Feminists? Any here?

[sfa]

I remember when there were commercials on TV about "displaced homemakers", advertising classes that would teach them marketable skills (typing pool?) so they could work after being dumped by their husbands and being "just" a homemaker for so long. Maybe the word they actually used was "housewives"...I can't recall. Anyway, if there are still women around who would be left in the lurch by a man who leaves them with no income and no way to make one, then that is a unimaginative woman who has not been paying attention the last 30 years. ::shrug:::

Karen

I work at a community college and we have lots of programs for "displaced homemakers" and every year they are full and have waiting lists. They are for programs in health care, business, child care, hospitality, and pretty much any program that offers job training and a career ladder to allow someone to get into the workforce and be able to support her family. The stories from these women are heartwrenching. Most never had any education after high school and little, if any, experience working before getting married and having children. Most are young--women who had children at 17 and 18 and 19 years old and are now 22 or 23 or 25 and divorced and unable to support themselves or their children. Many, many, many of them were in abusive relationships where suggesting that getting an education or a job would have been met with violence. Maybe they didn't pay attention, or were in denial, or were so abused that they couldn't think, or maybe they thought, just as most people thing, that the worst would never happen to them. Unimaginative? Sure. But it's a pretty common affliction (also seen in workers who are shocked when they lose their jobs and haven't updated their resumes in 15 years and in recent college grads who are convinced that they will be the one to beat the odds and find a great job in this economy).

The programs themselves are no different than the programs for the general population, but the "displaced homemaker" programs have more supports--scholarships, child care support, mentoring, interview skills, professional skills, etc.

Sarah

[Irulan]

I don't label myself a feminist because I think what it has become is a joke and insult to amazing women who actually broke ground for us. It seems now that calling yourself a feminist is an excuse to be a flippant b***h while expecting others to tolerate it. There seems to be an attitude that if one man pays you less, all men are to blame. A lot of two wrongs still not adding up to a right.

Thanks Smurf for hitting the nail on the head for me.

• How many women and girls suffer from anorexia and bulimia because they don't fit into the mainstream media's beauty idea?

Plenty of men suffer from it too, they just don't get the press that women do. What about the pressure to have great abs? Men who get 'roided out for pressure to get all muscular? Men have as much pressure these days as women do.

[*]How many welfare mom's get stereotyped over and over again for being bad mothers when the fathers receive little if any repercussions?[/LIST]

You haven't hear Bill Cosby rant about absent fathers lately?

[*]Why do we still disallow gay marriage in most of the country?[/LIST]

What does gay marriage have to do with feminism?

[*]Why is viagra covered under insurance, but birth control is not?[/LIST]

This is a broad brush statement that may or may not be true, depending on your coverage.

[*]Why are women continually objectified in all forms of media? We've started to think little of it because now more and more men are being objectified as well, but just because the objectification is becoming more uniform doesn't mean its still not wrong[/LIST]

to paraphrase...

Why are PEOPLE continually objectified in all forms of media?

[Jewell]

OK Jewell, I'm curious: What is the male equivalent of "feminism"? That is, what is to men, like feminism is to women? I'll also be curious as to your views on how that concept of the "male equivalency" coexists with what I believe your definition of feminism is...without one being subordinate to the other.

The male equivalent of feminism? This could become a very interesting in-depth discussion if you truly wish to understand how men can support women in the feminist plight. Though, I'm not sure that is what your really asking. Sounds like your fishing for something else. Men can be feminists, I know men who call themselves feminists, but I also know men who rather call themselves pro-feminist. Their reasoning can be quite in-depth, and its not something I think I can full address here.

I couldn't DISagree more. Don't confuse consumerism or social injustice with capitalism. A capitalist saves without flaunting...and social justice allows capitalism to thrive. Your attribution to capitalism is very misguided in my humble opinion.

I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned capitalism. Its so difficult for us rich westerns to understand the negative side of capitalism. Many of us are rewarded by it so much so we can't imagine how its functioning allows social injustice to fester throughout the world. Its a charged topic, I shouldn't have mentioned it. Misguided, no, mindful, yes.

Keep in mind, your views are not just a function of your observations of society, but also the perspective that you possess in making those observations. There are others who have a different perspective who shouldn't feel minimized because they see it differently than you do.

For example:

you see, I always saw George as the negative point of that...he expected physical attributes of others that he could never attain or possess himself...and was satified with nothing less. Kinda sad...since Hitler did the same thing in defining an ideal appearance that was the opposite of his own physical characteristics.

George is an example I gave to describe the horrible beauty standards that are expected of women tv compared to men. Regardless of what kind of character you think George is, look at any show on tv and you will see amazing disparity between beauty standards of men and women.

Its so interesting how the very mention of women's rights brings up so much hostility...

[Mr. Bloom]

Please don't deflect - I'm not being hostile, but I am challenging your perspective and I'm doing it without apology.

So, to the original question:

If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

I would submit that it is in respecting their inherent differences rather than attacking and criticizing them. This is not about gender, but rather about respect...and being on the short end of respect is not uniquely female.

[Grog]

If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

Not sure, but I think it's called "patriarchy" and it's existed for quite a bit of time. It's not really the "equivalent," or perhaps it's the "dialectical equivalent."

In my view, feminism has always been not so much about promoting one gender, but rather about reducing discrimination and constraints imposed by gender. Basically the idea that rights should be based on being human, not on being a man or a woman. Say, for example, property rights: it sucks not to be allowed to own property but to be property (of someone else) instead. There were quite a few reasons to believe that women were getting most of the discrimination and constraints, or at least getting the bum side of that deal. In Hegelian terms, you could say that the master also needs to be liberated. For example, even today it's extremely difficult for men to take parental leave (not six days but six months) in most occupations, even if in theory it's permitted by law and even partly supported financially by government and some employers. That's something that feminism around here is concerned about. Your mileage may vary.

It sure makes things a lot more complicated, but personally I have not yet given up on the general idea that there should be equal opportunities. I will admit though that, in 21st century Canada, given the choice, I'd pick being a woman. It seems a lot more difficult for men to bend gender roles, but I know quite a few around me that are doing it, and everyone's gaining from that.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

The male equivalent of feminism? This could become a very interesting in-depth discussion if you truly wish to understand how men can support women in the feminist plight....Men can be feminists, I know men who call themselves feminists, but I also know men who rather call themselves pro-feminist. Their reasoning can be quite in-depth, and its not something I think I can full address here.

He wasn't asking if men can be feminists. He's asking what the male equivalent of feminism is- as in 'masculinism'- and what that would be. Interesting...would 'masculinism' be automatically considered something chauvenistic, anti-women, or negative?, just as 'feminism' is often labeled as anti-men, radical, and negative as well? Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

[Pax]

...Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

I don't think so, when one group holds (or has held) significant power over another the oppressed seek out their own power. I don't think masculinism would work any more than "white power" works. Does that make any sense?

[Zen]

Makes perfect sense.

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver
If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

Not sure, but I think it's called "patriarchy" and it's existed for quite a bit of time. It's not really the "equivalent," or perhaps it's the "dialectical equivalent."

I disagree that patriarchy and masculist are equivilant.

I would think that "masculist" would investigate male role issues, including but not limited to male objectification and machismo, whereas patriarchy ( to me) implies the system of men running the world for the last few hundred/thousand

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

I don't think so, when one group holds (or has held) significant power over another the oppressed seek out their own power. I don't think masculinism would work any more than "white power" works. Does that make any sense?

Unless masculinism is defined the same way we define feminism-
I would imagine masculinism could be defined as promoting non-stereotyping in male roles...for example giving more respect and support to stay-at-home fathers, single fathers, eliminating our society's stigma attached to males showing emotion and crying, etc.

The negative stereotype of feminism is of a bunch of women who hate men and want to get power from them. Why define masculinism the same way?
Ideally, both feminism and masculinism would be more about enabling both genders to discard stereotypical roles in society and be able to enjoy the same choices, the choices that are right for them as individuals of any sex.
Admittedly, choice-wise, things are currently lopsided. However I think that discouraging stereotyped roles for men would benefit everyone, including women.
I would think both feminism and masculinism would be about everyone being able to have the same choices in life without being subjected to ridicule and unfairness.

[Grog]

I would think that "masculist" would investigate male role issues, including but not limited to male objectification and machismo, whereas patriarchy ( to me) implies the system of men running the world for the last few hundred/thousand

I agree with you. I think that's what I meant by the "dialectical equivalent." I should have said "dialectic response."

It's just my opinion that feminism has embraced men questioning men role constraints as well. But the label is not very conducive to many men embracing it.

[ilima]

He wasn't asking if men can be feminists. He's asking what the male equivalent of feminism is- as in 'masculinism'- and what that would be. Interesting...would 'masculinism' be automatically considered something chauvenistic, anti-women, or negative?, just as 'feminism' is often labeled as anti-men, radical, and negative as well? Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

Perhaps the recognition of the conflicts inherent in using the terms terms help to explain why some women's studies programs have been re-jiggered as 'gender studies' so as to, theoretically not be aligned with one gender or the other.

Still not too many men on those faculties, though.

[Pax]

Isn't it ironic, we were discussing women and womens issues and the topic moves towards men and their issues. It's like it's not okay to focus on us, we're women and we don't want to make anyone feel left out.

[Irulan]

Isn't it ironic, we were discussing women and womens issues and the topic moves towards men and their issues. It's like it's not okay to focus on us, we're women and we don't want to make anyone feel left out.

I don't it like that as all - I see it as that men have issues as a result of historic cultural roles too. To deny that is (imsho) to have blinders on.

[Pax]

I don't it like that as all - I see it as that men have issues as a result of historic cultural roles too. To deny that is (imsho) to have blinders on.

It's okay to just talk about ourselves from time to time. We are different from men, our experiences, our upbringing, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about mens issues, but it's not necessary in every conversation where we're talking about woman.