Chixe

Lelia, first of all I'd like to applaud you for having the courage to explore this topic here. :)

I'm a feminist. I'll say that loud and clear--I'm not saying that I fit the definition that are typically in peoples' minds about what a feminist is (as you addressed above) but indeed I am one and I'll fight for the proper definition as I believe it to be as long as I'm on this earth. It's also because I don't believe that we're at a point where women and men are equal either. The phrase you used, "as far as we've come" makes me super-annoyed as well. It's as if we should just settle and take what we can get.

That is not to say we're not different. I think that a lot of the confusion women have about this "equal rights" thing is that somehow we have to act like men. Indeed we are more emotional beings but that is definitely not a bad thing. It's time we stop letting men be the standard and carve out our own identity. "More emotional" doesn't have to be a negative thing. What has resulted from that confusion about being more like men, in fact, is where the Femi-Nazi perception came from in the first place. Having more emotion is not mutually exclusive with intelligence. In fact, I believe it makes us more well-rounded if we can, in fact, achieve high quotients in both areas, and use them for the greater good rather than for our own purpose, no?

As I said before, we still have a long way to go. On one hand there's women who will demand equal rights but will certainly not foot 50% of the responsibility. While there are men who take advantage of emotionally weak women, there are manipulative women who will devise subversive ways to get the one-up on their man.

Friendships are another thing: I have always had more guy friends than girlfriends. I was also a tomboy like you, but I also have 3 siblings who are only brothers. I just got along with guys better. Probably up until after college. And then I realized I didn't want to be one of those women who would say, "I just don't get along with girls," or presume all girls to have problems with me or whatever. It's hypocritical, really, because what is that saying? That all girls are incapable of getting along with me because and it's all theirfault and none of mine. And that's when I started learning how invaluable friendships with other, strong women are. They are priceless. No one knows what it's like to be a woman like an actual female does.

I think that this might be an L.A. regional thing, though...there is a certain dynamic in this city where there is some girl-on-girl competition all the time, at least with the sorority-aged. It is a really catty phenomenon and I'm not proud of it. As I approached my mid- to late-20's, though, it disappeared somewhat and it's been great. But that's why when friendships develop amongst women it is that much more special. I'd be curious to see what it's like in other cities/regions because I do believe that depending on where you are there tend to be different trends amongst the sexes.

So I don't know if I see a problem with women-men friendships so much--but I have to be honest in that perhaps I myself may be on the untrusting side of the female side of the coin. Or at least in the prudent sense, because I have seen so many situations where girls would use guys who have fallen for them, yet they would only consider them as a friend but would find it convenient to continue to befriend them for their own "use" and w/o any regard to the guy's feelings. A few of my best friends are guys as it is (from college). I do quite frankly see new friendships with girls more valuable because there is the negation of the risk of feelings and misunderstandings getting in the way.

Then again, cool people are cool people and coolness is not sexist. ;)

I've blabbed. I hope you find some sense in what I just said. :)

By the way, I HATE CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANTS. They're the source of all evil in women, today. Okay, I've exaggerated but seriously? This Brat dolls thing and having shirts w/rhinestones spelling out "Princess" thing? Also the source of all evil in women today. I saw this tank top on sale online once and the rhinestones spelled out, "UGLY" instead. I should have bought it.

I'm not going to take part in this I have no desire to get into, or time for heated discussion , but I did read an interesting article today Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand which seems to belie some of the notions of feminism and relationships.

Given that the population was limited to undergrads I'm not sure how empirically sound it is, but it was something to think about as I hear men all the time blame feminism for downfalls in their relationships.

I did read Self Made Man even though I originally thought it nothing more than a publicity ruse. It confirmed what many have said and some refuse to believe..men and women in many ways are different, women have a certain ability, whether due to environment, social constructs, or biology, to have very close relationships with other women, relationships which possess an intimacy men just usually do not find among their male friends.

I have a couple of really good female friends, a couple of really good male friends. I like spending time with the females alone because there are certain commonalities which make the female friendships special/different from the friendships I have with males. Certain things I share with female friends I would not share with a male friend unless I were intimate with him. That is just the way it is.

I do see it as pretty common for both men and women to blame the female for whatever. So there are some women using it as men used their power in the past - that to me is expected, not a fault of feminism.

I'm not much of a feminist though, and worrying about middle class educated women who choose to primp up for their man doesn't concern or interest me. The women who choose to do that have choices. I may find it silly or stupid but I am more concerned with people who do not have choices.

I am still concerned about many of the standards which still apply though.

I'd like some men to answer this.

I second that.

Go!

First, an explanation of where I'm coming from:
(1) I'm not a feminist.
(2) I do believe in things like equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunity.
(3) Biology, however, does not believe in equal opportunity, and there are stark differences between men and women. I believe this to be a good thing:
- Men are generally more apt for physical duty than women,
- women can usually multitask better than men (they have a larger corpus callosum),
- etc...

As for the current state of Feminism: I can't say I can speak to that, since I haven't seen the latest studies. However, it seems that the original goals of feminism: equal pay for equal work, choice of whether to be at home or at work, and equal treatment, have for the most part been met. (In fact, in certain professions, such as marketing, women have taken a decided lead in both roles filled and higher paid). In fact, too many times have I heard modern feminists begin to rally for causes they perhaps shouldn't.

For example, early feminists supported the idea of pornography as being a good thing, since it allowed women to take charge of their sexuality. Result: the culture of pornification. I've heard a lot of women (feminist and not) complain about how "society" traps young girls into believing they have to be "sluts" in order to get attention. However, a big part of this is the purveyance of pornography in the past few decades, which the feminists supported. This eventually led to what we have today, at least in America, where often times girls dress like tramps because they're trying to garner attention. Men, on the other hand, have been taught that a woman's only "hot" (notice that I didn't say "pretty" or "beautiful") if she's "porn-worthy, where women are supposed to be at least X pretty and Y slutty, and where the greater Y is the lower X has to be in order for her to be acceptable, with the greatest virtue, of course, being able to have every hole in her body plugged and stretched.

The men, of course, being fed to their prurient desires began to "take the hint" and started, en masse, treating women as they obviously "wanted" to be treated.

Talk about missing the mark!

Now, I hear a lot about "Why is it that if a woman sleeps around, she's a slut and if a man sleeps around, he's a stud?" Because that's the way guys usually think. (At least, when they're allowed to -- and sometimes encouraged -- to be animalistic. Those who actually want to work past that base level -- for example, religious individuals -- consider guys who sleep around as slutty as the women who do the same.) Women, on the other hand, insult each other with words like "slut", too, which makes it a bit difficult to find an equivalent, so instead many have adopted the guy's standpoint. This may actually have a biological component which has, over millennia, been made to look as if it was only a religious limitation. (Previous research has shown that everything from the reason for the shape of the penis to widely-observed natural tendencies within humans to why women tend to use sex as a tool has pointed to our male ancestors being more promiscuous -- trying to propagate their genes -- and the women, after they've been fertilized, using sex to keep the guy around. This gets into a lot more Anthropology than I care to get to right now, even though the very nature of this entire conversation is anthropological -- and perhaps, depending on the tone it eventually takes, anthropomophic -- in nature.

Of course, this is only from the sexuality viewpoint. I haven't even started to talk about the emotional focus of men vs. women, where women are naturally more focused on things like emotions and empathy (the maternal instincts) and men are more focused on their physical attributes and leadership qualities (the protector with the smaller corpus callosum).

Here's a thought experiment: think about the work "destruction." What do you see?

- Most men will think of buildings being destroyed and bombs going off.
- Most women will think about relationships being torn apart, and perhaps people dying.

Interesting that difference, eh?

Often, I've seen those who call themselves feminists be too fond of calling out society for being a set of rules imposted upon them, without realizing that these rules didn't come out of nowhere. Social frameworks are usually representations of long term constructs whose base is generally biological function. (Why is God so concerned with shellfish and shmucks in the Old Testament? Probably because without proper cleansing, shellfish are poisonous, and a circumcised male will be less prone to infections in that region (including STDs) than an uncircumcised male.) Of course, these constructs are too often abstracts -- much like the idea of adding numbers on a sheet of paper is an abstract of having the objects in front of you for you to count -- and because of that many of the more unfair situations -- where, for example, a man tries to be the head of his household and is instead simply abusive, and then this is seen as OK by a society -- have arisen. In this situation is where a feminist movement is needed.

The problem with the perception of feminism today is that early on, the focus was so strongly (as it is still today, from what I've seen) on nurture over nature, that a lot of their arguments have been weakened because they are as fervent and indefensible as religious arguments which rely on suspect evidence. The fact is that biology has a LOT to say about why we act the way we do, and this has been supported by more and more evidence as we understand both the brain and the human genome better. While nurture is an important factor -- what we believe is beautiful, for example, is generally a nurture issue (and don't get me started on breasts, hips and penis size, because they're a strange mixture of both -- nature is at the heart of it all, and plays a MAJOR role in why things are the way they are.

And I'll pretty much end my rant here (and it IS a rant, probably one that's not too well organized and very scatterbrained). Two books I recommend reading are "If he only knew" and "If she only knew", which are written to help men and women understand what things like "you're not listening to me" mean to each of the genders. For guys, "Man of steel and velvet" is one I'd recommend very highly, since it talks about what a man is supposed to be, not what he is supposedly to be (eg. the buffoon father who only cares about father, tit-mags, and beer).

@Cooper: by the way, I agree with your comments. Most of my best friends are ladies, but there's a big difference in the way I interact with ladies and the way I interact with my guy friends. There are things I simply will NOT talk about with my female friends, for a myriad of reasons, the biggest being that, as a woman, they simply wouldn't understand where I'm coming from. (For example, discussing the different pressures or stresses I may be under. That's as impossible for a woman to understand at a base level as it is for a man to understand what actually being pregnant feels like, both the joys and the hardships.)

[Edit: This kept going through my mind as I wrote this: The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.]

I thank you fro commenting Gnorb. I'm going to digest it all.

*takes a deep breath in and lets it all out*

I'm wondering if I'm sane to even attempt to contribute to the discussion here - the above comments ^ have probably given me a week's worth of thought to swallow. I admit I am intimidated.

That being said, the issue of feminism has always been a prickly one to me. Like Gnorb, I am not a feminist, but I do believe in equality between the genders. Whenever I see a guys vs gals (why its better to be a guy or vice versa) argument on the net I pop in to say that we both need each other, to balance each other out, and then hurriedly disappear before things get out of hand (which they usually do).

I am angered whenever I hear of a teacher telling their female students to "grow up to be a clerk - it is befitting for you" (which still happens where I come from), and I feel pride when I hear of a woman succeeding in a predominantly male vocation.

My stance on the issue has always been that both genders need each other to succeed. An example of this: in organizations (or event organization) I tend to find males focus on the bigger picture, the great vision and aim of the organization, and that women zoom in on the tiny details. So it is that males will trip over tiny things and female members tend to lose focus of the big picture. It may sound like a generalization, but it holds a degree of truth in it, and I usually prefer a team with an equal distribution of genders.

On to lelia's questions:

I'm curious what other women and men on 9rules think about the current state of feminism (or lack thereof) that is in the world today, particularly in developed nations.

I think Gnorb, estarla and Cooper between them have covered this question in greater detail and depth than I possibly could have done. However I'd like to point to an LAT-WP article entitled "What Does It Mean To Be Manly?"

It might not be about feminism, but it does explore an unitended effect of feminism on our society today.

"In trying to empower the girls," Sandborn says "we implicitly sent a message that the guys were not as good. Women have succeeded in creating positive new roles for themselves. What we haven't come up with is what a positive image of a man should be"

The underlying implication of this is that yes, the feminism movement has to a certain degree succeeded (in empowering females to be all they can be). But at what expense? Gnorb has already outlined some of the unintended repercussions the movement has had, and I'm inclined to say that it has succeeded in some areas (opening up doors to women) and failed in others (entertainment, for instance - too often we see a girl who is defined by the men she loves).

I'd say feminism is still very much a work in progress.

I am also curious what 9rulers think the current friendships between men and women are like today.

I'm going to be honest here and say that I'm more comfortable with friends of the same gender. We can talk and laugh about everything, but I do suppose this is the result of spending 6 years in an all-boys school.

I have a few close female friends, however, and I must say my friendship with them is remarkably different from that with my male friends. They have taught me to talk about my emotions more, and I've learnt how to listen when one of them are ranting (nevermind the topic is about how the weather makes them feel moody today). Talking about feelings and emotions is something I don't usually get from my male friends, and so this is really rather liberating.

The only negative part of the whole arrangement is the number of people wondering if there's something going on between us. Which can suck. At times.

There. I hope I've contributed something of worth to the discussion. I'll be marking this note as one of my faves and I'll be following closely.

I don't know how I could have missed this post, but I'll keep it short.

Feminism, the way I understand it is the empowerment of women so that they aren't exactly treated as second to men. By that aspect, I can understand it to be a way for men and women to reach equal standing in society.

However, I don't know how some women or even men relate feminism as butch-like women who see men as just good for breeding and basically role reverse the way traditional men treat women.

Truth is yes, women in general have not reached equality in cultures. Coming from a country that is still embedded in traditional cultures, it's not hard to see that gap. It's not just in countries still practising patriarchal cultures. Even now if women cook, it's the men who are chefs. Even if women sow, it's the men who are are in fashion design (not necessarily true now, but you get my drift).

Yet, we don't really notice all that because it's veiled behind stereotyped cultures and twisted assumptions of feminism. I have seen women who proclaim to be independent women activists suddenly become ridiculously feminine in order to please their boyfriends. This kind of hypocrisy is mind-blowing, but it does happen.

I can only assume it's because independence from this gender debate, true independence at least is one where a person is free not as a rebel but free from any cultural stigma and pressure. When any man or women stops caring what the rest of society thinks about how they are as a gender, that's where you form the building blocks of gender equality.

Right now however, children are being drilled into their heads that gender segregation is very real. Girls have to play with dolls and act prim and proper. Boys have to act like boys and do stupid things. A recent conversation with a friend regarding how I would raise my kids brought out a surprise from her when I said that my daughter would be the one playing with the creepy crawly things while my son would stay home and be domestic. She didn't understand why would I do such a thing and it's an example of how ingrained gender differences are.

When you take things like children's fashion and toys. You can see where things go wrong. You can't begin to right a few hundred years of men being men and women being women until you start removing those stigmas from our culture.

As for friendships between men and women, I don't know how much I can offer because I feel myself an exception in this case. Ever since I was young, the bulk of my friends or people I can at least talk to were girls not the guys.

So I've been surrounded by women of all sorts. From drama queens to power takers. From emotional wrecks to cold ice queens. I like to think I'm one of those rare guys that do understand women, which is why I know I'm right when I say women are no different from men, in terms of what they can do.

In my experience helping guys who have had problems talking to girls, I found the reason for this separation is simple. It all boils down to what we were taught as kids. We were taught that boys and girls are different and that was enforced throughout our schooling life. If we defy those schools of thoughts, we were freaks and ostracised. If you were to pick being in a group over breaking traditions, what would you pick back then?

I've found that if both genders shed the normal appearance of how they are supposed to act and what they are supposed to expect being boys or girls, things to do progress smoothly being together. Gender was never meant to be an issue, but we make it so. We force the issue and that is what makes things the way they are now between men and women.

I realize that what I've said so far is more on gender differences rather than touching feminism per say, but I think if we were to touch on feminism, we have to understand that it it just one part of the issue. If there wasn't much to go on gender differences, there wouldn't be a need for feminist activism.

This'll be a bit choppy because I'm supposed to be painting my skirting boards.

To me, the definition of feminism is 1) The belief that men and women are of equal value* and 2) That society is set up and operates for the benefit of men. There's nothing in that about wearing either wearing dungarees or g-strings or any of the usual superficial objections to feminism. It also doesn't include anything about agreeing with every other feminist.

I'm curious what other women and men on 9rules think about the current state of feminism (or lack thereof) that is in the world today, particularly in developed nations.

I don't think we're equal yet in the UK because, in a rough order of importance:
- It's not usually safe to walk home from a night out on your own
- Lots of people think it's your own fault if you wear a miniskirt and get raped
- Pay is often unfair. The pay gap is what, 17%? and that's hourly so it's not just a case of men working more hours.
- Women are channeled into traditional activities and careers. I used to help out with a Rainbow group (Girl Scouts/Girl Guides for 5-7 year olds) and the other leaders put sooo much effort into encouraging and rewarding ladylikeness. You can't raise girls like that then suddenly tell them at 15 that they can be a car mechanic too.
- Women often seem very passive. Wales (where I live) is worse than Hertfordshire (where I come from). This is related to the two points immediately above. Employers should pay fairly but I'm a capitalist so I think women should demand it too.
- Men often do bugger all housework and childcare. Well, not in my house they don't try that schtick but then our kid is still hypothetical.
- We're just expected to change our names on marriage. There's no problem at all with a woman, in isolation, deciding that she'd like her husband's name. What I have a problem with is that it's always the woman. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that society as a whole thinks women are less important. I'm not my fiance's property dammit**.

Something that has particular relevance to developed countries is the fact that, as women, we're often expected to put others' needs above our own. A Western woman who is pissed off about unfair pay is more than likely to be told that yes, she has a point, but surely (for example) FGM in Egypt is much more important? Well of course it's more important, but taking action on both isn't mutually exclusive. Or else we're told that us gaining more rights takes rights away from men. I don't see the logic there.

I am also curious what 9rulers think the current friendships between men and women are like today.

I don't have many female friends. I'm a motorsport marketing person, I just don't meet many women, and I tend to do stuff with people based on activities rather than just being together. I get on great with the women I do meet but I don't see them often enough to make true friends. But with the men I know, the only thing we wouldn't do is go to strip clubs together.

Here's some links that may be thought provoking:

• Male Privilege Checklist
• I'm not a feminist but...
• Some definitions

*not "equal"; that makes no grammatical sense and it implies we are the same. We're not. And in most cases that's a positive.
** I'm not my father's property either but as I was pre-verbal when I was called that I guess Dad's name is as good a compromise as any.

I think this is a great thread. I think you can judge the quality of a forum by the civility of the feminism thread :)

I agree, maryann. :) I'm still digesting the responses even though they're a few days old. Added this to my faves and I'm definitely revisiting...

People, both men and women, have more choices in their life and society's needs being met by a degree of accountability / responsibility they now have. For instance, men who choose to work full time in the home, women who choose careers in administration or study science in college and men and women who choose single parenthood. A part of this subject that does still upset me is the extreme higher representation of boys in the public school who are labeled ADD by pediatricians and drugged up compared to girls. Any ideas and thoughts?

Auburn, I'm not aware of this trend. All I do know is that there have been increasingly more diagnosed cases but did not know there have been more boys than girls. What say you about this in relation to girls? Why the bias?

What does that have to do with feminism, auburn?

As far as I can tell, it's simply a case of women/girls exhibiting different symptoms, and as a result, often going mis- or undiagnosed.

Yes. I'm ADD but never had any help for it because it manifested itself in me as inattentiveness. Still haven't painted those skirting boards :)

I don't know if there's a direct link between feminism and this issue but I see the natural way boys brains are wired and modeled behavior of how they relate to a school as being offensive to mostly female teacher staff. The boys are wired somehow differently, and are labeled impulsive and inattentive. The school values certain behaviors that girls have. The people identified as a problem therefore are boys. They are overwhelingly put on medication that will mute or decrease these characteristics, making them more 'acceptable' to school. I don't doubt that some of the kids, regardless of sex, really have ADD. I am not a doctor and it is a medical diagnosis, after all. I saw it as part of this subject because some characteristics of the sexes may be biologically determined and society finding them different, tries to change it. I'm rambling; I hope this makes sense.

I don't think the traditional classroom, 20+ kids paying attention (or not!) to a teacher, suits many people very much but boys tend to be much louder about it not suiting them.

Anyway I will try to relate this to feminism:

If we stop putting so much pressure on women to be all-nurturing, all the time, there will be more room for men to work in those professions and in teaching this will have the benefit of 1) more boys having their learning styles worked with and 2) more responsible male role models

A brilliant article about the (lack of) women in science.

I thoroughly enjoyed that article, maryann. I can relate to it personally because my father will just be ending his career in that field next year. My sibs and I had a lot of pressure to go into science, mostly led by that misconception of "prestige" our parents had. We saw it for what it was. So many years of schooling, so much stress trying to get research grant after research grant approved, not knowing if there will be funding to conduct the next experiment or keep the lab running ... all for what? Impressing other scientists when you see them at the next symposium when you have to give your talk and PowerPoint presentation. Oh, and earning that barely-6-figure salary at the medical college, which is fine, but after 4 years of undergrad, 3 years in a Ph.D program and 3-4 years as a postdoc...

To be fair, my parents were the first generation immigrants so that was still an increase in standard of living. Also, it was the passageway for them to obtain an educational green card and eventually citizenship. But for the second generation, that is no longer enough--especially when science doesn't interest us. And that should be reason enough.

Indeed, since women have been given latitude (and we've taken it) to climb the ladder--perhaps we've just been smarter about which ladders to climb.

I'm glad that I've gotten such thoughtful, interesting--and above all else--mature responses.

I think maryann nailed the issue that I have with women of today, and with the society in which we live, when she mentioned this:

Women are channeled into traditional activities and careers. I used to help out with a Rainbow group (Girl Scouts/Girl Guides for 5-7 year olds) and the other leaders put sooo much effort into encouraging and rewarding ladylikeness. You can't raise girls like that then suddenly tell them at 15 that they can be a car mechanic too.

This is where I think we are, really. In a lot of Western society, it is no longer that women have no choice in a matter. It is that gender roles, especially those we place children in during developmental stages, greatly affect the thinking of both men and women. So opportunities abound, but the mental willingness is not always there. In turn, I think this affects everything. Wages, for instance. Women reportedly earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, but upon delving more deeply, one learns this statistic exists mainly because the average reflects that women make different career decisions than men, which cost them income. A lot of that, I believe, is rooted in what women are taught their sex should act and be like from an early age. (Men are taught things too, but, at least in this case--monetarily--it ends up positive.)

On the issue of friendships, I've found the comments here really interesting. My experience is that you can tell the same things to males and females; you just simply change the tone or wording a bit. I find it no different than how you find yourself telling the same story to two people, but slightly changing the attitude from one time to another (not the content, mind you).

As for the ADD mention, perhaps this isn't even related to issues of the sexes. It's probably easier for doctors to diagnose boys with ADD and ADHD, due to their behavioral differences during certain ages. However, I think this is a confused correlation. I think a lot of the ADD diagnoses are not legitimate. There's a lot of support for diagnosing children with ADD and what have you these days.

Having been a feminist since I was 13, when I started wondering why my parents always made me and not my brothers do the dishes, I've decided, now that I'm well into my 40s, that really the only true goal of feminism is that we should all have equal opportunities to be and do what we'd most like, regardless of whether we're men or women. I think it's very important to realize that we are not all the same, nor should we try to be. But I do think that staying at home with your children should be something that's equally availble to men and women -- wearing a hard hat and working construction, ditto, being president, same. Walking home at night and feeling safe -- we should all feel that way.

Feminism should benefit women and men. When it doesn't, it isn't working properly.

As for how feminism looks to me these days, I'm a little worried about the radical sexualization of young girls, something that's bad for both boys and girls and something I think parents are not being aggressive enough about combatting.

Finally, as for friendships between men and women, I'd say that living in a house full of men, with my three sons, husband and boy dog is the best thing that's happened to me since I picked up Girl's Lib in the library (it was right next to the cheerleading books) in 1973. That's because I've realized how much I really like men, and how much being around them has enriched my life.

I think that women should have the same opportunities as men when it comes to employment. Women make incredible co-workers and are easily as competent as men.

Aside from that, I'm not entirely sure it is a man's place to decide such things. I mean isn't the whole women's moment about allowing young women to be whatever they want to be? And they should.

As a man I don't think we can tell you what you want, we will support you, but the thought and innovation will probably have to come from you gals. Does that make any sense?

Thanks, maryann and lelia, for bringing up the issue of "ladylike" behaviors in women. I can relate to it personally because it annoys me to no end when our worth is calculated from fitting into a gender profile.

Case in point--I'll use an example that, admittedly, some might describe as a nasty habit. I wouldn't disagree if I had cared. Having grown up with 3 older brothers (older by 9+ years, no less), I learned how to belch. My youngest brother, the most able belcher, taught me how and even made it a part of his amusement. No matter, though, because it was part of the only affection I got from any of them. I was happy to be his tiny sister who could belch for seconds. My second brother, however, found it absolutely appalling. Clearly, he was not happy w/how I was not fulfilling his expectations of me as a young lady. As any young person who seeks approval from pleasing her elder sibs, this made me really confused.

Fast forward to now. I'm in a workplace that is 90% men. Belching is something you wouldn't do in front of clients or professionals--which I don't--but certainly would when you take into account that I work in a "boiler room"-type environment where there is guys' locker room talk all the time. It's always curious how the rookies (men) react to a habit of mine that the other men who have worked with me for 5 years have become accustomed to. They hear one pop, and certain disparaging remarks are made with regard to how belching is unbecoming for a woman:

"Well, that was ladylike."
"Wow. Even I can't belch that loud."

I'll tell you that I am a lot more likely to get along with the ones who say, "Impressive" or even, "I give that about a 5" than the ones who unknowingly blurt out any of the aforementioned. All I can say is, "Oh honey, you have no idea." I can also tell you that guys I meet on the mountain who have never seen me board yet try to give me advice at the top of a run--more or less guys who are more content fitting us women inside of a box--will have to work their way off my blacklist from there on out.

The question is, though, is how do we deal with the other side of the coin--in that we demand that it be recognized that there are differences between the genders and this is a good, not bad, thing? I think there is a difference between recognizing certain traits for what they are as it becomes evident and automatically assuming inferiority in certain skill sets.

Between my girlfriend and I, belching while looking into each others eyes is considered a term of endearment.

No seriously.

Aww, Kami. That's awesome. :) Seriously.

Feminism has not yet completed its mission.
The most important thing is equal pay for equal work in the so called developed nations. Much else in the way of equality will follow from that.
Change the attitude of those who set wage-rates.
Change the attitude of those who legislate such things.
Who is really the problem here?

I am new here and absolutely thrilled to find this discussion! If this is the quality I can find here, then I've hit gold.
About me:
1. I am feminist.
2. I am woman.
3. I have narrow real-world experience as I am very young.
4. This posting has some explicit (but hopefully not offensive) material.

I am rather radical about my opposition to the idea of ‘equality’ as it is frequently understood. I believe we are radically different, but even more basically I believe this very discussion- ‘difference/ same’ or ‘equal/ not equal’, is in itself a symptom (and perhaps a carrier) of the same system these discussions hope to defeat. By this I mean that it reflects a need to differential and categorize, an act historically rooted in male/ masculine domination and power. (I swear that was not a ‘man-hating’ comment, but one that can be factually/ historically backed up!) It is an act that is born from the need to control. Yes, there are usually physical signs of ‘male’ and ‘female’, and there are undeniable personality tendencies that frequently accompany those signs, but if what we seek is a world where gender/ sex/ preferences no longer determine our place in the world, then what is the point of maintaining those categories at all. I mean, I always hear that stereotypes exist for utility, but if their usefulness has expired, lets drop them. There are more exceptions to these stereotypes (typically based on lowest-common-denominators) than there are people who actually fit into them. In fact, I would be so bold as to claim that there probably is no one out there who fits exactly into these molds.
I am trying to be brief; I hope this is making sense.
What would happen if we let go of these categories and this apparent need to identify everyone according to gender/ sex? Is the desire to ‘carve out our own identity’ merely the replication of the very system that created the problem in the first place? I have no idea what your personal convictions are regarding the queer community, but in creating this identity, wouldn’t we be simply furthering the fragmentation of society? Why not let go of ‘identity’? How many internal conflicts and stresses are the result of our personal quest to fit some category, or to find our true identity? Knowing ourselves should not necessitate the reduction of our vast internal complexities into a single word, or idea.
Let me bring it down to the every day. My sister is struggling with the reality that she is attracted to both men and women. Should she call herself bisexual, despite the fact that the attraction she feels to men is radically different from the attraction she feels to women? And there are so few women that attract her physically, and so few men that attract her intellectually. Both attract her sexually.
I feel this turmoil in a different way. I am a radical feminist in a serious relationship with a very traditional Iranian man. For a long time I struggled with the idea that I was dating someone who expressed his love by ‘taking care of me’. I felt that allowing him to do so meant that I was betraying my feminist beliefs; the catch was that I liked it. I have begun to let go of the idea that I must date a certain type of person in order to be a feminist. In the process I am allowing myself to be loved. His world is challenged in other ways, and his perception of gender roles in our relationship is changing/ adapting as well- he is the more emotional and moody. He cries in bed. He is the worrier and the uber-cautious one. He is the clean freak, the nester, the planner. I am ambitious, practical and spontaneous. The list goes on. And I know we are not the only ones out there with these queer traits.
One last thought before I close for the night: it is a well-established quip that men are preoccupied with their ‘junk’. Doesn’t it seem to perpetuate the phallo-centric system to continue to identity people according to who has or doesn’t have a penis?

Ok- I would love to hear some thoughts. If I didn’t make any sense here, please ask for clarification. I’ll do my best.

Hey Fandango. Wow, that took a while to go through without the paragraphs. :)

An interesting thought there and the way you establish identity is close to the way I say that culture in itself is the root cause of gender segregation. Since we're brought up from a very young age to identify what differs us as men and women (more so in when you're brought up in a traditional Asian culture), you can't just choose to break free of a stigma that's been drilled into your head.

Choice denotes knowledge and the ability to rationalize the possibilities with the knowledge you know. Contrary to what you explained, I had no problems bridging the gap between men and women. I never saw gender itself as a separate issue. I only separated people based on their ability to make rational informed choices. Because of that, most people I hung out with were girls, because on a level that I could relate with, girls at that time tend to have a broader subject of discussion than boys of my age (which only involve other girls, sports, cars and games).

So now, being in a relationship with a strong woman who acts like a stereotypical male (insensitive, practical, cold, methodical), I have naturally taken the role of the stereotypical female (domestic, sensitive, clingy, emotional). While these are the roles we're most comfortable with in the relationship, we have no problems interchanging it when we see a need to because we understand that these gender roles are mere cultural standards. We understand that we have a choice and there is no obligation to remain in those roles when there is no need to.

We consider it lucky that we grew up understanding that stigma. It's just that most people didn't grow up understanding that. The question here is, if a guy was taught from young to act like a stereotypical girl and a girl to act like a stereotypical guy, both WITHOUT considering or caring about the impact of social pressure to conform to the actual gender roles.

Would they know any better? Wouldn't it feel natural to them?

Kami-

You bring up some great questions. And I will distinguish my paragraphs a little better this time :)

I tend to push harder on the issue of feminism/ sexism in terms of the very idea of the roles that identity imposes. What we have ended up talking about here, probably largely due to my previous examples of intimate relationships, is the (hopefully) idealic relationship where personhood and identity is established over time through the face to face knowing of another person. It seems to me that this very personal realm is not where issues of power and domination need to be addressed.

As you mentioned, it is a culturally/ historically rooted issue. I have not thought to deeply into this, but it could be that language is its vehicle. The way we speak (I am only referring to English and several of the Germanic languages I am most familiar with) is gendered. In English, we must differentiate male/ female in order to use pronouns properly, making one’s sex their primary distinguisher. It is set up to be the basic dichotomy that our language and, from there, bleeds into the way in which we perceive/ interpret reality. It bothers many people deeply when they cannot immediately recognize whether their new acquaintance is male or female based purely on visual cues. Why?
I am curious to know more about languages/ cultures that do not have gendered language and have yet to be influenced by an Abrahamic religion; I have heard about cultures that have/ had three to six ‘sexes’ (I should dig some of that stuff up…let me know if anyone is interested, and I will share). I am guessing you are Japanese based on the screen name and Asian heritage references. Do you know if Japanese has a gendered grammar structure?

Ok, I am really just throwing around thoughts here. I am a philosophy student, and am not really out for answers to most of these questions. I just really enjoy questioning.

Identity is necessary psychologically, and from a cultural standpoint as well. It is labels which are not necessary.To know others you must know yourself. The unnecessary social constructs is what we need to get rid of not identity.

Visual clues have always been a part of spoken language. Whether or not that will change, as language evolves, to include things like anonymous yet rampant internet communication who knows but from a purely evolutionary standpoint it might.

The tribes you speak of, with gender neutral language, have been found to exist, found I believe in tribes where there was an unusual equity in the roles/functions of the genders. If I can find the info I'll get it to you but can't come up with it right now. If I remember correctly there are tribes with gender neutral language in which the power is held equally between the sexes and tribes where woman hold more power and the language in geared toward expressing that.

Identity through gendered language will clearly change as time goes on as some of the unnecessary social constructs are also dismissed.

There is a lot of talk in linguistics and other disciplines about investigating or affirming the relationship of language and power within societies, and a lot of disputes about whether differences and inequalities are created by social and cultural practices alone, or if a combination of social and cultural practices along with genetic and biological characteristics. The jury is out still from the linguistic standpoint on gendered language.

There's no doubt there are biological differences between males and females, though not necessary as black and white as once thought, identity though will stay until we have evolved much further, and I think it is necessary.

I notice you identify, or label yourself a radical feminist, which I thought was interesting in a post where you were suggesting getting rid of identity.

Haha, I'm not Japanese but I am from an Asian culture and I do know a thing or two about Japanese culture.

To answer your question at least, you have to understand that Japan has a highly patriarchal society especially during the older eras. This hasn't really changed much until today it's even reflected by their pop culture. So references to gender in their language is obvious with "onna" being woman and "otoko" being man. Suffixes like -san or -chan emphasize male or female titles. Given that, sometimes "onna" can be used as an insulting connotation where as the use of "otoko" can be as a praise, it does speak about the cultural references.

I don't think that it bothers as many people that they can't tell a gender without visual clues. I think that they would automatically make assumptions about a person's gender based upon what they see. For instance, I have been routinely mistaken to be a woman based on my screen name and the way I write. I'm not the only one too, a lot of women have been typecasted as men for especially if they work in the tech industry which is a prime example of a male dominated field.

This ties in again with cultural references that influence gender roles.

I think the main problem with feminism these days is that there are so many different categories and differences between feminists themselves. Get a group of hardcore feminists together and they'll argue about everything, there is just very little commonality. This in-fighting combined with some very outrageous views has made feminism a bit of a frightening topic for some.

I would say that most people are feminists however, even if they don't label themselves as such. If you believe that women deserve the same rights as men and the same opportunities you meet the base requirements for a feminist. Even if you believe that this has been accomplished in your area (as a female living in a Western country I would say there's still a bit of work to do) there are plenty of places, such as some Middle Eastern countries, where women are treated little better than slaves.

I would also like to mention that just because you are for women's rights doesn't mean you are against mens rights. I think there are still lots of situations that men are being treated unfairly such as child custody and paternity leave. Unfortunately this negative man attitude has risen from the "crazy" feminist branch and people decide to paint the whole movement with it.