaurs, or expose their crap for what it is. We could focus on the majority of posters who are actually interested in civilised exchanges of views, and show support to those who are the recipients of unequal treatment and discrimination.

Edited February 1, 2007 by fruittbatt

[Sheryl]

Agree, FB, except that I would say that grieveances (be they justified or otherwise) over a divorce settlement or custody outcome hardly justifies bigotry or stereotyping of all women.

I have a number of close male friends who are bitter over their divorces, and in many cases I agree with them that they were wrongly treated or unfairly served. But none of them generalize from this onto the 50% of the world who are female. And let's remember that unfair divorce settlements or custody rulings can and do affect either sex -- and also that there are always 3 sides to a story: the sides of the 2 opponents and then the actual truth, which usually lies somewhere in between.

As for all those taking the " lighten up" approach: thanks for reminding me of another common tactic used to denigrate legitimate women's concerns!

[Tarqin]

As my sole contribution to this subject can I caution you ladies once again about using the term feisty.

Feisty derives from the old English word fiston meaning to break wind loudly thereby demonstrating a heathy constitution.

[jumnien]

The term feminist is vague.

I went to UCSC and that was definitely a woman dominated university. 7000 women and around 4000 men. Good odds for the guys.Too many GFs' to list

The school itself was great as was Santa Cruz the city, but I did have quite a few run ins with the militant feminist(stereotype).  

I had the misfortune of asking one (unknown to me)militant to dance, she tried to kick me and said I'm a woman warrior, my mistake.

Anyone(male or female) has the right to voice their opinions, but to militant feminists, the only view point

is the female viewpoint. 

Militant feminists don't really go for 

freedom of speech, unless it's their turn to speak.

They claim to be PC but don't allow any viewpoints outside of theirs.

From reading the ladies forum and seeing their posts on other forums, I haven't seen anyone fitting the "militant feminist" stereotype.

My first girlfriend's mother was Entertainment Coordinator for the National Organisation of Women back in 1975 (anyone remember Holly Near and Chris Williamson?). I learned a few tricks that served me well amongst the feminists at UCSC where I attended in a marijuana and qualude haze from 1977 thru 1982. I towed the party line as it paid off handsomely and honestly had a few good principles to espouse. However, looking back from the ripe old age of 49, I'd say that feminism, for all the good it did, hurt many in my generation of women. Taught them how to see what was wrong in their relationships in their families, in their workplaces, in their society. Left many unhappy and unfulfilled. I treat my present Thai wife as an equal in all respects. It's especially satisfying because she is not demanding it.

Edited February 2, 2007 by mdeland

[fruittbatt]

Agree, FB, except that I would say that grieveances (be they justified or otherwise) over a divorce settlement or custody outcome hardly justifies bigotry or stereotyping of all women.

I have a number of close male friends who are bitter over their divorces, and in many cases I agree with them that they were wrongly treated or unfairly served. But none of them generalize from this onto the 50% of the world who are female. And let's remember that unfair divorce settlements or custody rulings can and do affect either sex -- and also that there are always 3 sides to a story: the sides of the 2 opponents and then the actual truth, which usually lies somewhere in between.

As for all those taking the " lighten up" approach: thanks for reminding me of another common tactic used to denigrate legitimate women's concerns!

Sheryl, I agree wholeheartedly that a man who has had a bad deal has no right and no cause to lash out at women indiscriminately. I think my sentences were a bit long in last post, so my meaning may have been misunderstood. What I was trying to say is that men who have grievances may respond negatively to a woman poster who makes stereotypical assumptions about "men" generally. I can empathise with the sense of injustice that these guys may feel.

i hope I did not sound like an apologist for the men's movement! On re-reading my last post I can see that it would be easy to form this opinion. I also appreciate that the reason courts have swung towards favoring women and children in divorce settlements is that in the dark past it was mainly women who got unequal, unjust deals and lives of financial hardship from court decisions.

And to women who dismiss the past and present oppression of women in almost all societies, all I can say is read some history, read some sociology, read everything you can about the struggles of women in every country....and then come back to this forum.........

[November Rain]

men who have grievances may respond negatively to a woman poster who makes stereotypical assumptions about "men" generally.

True, fruittbatt. And that would make the women just as bad as any man who responded negatively to that approach. By far, the best approach is not to stereotype, generalise or make assumptions about anybody!!

[MiG16]

And to women who dismiss the past and present oppression of women in almost all societies, all I can say is read some history, read some sociology, read everything you can about the struggles of women in every country....and then come back to this forum.........

and if you are bored of history etc, and think things have changed, I can present you with current day case where systematic discrimination against women exist right here in our world. those that are interested can PM me for link, or even a copy of a book on such a case.

[meadish_sweetball]

From reading the ladies forum and seeing their posts on other forums, I haven't seen anyone fitting the "militant feminist" stereotype.

It's an easy label to throw out when you have few other valid arguments.

Thanks

I think you misunderstand what I meant. My comment was not a criticism against your post. I was commenting only on that quote from you that I included... the meaning being that the label 'militant feminist' is often used as an accusation or, more commonly, sweeping generalisation on the forum - even though in reality, 'militant feminists' is a really small fraction of all women.

[Sheryl]

However, looking back from the ripe old age of 49, I'd say that feminism, for all the good it did, hurt many in my generation of women. Taught them how to see what was wrong in their relationships in their families, in their workplaces, in their society. Left many unhappy and unfulfilled.

Nowhere near as unhappy and unfulfilled as the generation of women who preceded them....or, if recent surveys are to be believed, as many Thai women are today.

It was growing up seeing our mothers' lives that gave us the courage to fight for change. We knew just how miserably unhappy they were. That they didn't know why didn't make it any easier for them.

The pre-women's rights era looks a lot better on TV (or in the fond memories of some men) than it did up close....

[Boo]

The pre-women's rights era looks a lot better on TV (or in the fond memories of some men) than it did up close....

So true...

My nan (86 years old) always tell me how she wishes she was born today & all the things she would have done. Instead she was married young, had 9 kids, her husband turned out to be abusive who would beat her (even when pregnant, which she has no control over as no pill) & drank & she was one of the strong ones who decided in the late 50's/60's's to go the single mother route. Imagine doing that with 9 kids today let alone when there was no benefit system, all the kids had to pitch in & my mum was working full time at 14 & looking after the younger kids, they would ofen go without food all day & night & my nan was also ostracized by the whole community including her own mother for the "shame" she bought. She still says it was better than putting up with the abuse though, so I can tell you that she doesn't view the "good old days" as good at all.

[Jet Gorgon]

My nan (86 years old) always tell me how she wishes she was born today & all the things she would have done. Instead she was married young, had 9 kids, her husband turned out to be abusive who would beat her (even when pregnant, which she has no control over as no pill) & drank & she was one of the strong ones who decided in the late 50's/60's's to go the single mother route. Imagine doing that with 9 kids today let alone when there was no benefit system, all the kids had to pitch in & my mum was working full time at 14 & looking after the younger kids, they would ofen go without food all day & night & my nan was also ostracized by the whole community including her own mother for the "shame" she bought. She still says it was better than putting up with the abuse though, so I can tell you that she doesn't view the "good old days" as good at all.

Wow, that took real courage.

[autonomous_unit]

Another way to phrase it is that people who are being antagonistic are often pigeon-holed by those who feel antagonized. I've (infrequently) been accused of being a male chauvinist by women who, on all accounts, are hung up on identifying themselves as gender warriors. They don't realize that I'm really just a blundering egotist who pisses off most people eventually, regardless of race, sex, or creed!

The problem is people generalizing from too few data points... they classify you based on some analogy that says a lot about their own world view, and then they brand you with all the flaws they project onto that class of people. This is the same whether we're talking sexists, racists, class warriors, "ageists", or religious bigots. Resentment is so much easier to shoulder when it can be conveniently placed on "them" versus "us". Resentment of "us" leads to uncomfortable questions about group identity and social standing...

[fruittbatt]

I've (infrequently) been accused of being a male chauvinist by women who, on all accounts, are hung up on identifying themselves as gender warriors.

The problem is people generalizing from too few data points... they classify you based on some analogy that says a lot about their own world view. Resentment is so much easier to shoulder when it can be conveniently placed on "them" versus "us".

You have outlined the process of "othering": ie stereotyping & projecting problems onto others in order to make self or group look good in comparison. However, you fell into that very trap by referring to women who dislike your views as "hung up on identifying themselves as gender warrriors". Resentment is indeed very easy if you choose to stereotype the "other" in this way!

I agree with your analysis of "othering" as far as it goes, but the really toxic part of the process is the power of those who stereotype to marginalise and ostracise the "other". In regard to women's history religions, the medical profession, courts of law, lending institutions, mass media have "othered" women. This process led to social acceptance of the "inferiority" of women, by men and women alike. Boo's story of her grandmother's struggle for independence and integrity in a hostile society shows just how powerful the discourse of women's dependence and "place" really was. Thanks, Boo.

[Sheryl]

Another way to phrase it is that people who are being antagonistic are often pigeon-holed by those who feel antagonized.

Fair enough, but the problem which gave impetus to this thread, and which women here on TV encounter very often, is men feeling antagonized when we are not being in any way antagonistic. Sad to say, but there are a surprising number of men on this forum (or perhaps just an extremely vocal minority plus a lot of silent ones) who feel antagonized by the fact that a woman dares post at all. Irregardless of what she says or how she says it.

[davidjtayler]

Another way to phrase it is that people who are being antagonistic are often pigeon-holed by those who feel antagonized.

Fair enough, but the problem which gave impetus to this thread, and which women here on TV encounter very often, is men feeling antagonized when we are not being in any way antagonistic. Sad to say, but there are a surprising number of men on this forum (or perhaps just an extremely vocal minority plus a lot of silent ones) who feel antagonized by the fact that a woman dares post at all. Irregardless of what she says or how she says it.

The problem with forums Sheryl is that they are very vocally orientated and it's very difficult to monitor the silent listening (reading) masses ... your only indication of response to anything you have written are the following posts which in all fairness may not be the best indicator of the majority.

When you are in a public setting, debating with people face to face, then you can very easily see who is listening and actually respecting your views and who is not but a forum is only one way traffic in this respect.

I agree that the non respectful replies need to be addressed as NR has done here but also realise that there are a lot of men reading and respectfully listening (who don't necessarily respond) to all of your views when they are posted on TV.

Yours respectfully DJT

[autonomous_unit]

Fruitbatt, I said "by all accounts" because I indeed meant that other people told me that the particular few women in question had a tendancy to treat every disagreement as a gender battle. It was not a conclusion I drew, but a context that was relayed to me after the fact. I only remember it all now because of the irony.

The sad fact is that agenda-driven people project their agendas onto nearly everything they do, regardless of the real underlying motives of the other people involved. My antagonistic behavior, as far as a gender-warrior agenda goes, is striving to be "gender blind" in my own application of power or authority. In my past, I did volunteer work to help train women who were trying to rapidly jump into graduate studies in my scientific field after having "mistakenly" spent their undergraduate studies in other fields, as part of a program meant to offset a measurable imbalance in the student populations. While I was tutoring them to try to get them up to speed, I expected their professors to grade them by the same rubric as other students... I categorically reject the "you're either with us or against us" mentality of militants of any stripe.

Sheryl, yes I just didn't want to belabor it since I am often long winded here. Antagonism is unfortunately in the eye of the beholder. I was only focusing on why someone might fling around labels like "feminist" after being upset, rather than the ugly self-reinforcing problem of being more easily upset once one gets hung up on issues like this in the first place.

I completely agree with the observation that it seems, statistically speaking, that this web forum has a stronger sexist overtone than most places with which I am familiar. I thought the thread was about "why do people throw around labels" and not "why did so and so get upset in the first place". I didn't actually see the other thread that apparently triggered this one...