hmmm

[gsh]

fairerhiannon posted that today is the 90th anniversary of the passing of the 19th amendment. I've met more than one woman in my life who claimed to *NOT* be a feminist. If there are any female non feminists reading this, would you object to the repealing of the 19th amendment? I figure if we can debate should the 14th, or the 17th, or even the 22nd be repealed, we can find out if anyone wants to advocate the 19th be tossed.

Comments

[lizkayl.livejournal.com]

Virginia apparently didn't ratify it until 1952- when my mom was Born.

Mississippi waited until 1984. WTF.

[gsh]

I had not been aware of Mississippi. That's some serious Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

[dckermit.livejournal.com]

Once the constitutional amendment passed, it became the law of the land regardless of whether the remaining states ratified it or not. Ratifying it in 1952 or 1984 was purely a symbolic act with no real meaning.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I have met women who identify with the tenets of feminism, but refuse to call themselves feminists because first and second wave feminism largely excluded women of color. So those women prefer "womanist." I've also heard "equalist," which I think is just unnecessarily nitpicky.

In any case, I just don't get women who don't consider themselves feminists/womanists. Like, do you really WANT to be considered inferior, paid less for your work, and have your bodily autonomy taken from you? REALLY? No? Okay. Then you're a feminist.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Icon not pointed at you, of course. It's just my current default feminist icon, for people who say stupid shit like "women want special rights!" etc.

[gsh]

Just to be clear, I had zero feeling the icon was pointed at me. I've not had even a minor disagreement with you on the issues of women's rights to my knowledge.

[gsh]

At least one of the women I know who considers herself anti-feminist is for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. If being for the repeal of R v W is enough to make someone not a feminist is not something for me to say.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Indeed. If you're not for bodily autonomy, you're not a feminist.

[drcruel.livejournal.com]

I'm not a feminist, for the same reason that I'm not a masculinist. I'm a gender-equalist, and I use that term because I'm picky about equality.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Yes, but there is nothing about feminism that is not about gender equality. It does not promote women over men, or advocate for women to be given special rights that men do not have.

It's called feminism because it's about promoting womens' rights to be equal and the term was coined when women did not even have the right to vote.

You're picking at false perceptions of the word, and not actual fact and definition. That seems totally unnecessarily to me.

[drcruel.livejournal.com]

It seems necessary to me because feminism does nothing to advance men's rights, even in areas where they are clearly disadvantaged relative to women. Again, I wouldn't call myself a masculinist, and I would object to a "masculinist movement"-but the fact that there is no such movement should indicate something to us both. And I'm hoping you won't give further credence to my argument with the standard feminist response that there is no need for masculinism because men are just so diggity-dang-dong priviliged.

[gsh]

Consider this a perhaps preemptive warning. My blog, my rules. You two are most welcome to discuss this calmly. I don't want a flame war. Please refrain from putting words in each others mouths, and listen to what the other is saying, not what you are projecting onto them.

I'm not saying either of you is doing anything wrong, and I want to keep it that way.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Well, of course it doesn't advance mens' rights. It's by definition about having the same rights as men currently have. And as for "where they are clearly disadvantaged relative to women" (after I ask "and what places would they 'clearly' be?") there has been ample discussion in the feminist blogosphere about how patriarchy is harmful to both women AND men, because any time we try to put men and women into tight gender roles, it emotionally disadvantages and damages members of both genders. Even so, the ways that our society disadvantages women dwarfs the way it disadvantages men on an institutional level-- socially and economically speaking.

(ETA: essentially, what I'm saying here is that I'll stop calling myself a feminist when women have the same rights as men. When we make the same amount for the same work. When 95%+ rapes aren't perpetrated on women. When rape cases are regularly and reliably prosecuted. When women are equally represented alongside upper management with their male peers. When I can walk down the street and not get sexist remarks hurled at me on a daily basis.

At that point, I will turn the focus of my attention to much less pervasive ways that men are disadvantaged. Hell, I'll even speak up when I see them now! But for the moment: my main focus is on the way that women are still fighting for basic equalities in our society. Hence: feminist.)

In any case, there is a such thing as male privilege, and your dismissive and frankly condescending response to that even potentially being brought up in the conversation speaks volumes.

Actually, there is a masculinist movement- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

...they've been trolling feminist discussion boards for ages.

{ETA: On paper, some of their points are valid-- it has always bugged me that it seems that mothers de facto get custody unless it is proven she is unfit. (Uh, most of the time. I know more than one woman who had custody denied because she wasn't Christian.) But the way I have personally and overwhelmingly seen MRA (Mens' Rights Activisim) members tend to conduct themselves in public discourse is so beyond-the-pale chauvinistic & sexist that honestly, I can't endorse the movement in any way, shape, or form. I have seen many men use MRA membership as way to thinly veil appalling misogyny.}