What do feminists want?

Ugh...not really wanting to do this but I want a fresh attempt with folks that hopefully know I'm not a troll.

So I read the tens of Pharyngula blog posts every day and generally stay far far away from the comments section. Then this post and this post came up--I rolled up my sleeves and dove in. Long story short I quickly threw my objectivity out the window after a couple insults, got all dirty, and now earned the disrespect and blockage of a couple regulars. Yay me.

I still don't understand what "women's rights" means exactly. I know the history of women's rights and what they fought for and got. I have sympathy and understand the extra work women have to do to get respect from some people. I understand that women are going through horrible atrocities around the world, from genital mutilation to sex trafficking. But that doesn't seem to be the overall message of the blog posts and commenters.

As a misogynist, pick up artist (PUA) and a men's right's activist (MRA), as I evidently have been branded as by the commenters, I guess I never will get it.

Anyone want to start me down the road of enlightenment without degrading to name calling by post #5?

There are plenty of people who are just looking for ways to be offended. Getting all wrapped up in 'tone' or perceived implication.

And they say that religionists are too sensitive.

Don't you know that anyone who questions a woman is a misogynist?

But seriously, we all know what women want. Hot Buttered Rusty.

I know radical feminists (by the way, something with such a readily available definition I was amazed it was debated for pages) by definition, seek to abolish the patriarchy which would naturally then lead to genderless society.

Yeah, I was reading a lot of that nonsense. I don't really know what position you took, so I can't really respond to the request in the OP.

The whole thing was a lot of dumb drama. Watson was pursued and confronted when she was alone on an elevator early in the morning. That, alone, was a concerning move from whoever this guy was. He didn't say anything inappropriate in its own right (and most of Watson's other complaints are just stupid--"he should have known that I wanted to go to bed alone?"), but that's a really aggressive move and one that is fairly frightening.

If that guy had done something to her, we would be getting a littany of "she should have known better than to get on an elevator by herself at 4am" style rape-apologism.

That's the only thing I agree with her on. That guy did behave incredibly inappropriately and more than a little threateningly. That says nothing about "sexism in the skeptical community" (obviously there is quite a bit--that stupid situation isn't proof, nor is Watson's favorite type of evidence--e-mail messages and comments on YouTube), and the attempt to develop broad generalities from that event is silly.

The most obnoxious bit was singling out an individual at a conference unable to respond and importing internet bickering into a conference. I don't want to pay money to watch her complain about people on twitter.

BobTheCoward said:

I know radical feminists (by the way, something with such a readily available definition I was amazed it was debated for pages, by definition, seek to abolish the patriarchy which would naturally then lead to genderless society.

Click to expand...

You need to turn off the "shuffle words" forum feature before you post.

TraneWreck said:

If that guy had done something to her, we would be getting a littany of "she should have known better than to get on an elevator by herself at 4am" style rape-apologism.

Click to expand...

As far as the original topic in the blog posts, that I can also agree on.

I generally try not to play this card because I feel that it generally hijacks conversations but I think a lot of problems with discussions about feminism are semantic. The phrase "feminist" is used so widely to describe so many personal opinions about gender relations and the development of women's roles in society that a, to me at least, a person simply saying "I'm a feminist" gives me practically no real information about their stance.

While anyone that doesn't support at least the textbook definition of feminism (distilled wonderfully in Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler's wonderful turn of phrase that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.") is a horrid excuse for a human being, it's naive to pretend that feminism as a concept, a phrase, and a social/political movement hasn't picked up some personal and social baggage along the way, baggage that is often not actually tied to gender relations at all.

The problem for me comes in that, for reasons that are somewhat understandable at times, people that simply and rightfully want equality for women and equal social and political opportunities for them and want the terrible injustices that have been set upon women to be fought sometimes have a knee jerk reaction to come to the defense of people that are cloaking their own personal agendas, issues, and emotional baggage in the language of Feminism.

At times its unavoidable human nature to try and look at things within an "Us versus Them" mindset and in doing so when people oppose things which get wrapped up in the language of Feminism can be seen as anti-feminist or anti-woman.

I'm having trouble putting exactly what I'm saying into word. Essentially all I'm saying in not everything out there that is being labeled as feminism is what I would really consider feminism. That's over simplifying it a little, but that's at least in the ballpark.

Hope that makes at least some sense.

Um there are multiple people who call themsevles feminists so why would a single answer suffice?

Dancing David said:

Um there are multiple people who call themsevles feminists so why would a single answer suffice?

Click to expand...

The fact that often people with wildly differing opinions will defend each other because their opinions get lumped under a central umbrella term.

To be certain this is hardly unique to this discussion, but to fact that people with such a wide range of opinions self identify as feminist makes it an extreme example of it.

I wasn't trying to give the impression that I think there is only one true type of feminism. In fact that's the antithesis to the point I'm trying to make.

TraneWreck said:

You need to turn of the "shuffle words" forum feature before you post.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Man to Rebecca in hotel elevator in Dublin at 4 am: "Don't take this the wrong way but I find you interesting. Would you like to come to my room and talk some more?"

It sounds polite enough. I wouldn't go with a stranger to a hotel room but I think it's rather petty if that's all it takes to be offended. I consider myself a liberated woman, except I don't recall a time I was ever not liberated. It's my natural state. The terms feminist and radical feminist are much too loaded to be useful. (Of course that says something about the need for a feminist movement given the term should in no way have a negative connotation, yet it does.)

One aspect of being liberated is some men find this less attractive. I never had any trouble with men being attracted to me (when I was younger and prettier that is ) though there was clearly a whole section of the male class that were either intimidated or offended by my lack of needing a man to take care of me. But to the contrary, I've always had partners that were more best friends than guardians and I felt fortunate that was my experience.

I have experienced plenty of misogyny given I chose a profession, nursing, that was predominately a female field and seriously discriminated against especially when I first started. Things have changed somewhat but the profession still is discriminated against because most of us are woman. It used to be a joke to some of us that nurses were rewarded with titles and men's jobs with pay increases.

Anyway, there are plenty of true forms of sexual discrimination to spend energy on. But I've never understood why a legitimate pass at a woman should be in that category. If the elevator guy had said something more rude like, "You look like you need a man" or something similarly ignorant, that would be misogyny. But simply hitting on you? If that bothered Rebecca, maybe she's not as liberated as she imagines herself.

Skeptic Ginger said:

The terms feminist and radical feminist are much too loaded to be useful. (Of course that says something about the need for a feminist movement given the term should in no way have a negative connotation, yet it does.)

Click to expand...

Says something about the need for a feminist movement, or says something about the effect of the feminist movement?

The military has negative connotations. Does this tell us more about the need for a military, or does it tell us more about the anti-war movement?

Anyway, to answer the question posed in the thread title: "What do feminists want?"

Feminists hold men and women in equally high esteem.

Am I right?

In general,

They oppose most general notions of the feminine,
and wish to assume most general notions of the masculine for women,
all resting upon a general foundation of antagonism to men.

Feminism is masculism.

It is women who demonstrate how they are against men and don't need men and don't like men by trying to be like men in every way.

Generally speaking.

OK, few beers in, bear with me...

Anyway, to answer the question posed in the thread title: "What do feminists want?"

Feminists hold men and women in equally high esteem.

Am I right?

Click to expand...

JudeBrando said:

They oppose every former notion of femininity and wish to assume every former notion of the masculine for women.

Click to expand...

So what is the ultimate goal of the feminist? According to Wikipedia, the "second wave" of the feminist movement dealt with "cultural and political inequalities, which they saw as inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.[5] The feminist activist and author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political" which became synonymous with the second wave.[7][8][/quote]

And we are currently in the third movement, which is described again in Wikipedia as a movement that "arose in response to the perceived failures of the second wave feminism".

Reading the wiki entry makes me agree with a lot of the tenants of feminism, but the vitriol coming from both sides when it's brought up in the skeptical movement is scary (there may be more rational discussion elsewhere--this thread hasn't gone to **** yet). It seems purely irrational, especially when everyone who doesn't agree with Rebecca's stance, including Richard Dawkins, is part of the conspiracy is a mysogyinst. PZ has a third post now where Dawkins clarifies his point, and wow what a bunch of ad homs are being thrown at him.

Yes I threw a rock at the hornet's nest again...I really just need to leave it alone.

eta: I'm being a bit simple here, but reading through the comments on those posts make me really want to know, according to the women on that site, what is the most appropriate way for a man to express interest in a woman? Jesus, I've been with my wife for a decade, and still haven't got her figured out...now I have to worry about how females perceive my every move?

Of course, the question in the title of the OP is impossible to answer. Feminists are extremely diverse, and there are few if any valid generalizations that can be applied to them.

However, we can talk about these particular situations. I also think it's possible to generalize about conventions. I've been to a lot of them: computer conventions, atheist conventions, scientific conventions, and even a few sci-fi conventions just for fun. Sleep deprivation is the norm. The early hours of the morning are when people get things done.

During the day, you're listening to or giving formal talks. If you're lucky, there might be some BOF sessions, which are still a bit formal. Lunch and dinner, most people are with their own groups. So people talk late at night and early in the morning. If you're lucky, there's an all-night party. If not, you make your own.

It is completely unexceptional to invite someone to your room or be invited to a room at 3:30 in the morning to discuss some ideas. Even bribing people with beer is completely accepted. At least it is for men.

If a woman doesn't want to do that, she can just say no, but that means that she is deliberately depriving herself of those business, academic, and political contacts, the kind that male conventioneers take for granted. That's fine as a personal choice. Some nights at a convention, I want to sleep, too.

If a woman (such as Rebecca Watson) or a man (such as P.Z. Myers) wants to make a big public deal of such a matter, what it means is that they are trying to prevent every woman from having these contacts and opportunities. Of course, this is exactly what people did in the old days of traditional sexism. Also of course, this is called "feminism" today and shows how much of feminism is opposed to equality of the sexes.

theprestige said:

Says something about the need for a feminist movement, or says something about the effect of the feminist movement?

The military has negative connotations. Does this tell us more about the need for a military, or does it tell us more about the anti-war movement?

Click to expand...

Not buying it. 'Military' and 'feminist' do not have analogous connotations by any means.

I've experienced the bias my whole life, though I've never let it get the better of me. But you must be a man because you don't instantly recognize the double standard. If I'm assertive, I'm a bitch. If a man is assertive, he's doing what is expected. Believe me, that attitude is there.

I'm not saying it is constantly there or that everyone has such an attitude, but it is real, not imaginary. So naturally when women speak up for their rights, some are going to label that aggressive, not assertive. Feminists have been reacted to in this way since the word was first used.

JudeBrando said:

In general,

They oppose most general notions of the feminine,
and wish to assume most general notions of the masculine for women,
all resting upon a general foundation of antagonism to men.

Feminism is masculism.

It is women who demonstrate how they are against men and don't need men and don't like men by trying to be like men in every way.

Generally speaking.

Click to expand...

I see you are also a man who thinks you speak for women. I don't want to be masculine or deny my biology. Such claims are beyond ignorant.

I want equal treatment. I don't want my independence and assertiveness to be labeled "masculine". It isn't. It's me, it's who I am and I'm female. I'm very happy I haven't been hamstrung by silly insecurities about who I am. You would paint my natural self as unnatural and envious of penises. That's ludicrous. Fortunately there are many men whose egos are not threatened by an independent woman. As I said, such partnerships exist with the couple being the best of friends as well as lovers. It's a wonderful combination. Much better than one of unequal partners confined to limited roles.

Skeptic Ginger said:

Not buying it. 'Military' and 'feminist' do not have analogous connotations by any means.

Click to expand...

And yet one's connotations may be the result of one's own agency, or the result of the agency of others.

Some of the military's connotations, both negative and positive, have been earned by the military. And some have been assigned by outside agency.

Likewise with feminism.

I've experienced the bias my whole life, though I've never let it get the batter of me.

Click to expand...

Sincerly, good for you.

But you must be a man because you don't instantly recognize the double standard.

Click to expand...

This is blatant sexist bigotry. Please retract it immediately.

If I'm assertive, I'm a bitch. If a man is assertive, he's doing what is expected. Believe me, that attitude is there.

I'm not saying it is constantly there or that everyone has such an attitude, but it is real, not imaginary.

Click to expand...

Coming immediately after your insulting sexist imaginary accusations, your disclaimers are laughable.

So naturally when women speak up for their rights, some are going to label that aggressive, not assertive. Feminists have been reacted to in this way since the word was designed.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered the possibility that feminism has negative connotations, not because of any shortcoming of the males of the species, but because feminists often come across as knee-jerk sexist bigots?