a similar âsemioticâ dilemma
I need some time to ruminate on that one.
Iirc, MS magazine didnât take advertising at first. And then when they did, they had a huge job of educating advertisers on the sorts of ads they would carry, since a lot of companies figured it was just another womenâs lifestyle magazine.
Itâs basically to say that speaking out is hard. You stand up and say something important, and then youâre in a very noisy place with a bunch of other voices that would like to co-opt what youâre saying so it sounds like youâre agreeing with what theyâve always said.
I suspect this has been going on for as long as there has been language.
Maybe she means she is open to Asguardian Gods and also Liam Hemsworth.
As to the commercialization of feminism, I think the problem is the word itself, itâs exclusive and this will always be divisive. Itâs obvious that some groups, because history and culture happened to play out the way it did, arenât enjoying equal opportunities or freedoms - but the solution will never be a word that stems from one gender that it constantly trying to redefine itself instead of just letting go of its initial conceit.
Promote humanism, and then give some time to everyone, such as men who arenât being treated fairly in child custody or other areas and then go on to trans issues and FGM in Africa and I would bet you grow the pie of support rather than trying to just get a larger slice. I know it feels difficult to admit that even the most lucky of groups have problems, but being on everyoneâs side is going going to garner more support.
There are lots of people in patriarchal societies and cultures who just arenât going to accept your verbiage as stated, but would be more open to the idea of taking people equally as long as they donât feel excluded by the terminology being employed.
It reminds me of Dune, the slow blade pierces the shield. It might not be as flashy but of this is all really about being effective in changing minds and attitudes instead of being sneaky and aloof then the method should be a lot less important than the results.
Thatâs been tried and it doesnât work, except in favour of the most powerful group. Anarcha-feminism only came into existence because of the failings of what you want to do.
Itâs not that child custody issues are not important, but people being killed and mutilated is a bigger problem than most child custody cases.
Besides, arenât you fighting the wrong battle? Shouldnât the childs interests and rights be far more important than either the mothers or fathers? Children shouldnât be property, you know.
Feminism is already a subset of humanism. That is to say, what you describe already exists: there is a broad humanist effort to fight for the rights of all people, and that includes movements like feminism.
The problem is that whenever humanists try to give attention to feminist issues, someone like you speaks up to say âDonât be divisive, other people have problems too.â Itâs exactly that eagerness to change the subject which gives rise to feminism as a specific effort. Itâs the only way to make progress on womenâs issues without someone distracting us with some âmore importantâ thing.
If you truly want humanism to be the broad fight that you describe, you should embrace the feminist movement rather than nitpicking it. Use less âNo, actuallyâŠâ and more âYes! AndâŠâ
Gosh, itâs like one canât count on a single word to convey the subtle nuances of oneâs point of view anymore.
Yes, and describing/reducing feminism as/to âsneaky and aloofâ isnât helpful either, @martin0641 .
Beware thoughtless marketing, no matter what label they put on it.
And letâs not forget getting more women into Silicon Valley.
Wait, you mean thereâs people fighting to get more women into positions of privilege before the problem of people being killed and mutilated is solved? Itâs almost as if itâs possible to fight multiple fights as the same time.
If you can convince the courts to see it that way, more power to you. The way the U.S. legal system works, the courts decide whatâs best for kids. Sometimes, a shitty judge will look at a couple and decide that even though the mother reminds them of Lizzy Borden, the mother needs custody because women are kind, gentle, and nurturing. We could argue about whether thatâs the patriarchy at work or not, I suppose.
I think that in many cases (oneâs I know of at least), they do want the divorcing couple to attempt to work out a plan and the court will sign off. Thatâs the case around here, at least. A court will intervene if itâs clear that the parents are too stuck up their own asses to do whatâs best (or if there is clear evidence of neglect/abuse).
Again, this is just for cases I know of, here around ATL. It might be different elsewhere, so I canât speak for that.
What I am suggesting hasnât failed in the sense that all airplanes before the Wright brothers âfailedâ but that does not invalidate the concept - it just means we have more work to do to get there. Feminists are constantly trying to redefine themselves and I think the term itself is a needless barrier.
I agree that the issues mentioned arenât weighted equally, but unfortunately if you want to get people on a team some of them might not be the most empathetic or virtuous so you have to include them so they donât feel excluded. You are making an argument with âshouldâ and I am making a practical statement about how people âareâ and what I think it might take to engage everyone into the greater effort.
The terminology used is enough to get some people to scoff, so I donât see anything wrong with using a more inclusive term and making it part of a multi-point plan to address everyoneâs needs in such a way to garner their support and participation instead of their derision. Itâs more about engagement than about making a list of victim groups and trying to read the tea leaves of who is the worst off in a never ending game of universal equality.
A rich white maleâs pet issue might not be as important as some other issue, but to HIM it certainly hits home.
Actually, Iâm fighting against that too.
It (anarcha-feminism) is described to be an anti-authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-oppressive philosophy, with the goal of creating an âequal groundâ between males and females. The term âanarcha-feminismâ suggests the social freedom and liberty of women, without needed dependence upon other groups or parties.
[quote=âmartin0641, post:4, topic:78138â]
Promote humanism, and then give some time to everyone, such as men who arenât being treated fairly in child custody or other areas and then go on to trans issues and FGM in Africa and I would bet you grow the pie of support rather than trying to just get a larger slice. [/quote]
I think you mean egalitarianism, not humanism. Humanism is a ethical/moral belief system (quasi-religion). Although the free agency part of humanism would be necessary to really compare it to feminism.
The only thing I can think of that comes close to an all-inclusive ideal would be the French tripartite motto: liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Of course, weâd want to get way from the latin root of fraternitĂ© which would be brother, and frankly the mysogyny after the French revolution so a modern version would be more like liberty, equality, camaraderie or maybe even liberty, equality, solidarity in English.
I canât believe I looked this up, but according to the gossip sites, they are getting married. Who she is dating shouldnât call into question her self-identity as pansexual. Bisexual erasure (pansexual in this case) is monosexist bullshit.
Indeed, that word âfraternitĂ©â is questioned in France. It could be accepted as neutral by convention if womenâs revendications hadnât been extensively suppressed during the French Revolution. Itâs a side issue, but a highly symbolic one that French feminists wonât let be put under the rug. Not indefinitely, anyway. The ghost of Olympe de Gouges is there, kicking and screaming. A gender-neutral neologism has even been proposed: âadelphitĂ©â, based on Greek âadelphosâ, meaning roughly âsiblingâ (and root for âPhiladelphiaâ).
While Iâm at etymology and semantics, I can answer to @martin0641 about the word âfeminismâ. It has a history, you know. It comes from French âfĂ©minismeâ, which used to be a medical term for the condition of a male bearing female physiological traits, and ended up used by Alexandre Dumas, Fils, as a derogatory term for men who supported womenâs rights. Itâs an early case of a terminology thatâs been revendicated and appropriated by the movement it was supposed to disparage. As such, itâs an important conquest. A trophy. It wonât be given up, even if it confuses some ignorant folks.
Thatâs a rather shortsighted reflexive stance to take then. Of course, historically female dependence has been overemphasized (to put it ridiculously mildly,) but taking that fish/bicycle thing beyond a personal empowerment awakening to some larger social proposition amounts to juvenile contrarianism. Solidarity means we all need each other.
My mother has been independent since she was a teenager, and a professional since not long after. Sheâs certainly put up with more sexism and harassment than what sheâs ever let on to me. She gave birth to me as an intentionally single mother â in 1970! â and to hell with what the neighbors whispered. She agrees with every principle of liberal feminism. Yet she refuses to identify as feminist, because she thinks the term is a label for fringe radicals like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas.
Do you think that would have happened with a word that was less easily perceived as confrontational and âreverse-sexist?â Do you think excluding swaths of actual feminists who just wouldnât call themselves that was helpful to the movement? Was having an obscure linguistic trophy on the (wo)mantlepiece worth sowing division among the women whose struggle for liberation it was supposed to represent?
</whiteknight>
Has celebrity feminism failed?
âŠ
It has become fashionable to identify as a feminist in Hollywood, but a social and political force needs substance, not just award-ceremony speeches, to refocus the spotlight.
âŠ
It needs to be seen in context.
Anarchist women were (and still are) being told to focus on issues that primarily effected men (Which women were fighting for anyway, in solidarity), and that all womens problems will be solved after the revolution. No one ever said how their problems would actually be solved, and the revolution could happen at any time between tomorrow and 1000 years from now. Is fighting for your freedom without depending on those men who wonât fight with you anyway really juvenile contrarianism? We arenât talking about separatist feminism here, just a fight against manarchism.
If there is a lack of solidarity (and I agree that there is), it is from the anarchist men who tell women to wait until the revolution.
