>not knowing every aspect of each posters politics i can't say if they are or not

the quest continues :-p

> the far tougher things to challange, such as stereotypes,

stereotypes - as in your need to label women feminists or not .................... 

That would also include freedom of thought and speech aswell then and the right to apply what ever term to ones self you wish :-D

it is definately not a world of equal rights for women, even in the western world it isn't yet, not really anywhere near it.


Sorry, to be picky :-) but where exactly do we not have equal rights?

i don't need to label women feminists, i have an opinion on the use of labels in this case but a label of a belief that you hold is hardly the same as a stereotype. i think if more women used that label the stereotype that does exist for it would be reduced.

a stereotype or schema is a collection of often inaccurate ideas about a group etc, an actual title and label should be based on actual meaning.

> i think if more women used that label the stereotype that does exist for it would be reduced.
>

'More women' don't necessarily want to be labelled anything!  Whatever the label, that it exists does not mean it is desired or acceptable. 

Long gone are the days of 'bare foot and pregnant at the sink' meaning women are under the thumb and control of their men.  That barefooted pregnant lady could be just as easily be drying off the nail polish on her carefully applied pedicure while her much longed for and carefully planned 'bump' is still of a size that she can do it herself and safe in the knowledge the her OH will paint them for her when it's too big ;)

Life moves on, people grow, develop and learn deeper meanings and understandings and don't need to be drawn back to the Dark Ages by the youth of today on a mission for which there is little need and even less want (IMO)

> so i would like to know if you consider yourselves feminists? and why to your answer?
>

hell no!  I am quite partial to having a strapping sexy man change my car tyres while I stand by helpless and ogling ;)  I also wouldn't want equal opportunities if I thought there was a burglar in the house - the man would get sent downstairs first etc etc... :)  :)

In total agreement cheekychow, (though I can and have changed my own tire too)

There isn't a job or a thing on this planet that I can think of that I could not do if so inclined, (apart from anything needing a good bit of muscle - I'm not built for that - some women are, but not me :-) )

But, I like the protective arm of my hubby around me and always will, as I've said before I don't wish to be a man, but I can do anything I want I'm not repressed in any way, shape or form.

its not being picky, its a reasonable question and i doubted my statement before studying it, i thought everything was rosy to. if i wrote down all the ways and places this would be a novel :) for a start if you fancy wider reading i'd suggest Jackson and Scott, "Gender: A Reader".

Don't get me wrong,  comparatively women in the western world enjoy a high level of equality with men (in fact i would argue in some cases we enjoy more rights unfairly- such as the tendancy of courts to appoint mothers rather than fathers custody of children, but thats a tangent), but there are many ways in which women are still not given the same freedoms as men. it is not so much the tangible concepts in law (such as the statues for prevention of gender based hiring etc) as women are now well represented legally (though its very recent) but the deeper social issues that need addressing in a way that the law can only assist but not enforce.

statistics show (and forgive me not having the refs to hand) that women still conduct the lions share of household duties, that they still are responsible for the majority of childcare, women are still found in the main in jobs classed as emotional labour jobs, women are still portrayed in a particular way in the media (usually not complimentary and if it is it tends to match traditional values- lol plenty refs for that as it was my disseration! at home though so don't have them), women are still very much shortened by the glass ceiling, though this has improved, seeing the majority of women who progress in their careers sitting in a middle management level (certainly the case in my work! every ops manager is female now, all but one high management above that, for several levels, are men)

i perhaps worded it wrong in my last post, equal rights we have, equal practise we don't.

i don't need to label women feminists, i have an opinion on the use of labels in this case but a label of a belief that you hold is hardly the same as a stereotype. i think if more women used that label the stereotype that does exist for it would be reduced.

a stereotype or schema is a collection of often inaccurate ideas about a group etc, an actual title and label should be based on actual meaning.

gosh, it all sounds like the Matrix. why on earth does anyone need to go around labeling themselves???
i have visions of labour re-education camps

> hell no!  I am quite partial to having a strapping sexy man change my car tyres while I stand by helpless and ogling

lol, being a feminist doesn't mean you can't do that. though personally i prefer changing the tyre as its the only car thing i can do :)

> I also wouldn't want equal opportunities if I thought there was a burglar in the house - the man would get sent downstairs first etc etc... :-)  :-)

but would he if say you were a karate blackbelt and secret ninja? lol i think its got to be about whos best suited to something

of course people can apply whatever terms they wish to themselves, doesn't mean its the right one. and if someone is willing to add labels to themself (as some were objecting to) why not use the right ones?

>'More women' don't necessarily want to be labelled anything!  Whatever the label, that it exists does not mean it is desired or acceptable.

Labels in themselves create stereotypes! Giving people labels pigeon-holes them and reduces their individuality and freedom.

> gosh, it all sounds like the Matrix

er...where in the matrix did the subject of labels come up?

> why on earth does anyone need to go around labeling themselves???
>

because thats how the human brain works. we all apply labels to everyone every day- male, female, mother, father etc. all of them have meanings attached to them.

i'm not suggesting that people wander around wearing a badge or holding a sign.

Round and round in circles oh for the certainty of youth - They have the freedom to choose for themselves do they not weather someone else considers them right or not it is their freedom.

> statistics show

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

> equal rights we have, equal practise we don't

and that is perhaps through choice of course :)

>if someone is willing to add labels to themself (as some were objecting to) why not use the right ones?

And if people aren't willing to label themselves (whether you think the label is right or wrong), why try to force them?

its the matrix because you are proposing social engineering, and it sounds like purgatory.

we dont all go round labeling ourselves, verbally or mentally.

there is a difference between descriptions and labeling.

labeling and the desire to define others accordingly is all very much the thinking of 1970's badge wearing Citizen Smith meets Pol Pot labour re-education camp.

For everything you have stated I know you will get an abundance of women saying the opposite, women can and do do anything.

I think you are right that your issues are not so much in equal opportunities, the law takes care of that, we are equal in every way. Your issues are with biased people, but that will never really change we have biased people in race, religion, male, female, homosexual the list goes on and on, that is a people issue and if people are found guilty of being biased the law will take care of them. As much as the law wishes us all to be treated equally, you really can't control people's characters, it will always be. Being a practising feminist will not change that, a feminist can only push forward bills, we already have the law on our side.

I think when it comes to employment and mangement etc, the man/woman at the top wants someone they can relate to, it often is not about who is the best academically, or the longest serving to get the job, but who people wish to work with and trust.  Why should a man in the top spot choose a woman who can do the job, but he doesn't gel with as much as the man of the same equivalent.  As a woman when I have worked with people I've often chosen a woman or a man I like as a person and good at their job rather than the man/woman who may have a better portfolio.

It's always more about people to people than man, woman, race, religion, it's just many use these things as a weapon when they don't get their own way.

>> why on earth does anyone need to go around labeling themselves???
>>
> because thats how the human brain works

erm no, that's how the lecturers explain things to the students to help them find all the references to quote on the theories of those who some believe, temporarily, to be infallible  - when that particular life phase is behind us we go on to live and learn, hopefully anyway!

> Long gone are the days of 'bare foot and pregnant at the sink' meaning women are under the thumb and control of their men.

long gone? how long do you think out of interest? it was only made illegal during my lifetime (1991 to be exact) for a man to rape his wife, how many of you were married in the early 1990's? its a horrible thought. women in switzerland got the vote in 1971. the list goes on.

it's nice to imagine these things are in the distant past but they are not.

> Life moves on, people grow, develop and learn deeper meanings and understandings and don't need to be drawn back to the Dark Ages by the youth of today on a mission for which there is little need and even less want (IMO)
>

well thanks for the youth comment, turning 24 has been depressing me...

while life does move on i'd suggest you find out exactly how recently we started moving on from the 'dark ages' and how much is still left to do. and while you may not feel its needed or wanted hundreds of thousands of people, men and women of various ages, do.

if people develop and learn deeper meanings and understandings it might be good to try and consider the points someone is making about what many still believe is an important issue. consider this- if women truely enjoyed a deeply held equality in this and other countries why exactly do the governments of the west need to make it illegal to discriminate?

> They have the freedom to choose for themselves do they not weather someone else considers them right or not it is their freedom.

well yes it is, but your circling to.

> There are lies, damn lies and statistics"
>

yes, statistics are not always accurate but many are and should not be written off without even considering them. without looking at the figures and how they were attained i'd be interested to know how you can write them off with a cliche and no examonation.

>how many of you were married in the early 1990's?

I was, and I know many others of us were too. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything?

how exactly am i trying to force anyone jg? i am participating in a discussion on an open forum that no one if required to read or answer, hardly bamboo under the nails.

ROLFOL

>> I was, and I know many others of us were too. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything?

the point i was making was that legally your husband could do whatever he damn well pleased with you and you would have no form of protection what so ever. of course i am not suggesting that anyone heres would but you did not have the rights or freedoms many posters seem to believe they had- feminists fought for those rights.

> it was only made illegal during my lifetime (1991 to be exact) for a man to rape his wife, how many of you were married in the early 1990's?

Good grief - women married pre 1991 were duty bound and fully expected to be r@ped now - get a grip and drop the lecture books for a moment or at least have a flick through and find just how many were r@ped?  Perhaps the women married to such brutes found themselves making very bad choices in their relationships - whether a feminist or not that could still and indeed IS still something which happens!  Not that women are regularly r@ped by their partners but they can still be bullied or brutalised.  That said, so can husbands!

Are those of us married pre-`1991 now to label ourselves as 'could have but thankfully not molested by my husband'

Please keep a sense of perspective - simply because there is no law written on something does not in itself mean that something is acceptable or, vitally, that it HAPPENS.  Your passion is coming across more of an obsession

> well thanks for the youth comment, turning 24 has been depressing me...

that's a surprise - you actually come across as much younger still :) 

You need to get out more

> I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything?

I'm not sure what anything has to do with anything anymore :-D  Had we only been victims eh, we'd be sooooo much smarter

how many of you were married in the early 1990's?

I was, and I know many others of us were too. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything?

Me neither, I don't recall being chained to the kitchen sink in the 80's, or 90's :-D

Marital rape and the change in law towards it, is nothing to do with feminism, although many may quip about it men also have been raped and beaten just the same, the change of law wasn't just for women.

> i'd be interested to know how you can write them off with a cliche and no examonation

as easily as you've written everything off that has been offered in response but failed to meet your approval :)

> proposing social engineering

um, not so much actually.

> we dont all go round labeling ourselves, verbally or mentally.
>

really? you don't have a name or a title or a job etc?

the desire to have women realise that they hold a certain political belief is simply in no way like sending people to pseudo-concentration camps, ones a debate- cornerstone of democracy, ones a facist action. i certainly don't have the inclination to put any of you in a camp.

i don't really understand why whenever someone voices a view on this forum that goes against the usual they are attacked with such ludicrous statements. i am keen to debate issues with people and i don't mind if they disagree- debate is the art of persuasion not attack. i don't believe i've attacked anyone during this but if anyone feels i have then i apologise. on this forum i've been persuaded to different views on docking and i am even waivering on hunting because i have listened to everyones comments, am i not allowed my own?

>> as easily as you've written everything off that has been offered in response but failed to meet your approval :-)

what have i written off? i take on board everyones comments about labeling and their objections to it. i disagree and have explained why.

i certainly don't have the inclination to put any of you in a camp.


:-D :-D Praise be to that one!

> think you are right that your issues are not so much in equal opportunities, the law takes care of that, we are equal in every way. Your issues are with biased people, but that will never really change we have biased people in race, religion, male, female, homosexual the list goes on and on, that is a people issue and if people are found guilty of being biased the law will take care of them. As much as the law wishes us all to be treated equally, you really can't control people's characters, it will always be. Being a practising feminist will not change that, a feminist can only push forward bills, we already have the law on our side.
>

i agree with you that its about peoples own bias rather than legal issues now (in the uk at least). and of course your right, you can't control peoples characters, but the ongoing work of feminism is to try and influence the way things are conducted in various areas to help correct the present imbalance.

for example, by the time a little girl or boy starts school they'll know quite well more television characters than actual people (which suggests a worryign amount of tv to me!). when you look at the portrayal of women and men on tv they tend to have very defined characteristics that are traditionally male or female (mums are warm, dads go out to work etc) so those kids have a basis that says thats how it should work.

> I think when it comes to employment and mangement etc, the man/woman at the top wants someone they can relate to, it often is not about who is the best academically, or the longest serving to get the job, but who people wish to work with and trust.  Why should a man in the top spot choose a woman who can do the job, but he doesn't gel with as much as the man of the same equivalent.  As a woman when I have worked with people I've often chosen a woman or a man I like as a person and good at their job rather than the man/woman who may have a better portfolio.
>

i agree with you in this, if i were choosing an employee i'd want the best for the job. to me that means qualified but also fits in. i have less concerns about active employment issues than may other areas in this subject.

> It's always more about people to people than man, woman, race, religion, it's just many use these things as a weapon when they don't get their own way.

also true, which drives me mad. there are serious issues in each of these domains still and they shouldn't be brought up lightly.

The point is there is a difference in disagreeing and giving your own view to telling someone out right they are wrong which does go back to the original post

> totally incorrect view

You didn't say you disagreed with her opinion you told her she was wrong.

edited to add and the circle completes LOL Gill who was also married in the dark ages but has never ever been told what to do by her nearest and dearest.

> erm no, that's how the lecturers explain things to the students to help them find all the references to quote on the theories of those who some believe, temporarily, to be infallible  - when that particular life phase is behind us we go on to live and learn, hopefully anyway!

then why do we apply labels? names, genders, ages, job titles etc are all labels.

and its not so  much how lecturers explain things to students about an 'infallible' person, its what you are taught is the current dominant theory. i do apologise if i used declaritive language, let me review

"because that is how the human brain is currently theorised to work"

better?

> that's a surprise - you actually come across as much younger still :-) 

teri, i'm trying to have a discussion and not making personal comments. you may not like my opinions and you may not like my writing style but does it perhaps occur to you that making personal comments is maybe the more childish action that trying to discuss something?

also deliberately misinterpreting someones comments is hardly needed, i'd suggest you "keep a sense of perspective" and don't try to over dramatise what i am saying and put outlandish words in my mouth.

> simply because there is no law written on something does not in itself mean that something is acceptable or, vitally, that it HAPPENS

why on earth do you think it was written??

i made the point to say that there were women who were (and of course are) abused in this way that had no possible mechanism of support, as i later said- in bold- i was not suggesting any posters husbands would do such a thing. so to clarify, not everyone, some. the comment was in answer to many suggestions, including your 'dark ages' comment, that womens rights are not an issue from the distant past but rather is still a work in progress.

I think what it is Astarte and I don't blame you, your reading, your learning, your obviously interested and I commend you for being a strong woman, but it feels as though you are preparing yourself for war here, trouble is the rest of us can't see this war, your ready to go all guns blazing but I guess we feel we've already won and your coming in too late.

We're equal, and we feel equal. :-)

But if there is ever another fight, I'll happily sign you up. :-)

> Marital rape and the change in law towards it, is nothing to do with feminism, although many may quip about it men also have been raped and beaten just the same, the change of law wasn't just for women.

it has lots to do with feminism, though thats not to say other action groups (such as for domestic abuse of either gender) were not heavily involved or found gains in it.

> you are preparing yourself for war here, trouble is the rest of us can't see this war, your ready to go all guns blazing but I guess we feel we've already won and your coming in too late.
>

lol, to an extent i suppose but my battlefield will be in other countries who are no where near yet. and while i appreciate that you feel the battle here is over, i know i felt that way till i began studying it, its really not over yet- definately getting there but not quite.

>> totally incorrect view
> You didn't say you disagreed with her opinion you told her she was wrong.
>

sorry i don't recall the context? if it was the point where i was clarifying the actual meaning of feminism then i defend that. the term has a meaning that was applied incorrectly. if it was to something else i apologise for the use of definate terms.

> Gill who was also married in the dark ages but has never ever been told what to do by her nearest and dearest.

which is great, but that doesn't mean others weren't

to an extent i suppose but my battlefield will be in other countries who are no where near yet.

Yes, if you are going to fight for womens rights your very much needed in other countries, problem is often it is religion based, which is why activists have failed in the past, it is difficult to get past some religious views on women, though they are protected in countries such as ours if they ask for our help.

>> Marital rape and the change in law towards it, is nothing to do with feminism, although many may quip about it men also have been raped and beaten just the same, the change of law wasn't just for women.
> it has lots to do with feminism, though thats not to say other action groups (such as for domestic abuse of either gender) were not heavily involved or found gains in it.

I agree. 

I think that PEOPLE arent equal.  Men have their issues, women have their issues.  Different races and cultures have their issues. 

BUT speaking soley on the feminist topic, women have had their share (and still do) of being less of a person because of what is in their pants (or lack there of).  Women still are seen as the nurturers, and if you dont want kids, you are somehow wrong.  Somehow stupid (BTW, I do remember a thread where I was personally flamed for NOT wanting kids). 

If a man, goes around and jumps into bed with a lot of women, its a notch in his belt.  It is celebrated in a sense, among his buddies.  If a woman does the same, she is labelled as a .........(Fill it in yourself)

If a man gets to the top of his field, it is celebrated, and no questions asked about how he got there.  If a woman does, some people still ask if she layed on her back for it.

Women still get hit, abused, raped, EVERY DAY.  Men do too, and it is under reported, but we must all agree that women have to deal with this type of violence more than a man does. 

Has their been a woman president?  Prime Minister?  Etc????  Maybe, one or two in the history, but more often than not, its men.  Why?? 

Every professional sport is still divided into sex.  Why?

As far as labelling goes here is my attempt.
The world lives with labels.  And even those who say they dont label themselves, they do.  Here are some examples:
Breeder
Wife
Mother
Job Title

Everything that you can say "I am" before is a label.  If you do not label yourself as a feminist, thats fine.  But you can NOT down those that do. 

> i perhaps worded it wrong in my last post, equal rights we have, equal practise we don't.

Does that mean you are trying to enforce equality as a feminist - women who are happy that they have the opportunity to do as they choose should instead be obliged to be equal in numbers to men in every walk of life, job, etc etc? I thought the point was equal opportunities and rights....

And I thought I was a feminist before I read this thread and now..... I just want to bang my head repeatedly off a brick wall. :-D

Astarte

>> that's a surprise - you actually come across as much younger still :-)
> teri, i'm trying to have a discussion and not making personal comments. you may not like my opinions and you may not like my writing style but does it perhaps occur to you that making personal comments is maybe the more childish action that trying to discuss something?

As it happens you do, to me, come across as (much) younger still - it's as simple as that.  My daughter graduated with honours at 22 years, as have most of her friends and several family members.   (She is now 25 and has just read this thread in total disbelief).  By late teens my own and their views on a multitude of 'issues' had, thankfully, mellowed considerably.

I would not ask or wish that you lost your drive and ambition to put the world to rights but would suggest that you find a different way of expressing personal opinions that does not imply your 'audience' is uneducated in comparison to yourself.

Astarte,

you replied to Carrington

>and while i appreciate that you feel the battle here is over, i know i felt that way till i began studying it, its really not over yet- definately getting there but not quite.

only the most recent example in this thread of your talent for belittling other posters

> And I thought I was a feminist before I read this thread and now..... I just want to bang my head repeatedly off a brick wall

That wall's kinda crowded right now hun - can I interest you in a paving slab at all :-D

*Not replying to anyone at all, just a general post*

There are several types of feminism and not just the "burning bra's man hating etc" that a lot of people think feminists are.  There are actually 9 different types of feminism. 

There are some that just believe that women should have equal rights to men, but still be allowed to have the perks of being a woman (ie: want the good jobs, but also want to have some of the old fashioned things in life - like the boy asking them out) to all out, dont need a man, dont want a man, dont want anything done for me as I am totally capable myself. 

Where ever you fit on the spectrum, or dont fit, is fine for you. 

Just hopefully there will always be people fighting for RIGHTS, and we dont have to go back to a day where we women cant work, because its not allowed, we cant vote because its not allowed, and we have to deal with violence. 

Also, I have to say, that the thread has gotten so far out of hand, that it has turned into one member against the rest.  Either you call yourself a feminist, or you dont.  Doesnt matter.  But we can all agree, I think, that we want EQUALITY!

Crespin, you said in your previous post

>Everything that you can say "I am" before is a label. 

That is and can only be a personal opinion, no matter how few or many may or may not share it.  FTR, I don't share that opinion :)

>If you do not label yourself as a feminist, thats fine.  But you can NOT down those that do

I don't recall anyone 'downing' those that call themselves feminist or anything else - only objecting to others attaching that or any label to people other than themselves

> There are actually 9 different types of feminism

Would that be theoretically?

> Just hopefully there will always be people fighting for RIGHTS

True - where a fight for same is required

> Also, I have to say, that the thread has gotten so far out of hand, that it has turned into one member against the rest

This thread began and continued in the vein of one person, with a few less vociferous additions, supporting a theory and the OP blatantly accusing those not in support of that theory as being wrong.  If there are more members participating in this thread offended by that view then surely that suggests nothing more than the right to reply ...... the number of replies from individuals whether for or against is irrelevant IMO.

> Either you call yourself a feminist, or you dont. Doesnt matter

VERY TRUE  :)  And what most of us have been saying - personal choice and specific to how we each wish ourselves to be described, if at all!

> But we can all agree, I think, that we want EQUALITY!

Equal opportunities, where appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.   I wouldn't pre-suppose I had the permission or inside knowledge to speak for anyone else :)