Thread: Do you think that anyone is fighting for women's rights?

Originally Posted by Gwendoline

The idea that women / men are only fighting for just "their own perceptions" bothers me.

People fight to improve conditions for others. People fight for others, to ease suffering, to help, to improve the lot of those that are marginalised, that are treated unfairly, inhumanely, and on.

Just because any particular person may have had it good all their life and didn't have to struggle or plead or grieve for their life / rights - doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to stretch to put themselves in someone else's shoes... to try to understand / accept why the fight for people's rights must go on... and on...

When i discuss the idea of individual perceptions I think of what drives that person to follow the movement. I would not stop if my perceptions were not followed as the good of everyone is the priority. Yet i do believe that if a woman wants to be a housewife, homemaker and she sees the movement pushing away from that stigma. She will see the entire feminist movement as not suited to her and will back off. Another example would be an anti abortion woman who because Feminists to a large degree support choice .that woman's perceptions would cause her to fall away and not stand for any of the good that has and will be done.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

Yet i do believe that if a woman wants to be a housewife, homemaker and she sees the movement pushing away from that stigma. She will see the entire feminist movement as not suited to her and will back off.

The stigma against homemakers is a caricature of feminism, usually touted by people who are opposed to feminism. It's the way feminists are depicted in the media or it's the actions of women who benefit from feminism but aren't actually feminists (such as a female corporate shark who frowns on homemakers).

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

When i discuss the idea of individual perceptions I think of what drives that person to follow the movement. I would not stop if my perceptions were not followed as the good of everyone is the priority. Yet i do believe that if a woman wants to be a housewife, homemaker and she sees the movement pushing away from that stigma. She will see the entire feminist movement as not suited to her and will back off. Another example would be an anti abortion woman who because Feminists to a large degree support choice .that woman's perceptions would cause her to fall away and not stand for any of the good that has and will be done.

To my mind, the area of feminism is very broad. Very broad.

Women that want to be homemakers should be. True feminists - in the best sense of the word of SUPPORTING WOMEN - in all areas / endeavours / in whatever vocation a woman chooses for herself.

It's not so much - or it shouldn't be so much about single issues such as vocation / abortion - but should be about the broader reach of advocating and supporting women in any guise / pursuit. "Difference" is key. Feminists are not all alike. It's as much about a "spirit" of validation... and so much more...

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

The stigma against homemakers is a caricature of feminism, usually touted by people who are opposed to feminism. It's the way feminists are depicted in the media or it's the actions of women who benefit from feminism but aren't actually feminists (such as a female corporate shark who frowns on homemakers).

I know that. it is used as an example. Some women though hold true and make that their ideal. If that's what they want that is wonderful and i support them.

Originally Posted by Gwendoline

To my mind, the area of feminism is very broad. Very broad.

Women that want to be homemakers should be. True feminists - in the best sense of the word of SUPPORTING WOMEN - in all areas / endeavours / in whatever vocation a woman chooses for herself.

It's not so much - or it shouldn't be so much about single issues such as vocation / abortion - but should be about the broader reach of advocating and supporting women in any guise / pursuit. "Difference" is key. Feminists are not all alike. It's as much about a "spirit" of validation... and so much more...

I agree. What i am saying is for some women if the call of the day is not the happy homemaker they see nothing of value in the movement. Thier perception of the movement and what they see it stands for makes them believe or see it as bunk. It is true as I state in a post if a woman wants to be a homemaker that is fine. If she wants to be a welder that is fine as well. Some women don't see that feminists support women no matter what they do. They think it is not for them. It is their viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Gwendoline

I'm curious what exactly you are objecting too. Apart from the superficial bra-burning you mentioned, you haven't given any examples of these agendas being set for you... or of the "load of self-serving codswallop" that you referred to.

What exactly are you reacting to / against? Could you be a bit more specific?

Tbh......it was Lackluster's championing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in another thread that set up the itch in the back of my head!

I'll try and explain.....but I may not make a great job of it...the way my mind works has been described by my male offspring as..." a whirlpool travelling through a maze of rapids, and ending up in a cess pit" > .......and I don't want to make this post endless as so many of mine are.

Not really reacting to specifics........just the thought which rose up and niggled at me as I was reading about Ayaan Hirsi Ali..and which, I am inclined to think applies to many vociferous proponents of specific rights for specific groups.

She struck me as coming across much as does the ex-smoker, who proselytises stridently his/her new found convictions....a bit like most of those who have a "Damascus Revelation" and feel compelled to sell it to the rest of us who have not been "blessed" by such a moment themselves.

I have a lot of time for anyone , male or female, who works, in public or private for Human Rights, because they believe in the moral imperative of rights for all people, regardless of gender, race, colour, religion, age or sexual proclivity...and much less sympathy with those who turn against something in which they have previously believed, and, in some cases, proceed to engender a career opportunity out of their change of mind.

Just as the ex-smoker did not become an ex-smoker because of the effect of their second hand smoke on the non-smokers around them, but rather because of personal cost, whether that was monetary or health wise, many of the more vociferous champions of rights for specific groups have not come to that conclusion because of innate beliefs in the fairness and equity of the cause.....but because something has happened to make them query the rightness of something they had previously been happy to accept...and, in many cases, that has been a preceived unfairness to them as individuals, which has prompted them to take up the cudgels for others.

I believe in the same rights for everybody...not special/different rights for women, gays, races, various religions, depending on the religion, etc. I agree with Katie that the crux of rights is equality in treatment....but, tbh, where I have the problem is that I do not equate equality with special concessions which do not make people equal, but more privileged.

A lot of the PC idiocy in the UK particularly (and in the rest of the western world) is down to pressure groups (and the total inability of our Government/s to produce a law which is written in plain English).

We have surgically removed commonsense, and inserted the tumour of polarised politically correct opinion aimed at placating the minority...when all we have ever needed to do was not differentiate, and saved ourselves a lot of problems.

Likely still not clear......but compared to some of my posts.relatively short. :laugh:

I think I understand. You're saying that civil rights movements are for the good of all, not for oneself.
I agree. But I think sometimes people with more selfish motives can be useful... so long as they don't succeed in making it all about them.
After all, if an ex-smoker gets a few kids to not smoke, it's for the better.

The women's movement has helped everyone. No movement stands alone. It is built of everyone. The point or focus may be women's wages but in that all wages are examined. No goal is just for one group. Civil Rights of the 60's helped Latinos and gays.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I think I understand. You're saying that civil rights movements are for the good of all, not for oneself.
I agree. But I think sometimes people with more selfish motives can be useful... so long as they don't succeed in making it all about them.
After all, if an ex-smoker gets a few kids to not smoke, it's for the better.

No problem with targeting children in order to stop them starting smoking, JavaBlack, and more power to the elbow of ex-smokers in that respect....as a smoker, with a husband who was a smoker, we only managed to influence one of our two kids not to start (and, tbh, the one who didn't start is a smoking nazi no better than any ex-smoker on a mission! > )

I think what I am saying is that it is hypocritical to get involved in civil rights, and get patted on the back for it, where you have never been inclined to be involved before something has hacked you off in your own life to provide the impetus to speak out.

Maybe I am weird....heck, I know I am.....but I have been aware of unfairness and inequity in most aspects of social society in the world from the days I studied for my O-Levels, focusing on WWI and WWII.......and that is what has formed my opinions.

I agree that people with more selfish motives can be useful... so long as they don't succeed in making it all about them....but they do, under the assumption that what hacks them off will hack all right thinking people off.

I have read the UN Human Rights charter...and am hard pushed to see why it is deemed necessary to dicker with it....as in adding or subtracting rights for specific groups to suit specific agendas, .

I accept that individuals see everything through their own individual prism.....as I do through a prism which formed in the early 1960s....but my prism is not predicated on being hacked off as to how I have been unfairly treated, and a compulsion to right the perceived wrong.

I simply think, and always have, that what my personal circumstances might be in the scheme of things, is unimportant. I can hack not getting what I would ideally prefer.......if my not getting my druthers means that other individuals in other places in the world will get theirs...and a life into the bargain.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

No problem with targeting children in order to stop them starting smoking, JavaBlack, and more power to the elbow of ex-smokers in that respect....as a smoker, with a husband who was a smoker, we only managed to influence one of our two kids not to start (and, tbh, the one who didn't start is a smoking nazi no better than any ex-smoker on a mission! > )

Good for her! Being a smoking Nazi is a good thing. It means much less smelliness in the home (in addition to being one, I am also a shoe Nazi... no shoes in the house)

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I think what I am saying is that it is hypocritical to get involved in civil rights, and get patted on the back for it, where you have never been inclined to be involved before something has hacked you off in your own life to provide the impetus to speak out.

I think that's only true when the person stops once his/her own goals are fulfilled. People can change and often it takes a catalyst. I'm a white male who once held the usual "racism and sexism is over" attitude. That changed only by identifying closer with others who saw the impacts of racism and sexism.
Yes, there is a tendency to get self-righteous when you "quit" something (I'm that way about conspiracy theories and libertarianism)... but it's not really hypocritical. It's more "hind-sight is always 20/20."
You can't support something once you see it as wrong just because you once saw it as okay.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I agree that people with more selfish motives can be useful... so long as they don't succeed in making it all about them....but they do, under the assumption that what hacks them off will hack all right thinking people off.

I don't quite understand this part. Maybe I need more context.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I have read the UN Human Rights charter...and am hard pushed to see why it is deemed necessary to dicker with it....as in adding or subtracting rights for specific groups to suit specific agendas, .

I accept that individuals see everything through their own individual prism.....as I do through a prism which formed in the early 1960s....but my prism is not predicated on being hacked off as to how I have been unfairly treated, and a compulsion to right the perceived wrong.

If one is unfairly treated why shouldn't he/she attempt to right the wrong. Unfair treatment affects more than one person usually. Someone has to stand up to it.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I simply think, and always have, that what my personal circumstances might be in the scheme of things, is unimportant. I can hack not getting what I would ideally prefer.......if my not getting my druthers means that other individuals in other places in the world will get theirs...and a life into the bargain.

Maybe I need to back up and ask for more specifics.
Do you think the woman we are talking about is less interested in womens' rights than in getting herself rights and forgetting about other women of the world?