Feminism for dummies

[Utisz]

Okay so I feel like I've just walked around the feminist group blog with muddy boots on.

so (the group thread) isn't used a one-stop for questioning feminism or premises that were already outlined in the first post of that thread, and so generally there are less interruptions

This sounds reasonable in that if there was an advanced logic programming thread I wouldn't appreciate it if a large subset of folks kept asking how to do something in HTML or saying they didn't believe in computers.

So this is a place for anyone, like me, who doesn't understand the first group-blog post, or knows very little about feminism, or has questions, or whatever ... maybe we can discuss here instead.


(Just to be clear, this is intended as a separate thread from the group blog. It is not intended to be a meta-thread.)

[Utisz]

Maybe a reasonable place to start with are hard statistics on the extent of the gender gap? I know there are lots of reports on this issue (e.g., here). Maybe we start by looking at those.

The Global Gender Gap Report 2014 emphasizes persisting gender gap divides across and within regions. Based on the nine years of data available for the 111 countries that have been part of the report since its inception, the world has seen only a small improvement in equality for women in the workplace. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2014, launched today, the gender gap for economic participation and opportunity now stands at 60% worldwide, having closed by 4% from 56% in 2006.

[stigmatica]

Why is it that the idea of posting anything in any of these threads gives me hives? Just posting this useless question that will probably never be accurately answered took more courage than I'd like to admit. Feels like I'm volunteering to run through a minefield, only I have no idea why I should bother. Somehow, I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way. I will freely admit that I doubt I'll ever be 100% open in a discussion of this nature. Not that I have anything to hide, I just have better things to do than defusing mines every other minute.

[Ptah]

Feminism, as with any other such -ism is a waste of time. We are all human beings, and deserve to be treated as such insofar as we act as such. Done. All other -isms are just specialized aberrations of if not ignorances athwart this basic principle (as arises from basic observation), as I see it.

As such, I need ask no question, need educate myself in no manner about feminism (or any other -ism). All just irrelevant details. No history, no exposition, no anecdote or argument changes the invariant: we are all human beings, and some humans are idiots. One particular manner in which they can be idiots is to dote upon (if not against) irrelevant details of our skin, gender, culture or whatever other such inessential whatnot. The solution to all such problems remains invariant, in general: people need be less stupid. Translation: they need to wake the fuck up and stop being idiots, doting upon (if not against) the irrelevant athwart the essential: our humanity.

To wit, feminism (or any other such inessential -ism) is indeed for dummies.

[ferrus]

Why is it that the idea of posting anything in any of these threads gives me hives?

You mean, apart from all the other threads? Personally I do sort of believe in letting people talk among themselves if that is their wish.

[Sappho]

I shall make myself very unpopular with the following.

As a woman, I find the mere idea of "feminism" offensive. If anything, it only proves that women are the weaker sex and need additional help in rationalising their very existence. Fie, fie.

Fellow women, if you want to be taken seriously, then act seriously. Further the sciences. Write novels that transcend the realm of trite sensitivites. Create exuberant works of art. Compose symphonies. It's time to rival with the greatest in history - not to invent a bunch of pseudo-sciences nobody needs.

/A woman in a stereotypically male profession.

[C.J.Woolf]

Feminism, as with any other such -ism is a waste of time. We are all human beings, and deserve to be treated as such insofar as we act as such. Done. All other -isms are just specialized aberrations of if not ignorances athwart this basic principle (as arises from basic observation), as I see it.

We all deserve to be treated as human beings, but society (or the uglier elements thereof) lumps some human beings together and treats them as an inferior class. Feminism is not so much an action but a reaction to this.

@Sappho: Sure, everyone should make the most of themselves, but I see feminism as collective action for the benefit of all women, not just the ablest.

[Ptah]

Feminism is not so much an action but a reaction to this.

... and an aberrant if not also ignorant one at that, insofar as it reacts in kind to the stupidity, as such, that started it.

Someone deals with you in terms of your gender, not your humanity. The wrong response: responding to them in terms of gender, for it implicitly validates (if not also, as often, accepts) the invalid premise that started things off. Perpetuates the stupid, the aberrant, the ignorant... making everything worse, as I see it.

[Polemarch]

I'd approach this like any other project.

So first, there's the current state - status quo. Then there's some kind of desired future state - which differs from the status quo. The way I'd approach this is to define the current state, figure out who the stakeholders are, figure out how the current state serves each of the stakeholders, then hypothesize about possible future state solutions which better serve those stakeholders.

Speaking as an American white guy, I'm sorta fine with the status quo. But I'm open minded to hearing about other stakeholders: how the current state works / doesn't work for them, where the shortfalls and gaps are, and what kind of future state solutions they'd like to see implemented. I'll then consider whether those future state solutions work better for me than the current state. That's basically how I'd determine my level of buy-in to making changes.

I realize this approach would be attacked on the grounds of selfishness - but it's my prerogative to advocate for my interests, even (particularly?) in matters of privilege. If there's a case to be made that life would be better FOR ME in a world where I had less privilege, I'd listen to it with an open mind. There very well may be such an argument.

Those are the boundaries within which I care about / have interest in a discussion of feminism.

[Thoth]

How can any one claim to champion a cause of inclusion from a platform of exclusion? By building on a basis of differences you inherently promote the very problem you seek to conquer.

More particularly, the OP quote is nothing more than a summary dismissal; if your opinion differs from the whole, you will be excluded from the conversation. How can there be any progress in an echo chamber?