Yada, yada, yada

[eumelia]

I know you're all probably sick of my oral diarrhea.
But I like to write this stuff so, you all get to read it... or skim over it if you don't feel like reading it.

A few things have been bothering me a for the past few days, after a discussion with a good friend of mine, where he tried to convince me that feminism, by focusing on women only, they are only creating more gender segregation and that not only women are oppressed by society and that humanism is a much better term to use in the idealogical battle against oppression of all kind.

Many things about that idea bother me; my biggest bother is the thought that Feminism is the cause of gender segregation and not, ya know, the Judeo-Patriarchal society we currently live in, where the basic idea, one of the first things an Orthodox man says when he wakes up in the morning ברוך אתה אדוני, אלוהינו מלך העולם, שלא עשני אישה (Blessed are You, Adonai, Our God, King of the Universe, Who Did Not Make Me a Woman). And despite the leftist bubble in which I and many of my friends surround ourselves in; it is the people who wake up at dawn and say that, that currently control the institute of marriage and citizenship in Israel.

Domestic violence can be found against men as well, but those who suffer from it the most are the women and the children. Why? Because the percentage of women who still depend on men for everything, from emotional to the economical is still greater than that of women in that position.
There is also domestic violence to be found amongst couples of the same sex, and among children of various ages.

And no, not only women are oppressed; strictly speaking, in an unbalanced society everyone is oppressed, because we must adhere to the strict rules that make our society what it is, that, however, doesn't stop people from having a whole lot of privileged.
I am privileged by being white and coming from an economically stable home and having a family that encourages me to be successful in everything I do.
Many families don't have that and still most families encourage the Son to be successful and the Daughter to find a good husband.

We do not live in a vacuum, there are places in the world women are still considered property, there main victims of human trafficking are women and girls, there is still a glass ceiling under which women work and toil with little to no chance of moving up, because of her sex. More examples are of course, abundant.

Humanism is not an exchange for Feminism, because Humanism is a philosophy to do with rationalism, self-determinism and the affirmation of human-dignity (all very, IMO, general and as I've said, philosophical). Whereas feminism today is, again in my own experience and opinion, more to do with activism and actual action towards bettering the rights of those oppressed in the Patriarchy and to me that means everyone.

I think that by attempting to equalize the footing on which (speaking specifically) women and men stand is a mistake since at the moment, women aren't on equal footing to men and until they are it is going to be “Feminism” and not “Mutualism”, “Equalism” or any other kind of “-ism”.

Comments

[morin.livejournal.com]

http://israblog.nana.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=244696&blogcode=5401649

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

*הנהון*
קראתי, אני קוראת את הפיד

[hakuzo.livejournal.com]

The fact is nobody is equal. Does that make some people better? No, of coarse not. Does that mean we should deny rights or freedoms to people based on sex, or race? No, of coarse not.

I personally can't call myself a feminist, although I would like to see women given equal opportunities. I think everyone should be free to make their own choices, to live in safety and be happy. I think everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. I think these are more or less the gyst behind all equal rights movements.

So why won't I call myself a feminist? Simply put, feminism is a largely female movement. There are militant elements in feminism that don't want men to be a part of the movement. This is a fatal flaw. You have to have a majority to make any changes here in the western world. If men are excluded, or made to feel unwelcome, how will you ever become the majority?

Also, I think most women fear change. Womens shelters are always over-full with battered women who return right back to the guy that beat them bloody. I tried for a couple years to teach womens self-defense, but hardly anyone came to my classes. The majority that did come weren't there to learn to fight off an attacker, they were there to meet the guys that helped teach the class.

I am guessing that I'm really seeing only a small part of the picture, so my ideas could be wrong. It seems to me, however, that the changes have to come first in the minds of women. JMHO.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

There are militant elements in feminism that don't want men to be a part of the movement.

I don't agree with those militant elements, because as I said in the post, in an unbalanced society everyone is oppressed, it's just that there are those who benefit more or less from this oppression.

Battered Woman Syndrome is a psychological disorder, and most women who return back to their abusive partners do so because they are unable to see any other choice, because they feel dependent on the person who abused them, this has to do with the fact that this partner gives them something they feel they lack, be it a home, love or any other thing.
I know girls and women who were in abusive relationships and it takes a long time to even realize that the relationship is abusive, because one's mindset can't see it that way at the time.

Change has to come from everyone and not just from the women, the idea that it's the feminist women who cause this stagnation in the movement is, IMO, ridiculous. It's mainly to do with media and cultural backlash. And you can't expect women to change if men don't. Men are currently the majority rule is places of power, they have no need to change because they have control, why give that up or change your mind about what power and control is just because there are less women in these positions, it doesn't hurt me (the man in power) so why should I care?
Do you see what I mean?

[hakuzo.livejournal.com]

Hmm, ok that makes sense. I think that the old power structure offers an amount of security and power in itself. I have seen women hide behind the power of their mate while using the weapon of NAG before. I just don't see it as black & white as male vs. female. There are a lot of female CEO's in this country that refuse to do things like hire a pregnant woman, or allow another woman to have maternity leave. I'm not saying that female opposition is the only opposition that Feminism has, but I think it's probably the toughest obstacle that it has to get around.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. It's the same way Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir were depicted as the "ballsiest men" in their respective cabinets.
Personally, I think that that's where feminism has to go now, to actually try and change the societal mindset and not just get women into positions of power. To not just get the sexes to be on equal footing, but to change the actual idea of what that "footing" is.

[hakuzo.livejournal.com]

Well... I think you are still thinking small. In India, they have a saying, and a gesture. It's like shaking hands, but it is so much more. It's 'namaste'. It means 'I recognise the god/dess in you'. We are all devine, we all have our own set of circumstances that make us individuals, but we are the expression of one devine force. Maybe we should all think very hard on this the next time we speak/act/think towards another, whether they be black, white, male, female, straight, gay, or space alien.

I think labeling yourself, holding picket signs, and marching angers a lot of people. I think perhaps a better approach would be acknowledging and honoring each others humanity, and god/dess-hood. That said...

Namaste. =)

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Thank you *^_^*

[mrvetinari.livejournal.com]

"I know you're all probably sick of my oral diarrhea"

-never.

I prefer to call it "thinking out in the open."

Humanism seems to de facto support feminist ideas, since it values people on their merita and abilities, rather than birthright. Most orthodox/fundamentalist religions seem to be de facto opposition to feminism, since they were rooted in cultures steeped in patriachy.

This is not to insult ancient cultures. When 30-60% of your children may not reach adulthood (as was too often the case) - having 6 to 10 kids makes sense - and doing so makes any equal role for women during their lifetimes VERY challenging. Modern times allow for more options.