PUNKOTTAWA.COM
SHOWS

General: VIEW TOPIC

You are not logged in. Feel free to login or to register a new username.

Subject: Feminism in Ottawa
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

: post reply: post new topic

Author: the frog queen
Subject:
Date: 11/28/07 10:37 am

xpetalsfallenx wrote:
Goat Killer wrote:


I didn't intend to make a blanket statement on the entire movement. However, a great deal of feninism is giving females the right to "choose" what they want to do of their own accord, and a great deal have chosen the domain of slutdom. Sleeping around after a few Smirnoff Ices at the local club is a major part of many lifes.

Not all, but a lot.

I agree with you to a degree on this; so-called sexual liberation has been on many recent feminist agendas and has perhaps opened the door for a lot of "sluts". I think, though, that more of these women are acting sexually promiscuous not because of feminism, but chauvinism and misogyny: they're just playing the roles that we've made for them. Sexual promiscuity among women due to feminism can also to be attributed to male sex roles created by the patriarchy. Guys throughout all time have always been known to be sluts but were never attributed the negative connotations; being a man-slut was good. Some feminism is just fighting for this equality. Perhaps what needs to examined is, if men and women are to be truly equal, what (shared) roles we should all have. In this sense I find feminism to be more of a humanism than strictly a benefit for women. Equality benefits us all and a re-examination of current norms and values could lead in this direction.

Mal wrote:
where merton_fink wrote...

Quote:
am highly critical of the attitudes expressed by "Mal" and "The Frog Queen", and likely many others on PunkOttawa, who seem to conceive of feminism as purely a gender-class struggle. "Patriarchal masculinity oppresses us, therefore we must kill our masters and liberate ourselves," they proclaim!

feminism, to them, is just part of this back and forth sex war with men, which I think misses the entire point. by doing so, you just play into the patriarchally defined gender structures and never truly get away from what it is that's oppressing you. Who is to say that gender is based on this rigid, binary configuration of masculine-feminine, male-female?




I really don't know how you extrapolated on what I said to make it into that...

I don't think any of that...

really.. I don't even know how to respond...

maybe I'll just address the first part...

feminist discourse engages not just with the sex/gender constructions, but also with issues of economics, race, ability, sexuality, etc, and how they intersect with one another and impact womyn's lives

patriarchy is oppressive, but patriarchy is a systemic issue, which nullifies your ridiculous statement about killing the "master", because while people are implicated in the system, and can enable it, the purpose is not to blame individuals but to understand hierarchies of power and domination and how this translates into privilege for some and lack of privilege for others... individuals who blame particular people, and do it in the name of feminism, are misguided, I am a feminist, believe that patriarchy has huge implications for womyn's and men's lives (by having to live up to this machismo definition of masculinity, and being labelled as a queer if you don't as just one example), but you merton, presuming you're a man, I'm not going to individually blame you for patriarchy just because you belong to the category of male, I would be wrong to do that

patriarchy as a system of oppression confers privilege onto men, privileges which womyn don't have, but then there are privileges that white womyn have that womyn of colour don't have, which disabled/queer womyn of colour don't have, which womyn in the global south don't have.... therefore feminism (and what I personally believe) deals with issues a hell of a lot more complicated than just issues of gender/class

so again I really don't know how you perceived my comments to be about killing men and about sex wars, that's ridiculous...maybe you were being slightly facetious? hopefully?

I like your definition/form of feminism. It's the type I labeled above as "humanism", though whether that may be confusing or confused is debatable. I think your emphasis on the patriarchal system and not individuals is very important and is the reason that feminism as an ongoing movement is important. If it was just about some head leaders somewhere feminism would have long ago accomplished its goals. But the perpetrator of the overlying sexism is abstract, a system that we've all been born into and taught not to notice and honestly I have trouble noticing it because I am not a woman. I do not know the prejudices that women do. Of course I notice the blatant sexism in mass culture, but I really can't grasp the ramifications of these stereotypes. Additionally, being of the dominant group of this system (I am also white, (soon-to-be)university educated, and upper-middle class) I benefit from it (often without noticing) and am, consequently in some ways passively sexist.

I sorta got away rambling there for a bit so I'm not quite sure where I was trying to go, but I'd like to turn back to the abstraction of the problem of the patriarchy. There is no concrete head perpetrator that we can cut off. We are all in the system and in order for it to change we have to change (and this goes for racism, classism, and any other institutionalized -isms). So guys, be aware that you are privileged and if you feel you are being treated unfairly (in this case getting more than you deserve) notice it and reject it.


That was a very rational post. Love it.
_________________
crack don't smoke itself

http://www.deathmarchrecords.blogspot.com

http://www.myspace.com/deathmarchrecords

http://www.myspace.com/psychichotlineband

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: xpetalsfallenx
Subject:
Date: 11/28/07 10:23 pm

the frog queen wrote:

That was a very rational post. Love it.


Why thank you.
Unfortunately it's all easier said than done.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: so_lonely
Subject: curious
Date: 11/28/07 10:39 pm

so, is patriarchy still alive and kicking?
does the dominant discourse still oppress women?
if so, how?

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: the frog queen
Subject: Re: curious
Date: 11/29/07 10:49 am

so_lonely wrote:
so, is patriarchy still alive and kicking?
does the dominant discourse still oppress women?
if so, how?


yes we live in a patriarchal society...

women aren't oppressed of course in the extreme ways the once were. Current feminism (or at least feminist ideals I embrace) are concerned with pay equality, women are still experiencing troubles getting promoted in all jobs/careers. We're concerned with reproductive rights. Canada is very lucky in that way, but the US is currently experiencing a horrible blow to the reproductive rights of American Women. They are under a full blown attack right now. We're concerned with the rights of victims of sexual assult and court procedures. We're concerned with the gender roles still being shoved down the throats of women and girls all over north america. Violence against women in this country and in others.... the list goes on.

If your interested there are many sources available on the web for cnosumption. I have a lot of blogs I frequent but just google and i'm sure you'll have no lack of websites to absorb.
_________________
crack don't smoke itself

http://www.deathmarchrecords.blogspot.com

http://www.myspace.com/deathmarchrecords

http://www.myspace.com/psychichotlineband

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: Melody
Subject: Re: curious
Date: 11/29/07 12:42 pm

the frog queen wrote:

yes we live in a patriarchal society...

women aren't oppressed of course in the extreme ways the once were. Current feminism (or at least feminist ideals I embrace) are concerned with pay equality, women are still experiencing troubles getting promoted in all jobs/careers. We're concerned with reproductive rights. Canada is very lucky in that way, but the US is currently experiencing a horrible blow to the reproductive rights of American Women. They are under a full blown attack right now. We're concerned with the rights of victims of sexual assult and court procedures. We're concerned with the gender roles still being shoved down the throats of women and girls all over north america. Violence against women in this country and in others.... the list goes on.

If your interested there are many sources available on the web for cnosumption. I have a lot of blogs I frequent but just google and i'm sure you'll have no lack of websites to absorb.


I agree, but I'd like to add that the gender binary is also problematic to men; the patriarchy doesn't only oppress women (albeit to a greater extent).

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: the frog queen
Subject: Re: curious
Date: 11/29/07 1:50 pm

Melody wrote:
the frog queen wrote:

yes we live in a patriarchal society...

women aren't oppressed of course in the extreme ways the once were. Current feminism (or at least feminist ideals I embrace) are concerned with pay equality, women are still experiencing troubles getting promoted in all jobs/careers. We're concerned with reproductive rights. Canada is very lucky in that way, but the US is currently experiencing a horrible blow to the reproductive rights of American Women. They are under a full blown attack right now. We're concerned with the rights of victims of sexual assult and court procedures. We're concerned with the gender roles still being shoved down the throats of women and girls all over north america. Violence against women in this country and in others.... the list goes on.

If your interested there are many sources available on the web for cnosumption. I have a lot of blogs I frequent but just google and i'm sure you'll have no lack of websites to absorb.


I agree, but I'd like to add that the gender binary is also problematic to men; the patriarchy doesn't only oppress women (albeit to a greater extent).



oo have you read that boook? um.. actually I believe it's called "how patriarchy hurts men" . I don't remember the author tho.
_________________
crack don't smoke itself

http://www.deathmarchrecords.blogspot.com

http://www.myspace.com/deathmarchrecords

http://www.myspace.com/psychichotlineband

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: engallop
Subject:
Date: 11/29/07 3:17 pm

Mal wrote:
patriarchy as a system of oppression confers privilege onto men, privileges which womyn don't have, but then there are privileges that white womyn have that womyn of colour don't have, which disabled/queer womyn of colour don't have, which womyn in the global south don't have.... therefore feminism (and what I personally believe) deals with issues a hell of a lot more complicated than just issues of gender/class


this really isn't the syllogism you're making it out to be. racism and homophobia were as much a part of second wave feminism as militant lesbianism or any other more specialized faction.
i mean it's all pretty much a part of the post- lecixon now but queer theory and more recent postcolonial theory are at least in part a reaction to some of the more problematic aspects of mainstream feminism. and it's something to which most people who call themselves feminists usually pay lip service these days, the privileges enjoyed by men versus those enjoyed by white women versus other, less "privileged" women, heavy use of the word "marginalized" or something like it.
personally i think class is the most important, and the most complex, issue that any kind of idelogy can deal with. it's what's made today's feminism increasingly important and relevant on one hand and increasingly out of touch and elitist on the other. chanting 'cunt' in concert with 300 other people who think moreorless the same things about gender as you do, contemplating the implications of how "woman" is spelled -- these are absolutely class-specific pursuits: you won't find anyone outside a university campus that could give a shit about their symbolic importance. at the same time more attention on rape as an instrument of terror, or on the specific needs of mentally ill women in cities - the feminist concerns there can't be separated from a wider social conscience. obviously one kind of insular feminism doesn't really preclude a more, i dunno, conscientious form; it's just my feeling that the vagina monologues crowd would probably have more in common with the football team than they would with a volunteer at the george herman house in toronto, for example, and that volunteer more in touch with a class and culture that uses the word bitch or spells womyn the patriarchal way.

anyhoo i wrote that in my lotus notes to make it look like i was working, it's been a boring day and if no one reads it it's still worth trying to get your thoughts into words, i think. last thing: i've never heard the term "global south" before, can you clear that up?

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: Mal
Subject:
Date: 11/29/07 10:09 pm

engallop wrote:
Mal wrote:
patriarchy as a system of oppression confers privilege onto men, privileges which womyn don't have, but then there are privileges that white womyn have that womyn of colour don't have, which disabled/queer womyn of colour don't have, which womyn in the global south don't have.... therefore feminism (and what I personally believe) deals with issues a hell of a lot more complicated than just issues of gender/class


this really isn't the syllogism you're making it out to be. racism and homophobia were as much a part of second wave feminism as militant lesbianism or any other more specialized faction.
i mean it's all pretty much a part of the post- lecixon now but queer theory and more recent postcolonial theory are at least in part a reaction to some of the more problematic aspects of mainstream feminism. and it's something to which most people who call themselves feminists usually pay lip service these days, the privileges enjoyed by men versus those enjoyed by white women versus other, less "privileged" women, heavy use of the word "marginalized" or something like it.
personally i think class is the most important, and the most complex, issue that any kind of idelogy can deal with. it's what's made today's feminism increasingly important and relevant on one hand and increasingly out of touch and elitist on the other. chanting 'cunt' in concert with 300 other people who think moreorless the same things about gender as you do, contemplating the implications of how "woman" is spelled -- these are absolutely class-specific pursuits: you won't find anyone outside a university campus that could give a shit about their symbolic importance. at the same time more attention on rape as an instrument of terror, or on the specific needs of mentally ill women in cities - the feminist concerns there can't be separated from a wider social conscience. obviously one kind of insular feminism doesn't really preclude a more, i dunno, conscientious form; it's just my feeling that the vagina monologues crowd would probably have more in common with the football team than they would with a volunteer at the george herman house in toronto, for example, and that volunteer more in touch with a class and culture that uses the word bitch or spells womyn the patriarchal way.

anyhoo i wrote that in my lotus notes to make it look like i was working, it's been a boring day and if no one reads it it's still worth trying to get your thoughts into words, i think. last thing: i've never heard the term "global south" before, can you clear that up?


I totally agree with everything you wrote

global south is, for the most part, an international relations term referring to economic conditions of the North and South (generally speaking of course), but it's also heavily used in my womyn's studies courses

basically, it's the split between developed/underdeveloped nations, which are contentious terms in themselves, but it's point is to articulate the difference in experience from someone living in Canada, and say, Gautemala

but really, North/South, West/East, etc... they're all problematic, we definitely have "third world" conditions in the west, and there are certainly tycoons living in "underdeveloped" nations

so I think global north/global south are referencing more the geography politics (i.e. global south typically refers to locations certainly south of the equator, but is referring to a specific political climate, which doesn't necessarily implicate all nations in the south)

I hope that makes sense...

edit: so in reference to my post, I was using it to articulate the differences in experiences from the standpoints in how womyn experience the global free market economy (as in, a womyn working in the North has different problems relating to labour, like pay equity, where womyn in the global south, who say, work in free trade zones, aren't really thinking about pay equity) - different experiences based on one's geographical positioning - again, not true all the time, tycoons in the south, impoverished in the north, but it's just more a general reflection on how we have ordered our world


Last edited by Mal on 11/29/07 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: merton fink.
Subject:
Date: 11/29/07 10:13 pm

just wondering if you guys actually understand what patriarchy means?

like, when i hear it being described as a "system of oppression" and the worst you can say about it is "it gives priviliges to men over women", i get the distinct impression you're failing to grasp an actual understanding of what patriarchy means, practically and historically
_________________
HYPERMASCULINE!

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: Mal
Subject:
Date: 11/29/07 10:45 pm

this is also kind of addressing the question of whether "partiarchy is still alive and kicking" and not just merton_fink

merton fink. wrote:
just wondering if you guys actually understand what patriarchy means?

like, when i hear it being described as a "system of oppression" and the worst you can say about it is "it gives priviliges to men over women", i get the distinct impression you're failing to grasp an actual understanding of what patriarchy means, practically and historically


the worst thing we can come up with? disadvantaging half of the world's population based on socially constructed norms?

that's not bad enough? what about the use of rape as a tool of war? how about female genital mutilation? or maybe, the global sex trade in trafficking womyn and young girls? how can you really put a quantifiable definition on the experiences womyn have to face and say.. is that the worst you can come up with? a system of oppression..yeah a system of oppression which justifies and explains away all of the aforementioned atrocities and then some because of socially constructed definitions based on one's sex and gender...


I don't know why you're so set on proving your intelligence by arguing over definitions of feminism and/or patriarchy... as if you're merely looking for any flaw in the arguments being made just to prove that we're somehow wrong...because you could probably find ten different answers based on who you speak to, and what historical context you're referring to

- here's a dictionary.com example
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriarchy

-here's wikipedia's definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

- and here's another
http://m-w.com/dictionary/patriarchy

so what's your point?

you probably have better ways to spend your time rather than debating the nitty gritty, because regardless of what you want to argue patriarchy is, the reality is that womyn are still facing REAL injustices, whatever term you want to put on them....

shelters are still underfunded, understaffed and overbooked months in adavance, 3 womyn in Ontario are still being murdered every month by men they are financially/emotionally dependent on (since I already know someone is going to ask, this is a stats can statistic, plus the following stats), over 80% of womyn experience sexual abuse by men by the time they hit 18, womyn still make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work, womyn are still being murdered in honour killings, womyn hardly represent more than 10% of any government in the world, and if womyn's unpaid or underpaid work were given its true value, it would account for 11 trillion USD of a total $16 trillion USD global output (this stat coming from a UN report on womyn's work)

and it goes on, but I am going to bed..

but go ahead, claim we don't know what patriarchy is, and argue that our points are now null because you have found a flaw in what we're saying, it doesn't matter, that won't do any good in explaining why any of the aforementioned things still exist/are still happening predominantly to womyn


Last edited by Mal on 03/18/13 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: axiom
Subject:
Date: 11/29/07 11:02 pm

this thread is kind of ridiculous.

to deny there are still problems in society regarding gender is very rose-coloured glassesish.

personally, I'd like to walk around passed 9 p.m. without feeling like I have to look over my shoulder every five minutes. and that's the least anyone can expect here.

as for that sex comment: holy shit. do you even know what you're saying? how would you like to be called names for (shhhh..) having intercourse? with protection no less! oh the humanity! give me a break.

& men do seem to have the upperhand in most things. anything I'm interested in personally tends to have more males involved than females.

neat fact I recently learned: one of the first electro-acoustic pieces of music was written by a woman - the doctor who theme.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: ARYEH
Subject:
Date: 11/30/07 1:01 am

Yawn.


dead beat issue.


Currently still the main oppressors of Women ARE Women..

And as it stands, Men still account for the majority of all homicides, in the entire WORLD.


Men are have far been oppressed by their Male conspicifics than their Female Counterparts have..



And there is no true sense of absolute Equality..
_________________
I am pleased that you have found some benefit to what Allah has given me.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: axiom
Subject:
Date: 11/30/07 1:46 am

ARYEH wrote:
Yawn.


dead beat issue.


Currently still the main oppressors of Women ARE Women..

And as it stands, Men still account for the majority of all homicides, in the entire WORLD.


Men are have far been oppressed by their Male conspicifics than their Female Counterparts have..



And there is no true sense of absolute Equality..


that's the most absurd thing i've ever heard.

besides that last part, which is probably true.

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: so_lonely
Subject:
Date: 11/30/07 2:12 am

Some of the issues you guys have mentioned seem like good causes. But a lot of causes seem like they're either misguided, or fall under categories broader than feminism.

Okay, womyn's shelters may be underfunded and that's causing problems. But there's also a dearth of homeless shelters, and the homeless population contains about twice as many myn as womyn. So how does lack of funding for shelters prove the existence of patriarchy?

Also, I have a problem with the people citing the fact that women make 77cents for every man's dollar like it's automatically unjust. Fact is, womyn work shorter hours than myn, are more likely to work part time, and are more likely to take long periods off work for kids. Furthermore, I think it's pretty conclusively proven that myn generally have brains more proficient in systematising, while womyn have brains more apt at empathising. And, unjustly, systematising professions tend to contribute more value to the economy, and thus get paid more. There is some discrimination going on too, I'm sure, but is far less responsible for pay gaps than these other factors.
Womyn's groups decrying unequal pay rates seems to me about the same as if myn's groups were to decry unequal incarceration rates. But myn are more apt to commit crimes, so unequal incarceration rates is an accepted fact.

Some of these crimes are rapes, which, hardly condoned by the state, are punished severely. So how is this evidence of patriarchy? Sure you can argue they're not punished severely enough, but you can argue that for many other crimes, too.

And then I feel like a lot of issues that fall under feminism are just HR or sociological issues, apportioned into subdivisions of the discipline. Global sex trade, yes myn are most of the demand, but both myn and womyn profit off it. And it is illegal, at least in Western countries. I watched some CBC documentary a while back, and the main person they focused on in the business was a woman. Also, it is typical for the head honchos in Asian gogo bars to be womyn.
Female genital mutilation is horrific, I agree. But so is gay boys getting hanged, or torture in prisons. So why segregate the HR crusade?


Since female genital mutilation doesn't really happen here, can we at least agree that while there is significant work to be done in the world to make womyn's situations better,

Canada, at least is officially patriarchy free?

[ Reply with quote ]

Author: xpetalsfallenx
Subject:
Date: 11/30/07 2:22 am

ARYEH wrote:
Yawn.
Currently still the main oppressors of Women ARE Women..

I think you might want to source that. While is true that women do oppress other women I would argue that that's due to patriarchal influence. The patriarchy influences everybody and a woman can just as misogynist as a man. In fact, supporters of the patriarchy would love this. If they could pass blame to women then it could (continue to) work in the shadows without worry of blame or revolution.

ARYEH wrote:

Men are have far been oppressed by their Male conspicifics than their Female Counterparts have..

That's a difficult statement to make because it's hard to quantify oppression. I'm interpreting men oppressing other men to mean issues of classism and racism. Historically, the only reason that only men are mentioned as oppressed in the work force and as slaves is because women were at home slaving away, but they weren't people anyway so they were ignored. So when a black lower class women is enslaved she isn't seen as being oppressed because she was just performing a woman's "natural" duties.

ARYEH wrote:

And there is no true sense of absolute Equality..

This, I agree with. Men and women are different and no two people (regardless of class, race or gender) will ever be equal. Equity is a better term to work with and though absolute equity is practically impossible to achieve I, at the least, hope near-equity is possible.

[ Reply with quote ]

: post reply: post new topic

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group


NEWS
SHOWS
BANDS
MESSAGE BOARD
MEMBERLIST
LOGIN
REGISTER
COMMUNITY
AROUND OTTAWA
CONTESTS
LINKS
CONTACT

Donate to Punk Ottawa

SHOWS
CONTESTS
Designed by Doublenaut