Shirtgate

[siead_lietrathua]

Think about that sentence.

i have. i do not put women's issues at a higher level than any other issue of equality. i focus on what issues the government is legislating, equality in the eyes of the law. i prioritize things based on how unequal they seem, not prioritized based on which gender/ race/ class is involved.
if the standard of feminism is, to paraphrase Andara, "believe in equality, but women's issues take priority" then i am not a feminist. it's that simple.
i am, always have been, and always will be, a humanist.

[Gravekeeper]

It's regularly agreed on this forum that dipshits like the WBC do not represent Christianity, that they are outliers and extremists. It's regularly agreed that fucked-up assholes like ISIS and other terrorist organizations do not represent Muslims, because they are extremists. It's regularly agreed that monsters like PETA do not represent animal activists, because they are extremists.

^

What the hell is happening in this thread? >.>

I'm a feminist and it doesn't mean I spend an hour each evening standing naked in front of a mirror screaming at my penis.

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm a feminist and it doesn't mean I spend an hour each evening standing naked in front of a mirror screaming at my penis.

.... and the thread is now derailed as all GK's fans nosebleed-faint at the mental image?
joking, but i just couldn't resist.

[Kara_CS]

^

What the hell is happening in this thread? >.>.

I'm trying to figure out where it went wrong, but I think I'm just going to bow out of this one while I can still do so gracefully. I contributed, and now I can see I'd make more headway banging my face against a brick wall. Exit, stage left.

[Gravekeeper]

.... and the thread is now derailed as all GK's fans nosebleed-faint at the mental image?
joking, but i just couldn't resist.

I don't always derail threads, but when I do it's with my penis?

[Kheldarson]

I don't always derail threads, but when I do it's with my penis?

Where's the like button?

[HYHYBT]

well then i go back to my original point. if the label has been so corrupted, why not just leave it?

For one thing, it doesn't work; you'd just wind up having to make a habit of coming up with new names to stay ahead of those misusing the current one.

For another, why come up with a whole new name when English already provides a category of word called the adjective? Especially when it *would* have to be a new name; existing names are going to have at least connotations that are incompatible with how some of the feminists you want to relabel are, and may also lack some they want to keep. Humanist, for instance, especially when paired with the word secular, tends to be thought of as anti-religion, or at least incompatible with religious belief. Whether it actually is or not, that perception is one that would keep many of those you want to drop the feminist label away.

when talking about ISIS, you can call them ISIS, so you can tell them apart from muslims as a whole. but when talking about feminists, they just call themselves feminists, so you can't tell them apart from the feminists.

Sure you can. That they don't use the names for their specific brands of feminism themselves does not mean such names don't exist, and even if names didn't exist, they can be coined.

[Andara Bledin]

and i did not intend to twist your quote in my first part. perhaps you misunderstood me. i was not talking about female superiority as a, for lack of a better word, political construct. i was talking about how putting women's issues over all else is inherently gender biased.

We all prioritize things every waking minute of every day; choosing to give one cause priority in your life over another cause does nothing to diminish the other cause, nor does it somehow make the first cause superior, except in how someone chooses to spend their resources.

Otherwise, we should all be ignoring every goal that isn't overwhelmingly humanitarian because every other cause is inherently biased. And that's just stupid.

but instead, here we are, talking about tacky shirts.

No, we're not talking about tacky shirts. We're talking about the culture so often found in STEM that is, when not outright hostile, is dismissive of women as deserving of respect or considered capable of doing more than being pretty accessories.

That is when we're not being derailed over a term that is perfectly functional and applicable because it's too hard (I guess) to tell the difference between reasonable human beings and radical shitbags.

[Anthony K. S.]

I'm going to go back to what I said before, that feminism has become more of a range of views.

Take this, for example :

feminism focuses primarily on women's issues

I have seen some variation among feminists as to what exactly this means.

Some feminists interpret "addressing women's issues first" as addressing women's issues only.

Other feminists view it as, "address women's issues first, and then men's issues, when and if we can."

I don't think either view is right or wrong. It's simply that different people have different opinions on what feminism's goals should be.

When I was in college, I witnessed a brief argument about this. I had a friend named Lynn ...

(Well, actually, the word "friend" might be a bit of an overstatement, at least toward the end. Let's just say we knew each other. )

Lynn was the head of a small Women's Action Committee.

During one meeting, she mentioned that a colleague of hers was organizing a small workshop on discrimination against men, focusing on such issues as the male-only draft and how men are treated in divorce and family courts and in the area of domestic violence.

Lynn said that she was planning to help organize the workshop, and asked for volunteers to assist with it.

One student, named Gina, seemed upset by this and said that if they were going to spend a day working on gender issues, it should be about women, not men.

I actually cringed a little at the lecturing tone that Lynn took on, because it probably wasn't the best way to handle this.

Lynn pointedly told Gina, "Feminism is about equality. Yes, most of the time, that means dealing with discrimination against women. But men are discriminated against, too, and we need to address that. What my colleague is doing may not be about women, but it's still a gender rights issue, and we have a duty to help out, if we can."

I think that a softer, gentler approach would have been better, to try to persuade Gina to change her mind. But "gentle" was seldom Lynn's style.

Personally, I sympathized with both points of view. As I said, I don't think either one is right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion on what feminism's goals should be.

EDIT :

I should clarify something here :

Part of the reason why Lynn felt that they should help out with the workshop was because the Women's Action Committee was being funded by the student government. That money came from Student Activity Fees that were collected from all students on campus, including male students.

I want to stress that this was NOT the main reason why Lynn felt that they should help with the workshop, but it was a part of it.

[Anthony K. S.]

No, we're not talking about tacky shirts. We're talking about the culture so often found in STEM that is, when not outright hostile, is dismissive of women as deserving of respect or considered capable of doing more than being pretty accessories.

I find it sadly ironic how many feminists failed to realize that there was a similarly deeper issue in the controversy over the "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them" T-shirts.

This isn't a criticism of anybody on this forum, just a general observation.

A lot of people (both men and women, and including many feminists) dismissed the criticisms as ridiculous, saying things like, "It's just a T-shirt, get over it."

But the problem wasn't the shirt. It was the cultural attitude that treats violence against males as, if not unimportant, then at least something that doesn't need to be taken seriously.

I saw similar arguments over a Nickelodeon show called "iCarly."

A teenaged girl named Sam had a love-hate relationship with a boy named Freddie. She took every opportunity she could to insult, belittle, and humiliate him.

It was established that Sam was extremely strong, and her abuse became physical in a number of episodes. Probably the worst example of this was a scene in which she dragged Freddie into another room and (offscreen) beat him with a tennis racquet until the racquet broke in half.

(There were a few times when Freddie actually gave as good as he got, at least verbally. And in one episode, Sam slapped Freddie and he actually slapped her back. Those were, by far, the exception rather than the norm, however.)

To be fair, though ... After a while, the creators of the show began toning down Sam's behavior, and showing more of the friendly, caring side (which always existed, but was often overshadowed by the negative) of her relationship with Freddie.

Some people harshly criticized the character of Sam, the show itself, and the creators of the show over Sam's abusive behavior.

Many of the show's fans defended Sam, citing things like her terrible home life (which was, admittedly, pretty awful).

Quite a few viewers insisted that Sam was secretly in love with Freddie. Some even went so far as to imply that it was Freddie's fault that Sam treated him the way she did. The argument was that Sam was justified in being angry at Freddie because she was in love with him while he only had eyes for her best friend, Carly.

I actually found it kind of creepy how many fans wanted Sam and Freddie to become a couple - which, by the way, they actually did, briefly.

There was a story arc in which Sam and Freddie became girlfriend and boyfriend. At one point, it was stated that Sam was still hitting Freddie. Not only was this not viewed as wrong, but Carly thought it was "sweet" that Sam had stopped hitting Freddie in the face.

Imagine the reaction if a television show ever did that with the genders reversed.

As hard as it is to believe, toward the end of the show's run, many fans decided that they no longer wanted Sam and Freddie to be together because Freddie wasn't good enough for Sam.

Anyway ... Predictably, there were many fans who seemed downright bewildered that anybody would criticize the show at all. They would say, "It's a comedy. Of course it would be wrong, in real life, for a girl to treat a boy the way Sam treats Freddie. But this is slapstick comedy, and we should take it in the spirit in which it's intended."

Right. Because if a television show ever depicted a boy pushing a girl out of a treehouse and then jumping down and landing on top of her, and presented that as slapstick comedy, we would be saying that that should be taken in the spirit in which it's intended, too.

Just like with both of the T-shirt controversies, the problem wasn't the show itself. It was the cultural attitude that the show reflected.

That is when we're not being derailed over a term that is perfectly functional and applicable because it's too hard (I guess) to tell the difference between reasonable human beings and radical shitbags.

I would caution everybody to remember that human beings do not fall neatly into categories.

The distinction between reasonable, mainstream feminists and radical extremists isn't black and white. It's more black on one end, turning gray over a long stretch, and then slowly becomes white as it reaches the other end.

There are probably a lot of reasonable people who dismissed the "Boys Are Stupid" controversy saying, "It's just a T-shirt," but who argued that the shirt Dr. Taylor was wearing was a sign of unconscious, cultural sexism.

The simple mistake of failing to realize that an argument you're making could also be applied to something from the other side.

Which might also be a sign of an unconscious predisposition to view sexism against women more seriously than sexism against men.

Earlier, I referenced feminists who would speak at length about the problems faced by male victims of domestic violence, but when it came to actual cases of it, they would always look for reasons to blame the man.

Based on how Katie described them as "mainstream feminists," I doubt that they actually intended to be biased against men, or even realized that they were. In their minds, they were probably just trying to be fair to the women involved.

A friend of mine once commented that perhaps the real difference between a true feminist and an extremist isn't that the true feminist doesn't have biases against men, or doesn't show them.

Rather, the true feminist is the person who recognizes that he/she does have biases against men, and sincerely tries not to.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Rather, the true feminist is the person who recognizes that he/she does have biases against men, and sincerely tries not to.

Ok, I'll indulge the no true scotsman there just to say this: that so perfectly encapsulates the idea of feminsm that I wish everyone just got it (you can flip the genders in the statement at will).

Feminism isn't BEING perfect in thought and action. It's about analyzing the way things are, what the biases are, and correcting. If you're a man, it's about checking what you've gotten because you were a man and how those things inform your world view. If you're a woman, it's the exact same mental exercise. If you're a feminist most of the time you are dealing with women's issues primarily because that's where a lot of the biggest problems are. Not dealing with men's at all? Well there is a question how much of that is a bias rather than a rational outcome.

[siead_lietrathua]

Snip

not gonna lie. have a wee crush on ya after that post. lol.

though, have to sidenote, if we're going with "the true feminist is the person who recognizes that he/she does have biases against men, and sincerely tries not to." then still not a feminist here, since not biased against men.

Not dealing with men's at all? Well there is a question how much of that is a bias rather than a rational outcome.

a reason part of me tends to call bias rather than rational outcome is because there are actual, legislative, problems facing women (ie: abortion) and men (ie: circumcision) that effect not only their rights but their bodies. and yet it's all getting shoved aside for the latest social media campaign. it comes across as the issues that matter being whatever will generate the most blog hits by tying into events or celebrities, and less about actual harmed humans.

[Andara Bledin]

and yet it's all getting shoved aside for the latest social media campaign. it comes across as the issues that matter being whatever will generate the most blog hits by tying into events or celebrities, and less about actual harmed humans.

That's because news isn't really about actual news: all that matters are eyeballs.

Inappropriate tshirts are easy; they can lead with pictures.

Stores about how in finance, men make 50% (!) more than women of equal skill and position is boring and full of words people have to pay attention to.

Since news coverage resources are finite, the Shirtgate is going to beat out the wage gap, glass ceiling, domestic violence (unless there are some really spectacular pictures to splash all over, or it's a celebrity), custody discrimination, etc, every single time.

[siead_lietrathua]

Stores about how in finance, men make 50% (!) more than women of equal skill and position is boring and full of words people have to pay attention to.

yes, words like how discrimination may be a contributing factor, but things like time taken off, volume of overtime, and performance bonuses also contribute to the pay gap.
handy little word, that also.

edit: here, explained better than me, by a feminist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w

[the_std]

Can we not make this about the whole wage gap thing again? We had a whole thread about it - it's a different debate.