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

is fighting for anything other than their own perception of womens' rights?

In fact, do you think that any government, entity, group, individual which proclaims that they are fighting for any specific reason, without the backing of the majority of those they purport to be fighting for are doing anything other than conflating their own specific agenda into something which only exists because of their own biases?

I kinda resent other people telling me what I should do, think and believe......just because they have convinced themselves they are right, and everybody else is wrong, and can shout loudly enough to get the ear of Government or the media.

Never been a particularly enthusiastic bra-burner, tbh... maybe because I have never felt the great need to have done anything in my life more than I did, and nobody, or nothing, not even being as poor as a church mouse, ever stopped me doing what I wanted to do in the UK, such as going to college in my late twenties, after the offspring started school, and standing for local council elections.

I get the impression that some people/groups do not actually exist for the good of all....but for the good of their individual/group etc ethos.

Should the silent majority be allowing the vociferous minority to set the agenda for us all............or is it well past time we were saying that a lot of those who have influence on the thinking of society talk mostly a load of self-serving codswallop?

Originally Posted by Oddquine

is fighting for anything other than their own perception of womens' rights?

In fact, do you think that any government, entity, group, individual which proclaims that they are fighting for any specific reason, without the backing of the majority of those they purport to be fighting for are doing anything other than conflating their own specific agenda into something which only exists because of their own biases?

I kinda resent other people telling me what I should do, think and believe......just because they have convinced themselves they are right, and everybody else is wrong, and can shout loudly enough to get the ear of Government or the media.

Never been a particularly enthusiastic bra-burner, tbh... maybe because I have never felt the great need to have done anything in my life more than I did, and nobody, or nothing, not even being as poor as a church mouse, ever stopped me doing what I wanted to do in the UK, such as going to college in my late twenties, after the offspring started school, and standing for local council elections.

I get the impression that some people/groups do not actually exist for the good of all....but for the good of their individual/group etc ethos.

Should the silent majority be allowing the vociferous minority to set the agenda for us all............or is it well past time we were saying that a lot of those who have influence on the thinking of society talk mostly a load of self-serving codswallop?

I think we all fight for our rights as women though our own lens. We all have different needs desires and feelings that go into that struggle. For me it is equality. That is what angers me the most that even after all these years we still fight for equal pay. We are still seen by many as the happy homemaker and so we can d with less. I resent ads and commercials that play women into the role of the housekeeper.

That may not be your lens. You may look at women's rights in a totally different light than I do or the neighbor. Yes we struggle for rights for all women but we stand for our wants and needs.

Fighting for women's rights has nothing to do with what the majority of women think.
If the majority of women want to be housewives, keep other women out of political position, be abused and raped, and support sexual exploitation, it does not mean that a battle for women's rights supports those things.
Women's rights, by definition, require a society that allows women to choose whether to be a homemaker, a career-woman, or some mix. Women's rights would be about the freedom of women not to be abused or raped. It would be about women having proportionate control in authority or at least having equal opportunity for it. It would be against any form of exploitation of women, as exploitation is about uneven playing fields.
It's not about what most women think.
It's about making the individual woman free.
Any other definition is truly a postmodernist perversion.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

Should the silent majority be allowing the vociferous minority to set the agenda for us all............

Yes, because it's rather obvious they can't be bothered to get involved. They only have themselves to blame for their silence.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Fighting for women's rights has nothing to do with what the majority of women think.
If the majority of women want to be housewives, keep other women out of political position, be abused and raped, and support sexual exploitation, it does not mean that a battle for women's rights supports those things.
.

The best illustration I could offer by way of agreement with what you say is to refer back 150 years to the time of slavery. THe status of the house slave was certainly above that of a field slave, and many such house slaves expressed satisfaction with their lot. In fact, many argued against the abolition of slavery offering up various rationalizations akin to those of a woman today who might argue against women's rights.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most courageous feminists out here today is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is fighting for women's rights within the Islamic world. Not only does she face the wrath of misogynistic men in her own culture, but that of women as well, and more importantly, the European left which has abandoned Liberalism as its guiding principle.

Originally Posted by Lackluster

The best illustration I could offer by way of agreement with what you say is to refer back 150 years to the time of slavery. THe status of the house slave was certainly above that of a field slave, and many such house slaves expressed satisfaction with their lot. In fact, many argued against the abolition of slavery offering up various rationalizations akin to those of a woman today who might argue against women's rights.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most courageous feminists out here today is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is fighting for women's rights within the Islamic world. Not only does she face the wrath of misogynistic men in her own culture, but that of women as well, and more importantly, the European left which has abandoned Liberalism as its guiding principle.

This is where I see the greatest attack on woman's right and it should be changed. It would change the face of Islam.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

This is where I see the greatest attack on woman's right and it should be changed. It would change the face of Islam.

Literally the women could take the scarves off their faces XD.

Originally Posted by Lackluster

The best illustration I could offer by way of agreement with what you say is to refer back 150 years to the time of slavery. THe status of the house slave was certainly above that of a field slave, and many such house slaves expressed satisfaction with their lot. In fact, many argued against the abolition of slavery offering up various rationalizations akin to those of a woman today who might argue against women's rights..

Yes. We see this phenomenon all over. Workers have their own equivalents, as do the rural poor.
Today's rift between the black middle class and black poor also creates some weird tensions for civil rights.
Creating stratification within an underprivileged group is a surefire way to limit their ability to change. I'm not sure how often the "divide and conquer" strategy is intentional (using race identity to bust unions) and how often it is a latent effect (as it appears to be with the progressive-traditionalist woman divide), but it's always an issue.
Even on the micro-level, we can see this. I was a geek as a kid. Being a geek as a kid often leads to picking on other geeks to gain respect from popular kids or avoid more of their crap. After growing up, you feel bad, but while in the position- it seems like survival.

Originally Posted by Lackluster

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most courageous feminists out here today is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is fighting for women's rights within the Islamic world. Not only does she face the wrath of misogynistic men in her own culture, but that of women as well, and more importantly, the European left which has abandoned Liberalism as its guiding principle.

I'm glad to see a women's movement within Islam. But what exactly is the European left doing to obstruct her movement?
As far as I can tell, Western involvement is not productive. If the West condemns an aspect of fundamental Islam, all we can expect is greater solidarity of conservative elements which will trigger greater silence of inactive liberal opposition and weakness for liberal movements.
If the West can have any effect it has to be something that sets up a system that will ultimately allow for social change while not seeming an open attack on religion.
You can't do much to change fundamentalists or their active supporters. The people to control are the silent (and mostly self-interested) blocks and the inactive supporters of liberalism. The inactive supporters must somehow be convinced to be vocal (not likely with a massive reactionary backlash)
and the people in the middle must either stay neutral (and thus indifferent to change that doesn't greatly impact their ability to survive) or move left (which requires seeing advantages of change without being struck with emotional fear from conservative interests).
Since the West's very involvement in discussions of Islamic society is enough to trigger fear in conservative factions (which will likely make more inactive conservatives active, more neutrals into inactive conservatives, and more inactive liberals into silent liberals), it seems best to avoid the subject and focus on the basic needs of people, leaving the progressive social movements to form much as our own did.
The other possibility is to gain credibility with the Islamic world so that our condemnations actually mean something to the population other than a "war on Islam" as they perceive it now.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

is fighting for anything other than their own perception of womens' rights?

In fact, do you think that any government, entity, group, individual which proclaims that they are fighting for any specific reason, without the backing of the majority of those they purport to be fighting for are doing anything other than conflating their own specific agenda into something which only exists because of their own biases?

I kinda resent other people telling me what I should do, think and believe......just because they have convinced themselves they are right, and everybody else is wrong, and can shout loudly enough to get the ear of Government or the media.

Never been a particularly enthusiastic bra-burner, tbh... maybe because I have never felt the great need to have done anything in my life more than I did, and nobody, or nothing, not even being as poor as a church mouse, ever stopped me doing what I wanted to do in the UK, such as going to college in my late twenties, after the offspring started school, and standing for local council elections.

I get the impression that some people/groups do not actually exist for the good of all....but for the good of their individual/group etc ethos.

Should the silent majority be allowing the vociferous minority to set the agenda for us all............or is it well past time we were saying that a lot of those who have influence on the thinking of society talk mostly a load of self-serving codswallop?

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?

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...