Originally Posted by
Rukari
I find "feminist" to be a rather problematic word.
Equality is a universal concept, you either care about it for everyone, or you don't care about it. It can't be compartmentalized, you can't champion equality for solely one group, that's inimical to the whole idea of equality.
While I agree that equality is a universal concept, championing one group does NOT mean that you are ignoring the other groups that are oppressed. I am feminist yes, but I'm also against bulling LGBT, child abuse, emotional abuse, violence, etc. You cannot dismiss a movement simply because it focuses on one aspect, that would be unfair. Just because the women's rights movement has a title that I can claim doesn't mean that I'm not against all forms of oppression. Feminism is one aspect of equality, it does not claim to directly defend against any type of oppression, therefore is cannot be judged for not fixing the worlds many oppression problems. I am feminist, and I care about equality for everyone. Just because I am feminist does not mean I do not champion other causes and many MANY feminist I know out there also champion other causes. Basically, it's like saying if you belong to say the French Club at school that you can't belong to the German or English Club or any other language club because OBVIOUSLY the only thing you care about is French. (Caps is for emphasis not shouting).
Advocating for particular groups tempts one into becoming a lobbyist for privilege. As such, you end up with people who self-label as feminists and yet are perfectly willing to promote gender stereotypes and roles that they perceive as beneficial towards them. This, in turn, sullies the image and credibility of the movement, impairing its ability to fulfill its original purpose.
i will not deny that there are many feminists, in the middle and upper classes especially, that claim feminism and yet oppress other women in the lower and middle working class. This is a big problem within feminism and has allowed to come to pass because in the past feminists did not recognize the plights of women who were poor, or women of color/different ethnicities. It was mainly white women who wanted a little extra pin money and independence from their husbands that went marching through the streets to get the vote and jobs. That ignorance of the other women has cost us, because many believe that feminism is only about certain women instead of all. But I can say that feminism is trying to make strides in the right direction. We have done better in the field of writing. Much literature taught in college is by women who were not priveleged or were women of color. Basically, we are working on it, and we hope you do not condemn the movement entirely because of a mistake we're trying to correct.
I find the easiest way to determine whether someone truly believes in gender equality or not is whether they think hitting women is inherently worse than hitting men.
I am feminist and I believe that hitting with the intent to hurt/injure/humiliate/or violate another is equally wrong, regardless of the gender of the person hitting and the person being hit. So, I guess I do believe in gender equality. Fancy that, feminists actually believe in true gender equality. :P I think what some people might get hung up on is because generally women are a. more likely to be physically abused, therefore the law wants to really come down hard on those who abuse so it can be stopped and b. women are generally weaker and therefore easier to injure. I don't think people are intending to say that hitting a woman is actually worse fundamentally, but that is usually has much more detrimental affects for the woman in the long run. A person who is easier to hit is probably much more likely to be hit. (Ever heard of bullying in school? Who is it that gets abused most? Those who are muscular and big or those who are not, regardless of gender) When us girls and boys grow up, men are almost always taller and stronger and therefore more likely to hit than to be hit. So, to end, NO, hitting women is not fundamentally worse than hitting men, but it sure happens a whole lot more and women are usually more injured when hit than men are because of size/strength.
If they say its worse then I can safely disregard their views on gender entirely. I've found it works on most people so I consider it to be highly effective. It's a great way to distinguish between whether a 'feminist' actually cares about equality or whether they are just an advocate for feminine privileges.
As long as one is seen as worse, then its clear that in their mind one gender is more readily seen as a victim that needs additional protection and the other as an aggressor that doesn't deserve protection. This, in turn, has a huge impact on how all other gender issues are perceived.
From this we get ideas like "women and children first", reports on how "no innocent women and children were harmed" (men can't be innocent?).
I believe it perfectly right to give those who are oppressed additional protection. I understand that some people may be misunderstood and seen as more of an aggressor than they really are, but in the cases that mean most to feminists: domestic abuse, I'm sorry, but the abuser does not need or deserve protection from abuse and the abusee does need additional protection. To deny this would be to compound the oppression of the already oppressed and allow the oppressors to go scott-free. If we are talking only about men hitting women versus women hitting men, then yes, I would say as a feminist each situation should be judged individually and the oppressor should be stopped and the oppressed should be protected. You do know that there are many cases that rule in the favor of the oppressed male. Women have kids taken away all the time and put into foster care because of abuse or given to the father. I have not actually known any ONE woman who has been able to use her so-called feminist privelege to continually and devastatingly abuse another and get away with it. BUT, I have heard of many men who have. Hey, I've gotta side with the facts.
Of course you will then have people who argue that, in general men are stronger than women.
This is true... with 'in general' being the key qualifier.
You know whats a better indicator of strength, though?
Strength.
That being the case, there is absolutely no reason to involve gender at all. Involving gender is like judging the temperature by ice cream sales instead of just looking at the thermometer. Sure the two are correlated, but not to the degree that you could justifiably replace one with the other.
If the issue is hitting someone weaker than yourself, then why not just say so?
Why not just say "it's wrong to hit someone significantly weaker than yourself" or "it's wrong to hit someone not capable of defending themselves"?
It's far more universal and doesn't rely on stereotypes and generalizations. It affords protection to all those who deserve it instead of a small subset.
If a much stronger women beats up a much weaker man, who's the social stigma on?
The man.
Saying its an issue of strength is a complete lie.
It's the expectation of strength - its gender perception.
The rule doesn't exist because men are stronger but, rather, because men are expected to be stronger. The rule is improperly applied to cases that are in direct opposition to expectations such that men are not seen as victims even when they're the weaker one being victimized.
It just shows you that this 'logic' isn't the real reason, it's a flimsy rationalization for their sexism.
Likewise, what of training? Training plays a huge role is deciding how one sided a fight will be and gender isn't a reliable indicator of it at all. Someone I doubt a guy would be as willing to espouse his ideas of women being the weaker sex if the opponent in the argument was a female soldier or a female mma fighter.