5 Things Feminism has done for me
As it is the beginning of Women's History Month, I thought, like jeff at 'where'd that bug go?', that I would post my list of the 5 Things Feminism has done for Me today. It seems very apropos:
1. Saved My Life - yes indeed. Had it not been for feminists arguing for equal rights for women, changing the divorce laws and bringing issues like spousal abuse (know as 'wife battering' back then) to the public attention, my mother would have been trapped in an abusive relationship back in the 1970's. She would not have been able to escape and probably would have been killed by my 'father'. Where would I be then? A violent drunk like him? Even alive? Because she could excape, because she could have a job and her own bank account, because being a single parent or a divorcee was no longer the social stigma it had been even 10 years earlier, we were able to have a pretty good, albeit poor, life.
2. Opened up the world to me and my daughter - my daughter can come to me and tell me she wants to be an astronaut, a soldier, a dancer and a swimming instructor. It allows me the luxury to know that my daughter can do anything she wants and her intelligence won't be pigeon holed into nurse, elementary school teacher or stay-at-home-mom - unless she wants to do those thing. Feminists have truly given my daughter that choice, the same kinds of choices her brothers have.
3. Made my wife and daughter people, not property - up until about 1910, rape was a property crime, a tort, not a part of the criminal law. A rapist was guilty of stealing the sexual property of a father or husband rather than for harming a woman. That made situations where women were not afforded the same kind of criminal law protectiosn as men (see #1 above). No longer. My wife and daughter are protected because they are human beings, not because they are legally my property.
4. Opened a new world of sports - yes, this is a silly one, but it is one nonetheless. I can now watch the Olympics and cheer on our Women's Hockey team, just as hard as the the mens (harder actually since they seem to win). I can be in awe of great hockey from Cassie Campbell and Hayley Wickenheiser, something that would not have been possible for me as a hockey fan and for them as players if not for feminism and Justine Blainey.
5. Opened communications - feminism has allowed, even forced us to talk about uncomfortale issues and deal with them, rather than sweep them under the table. Things like the aforementioned spousal abuse, or child abuse, abortion, adoption or divorce.
That is not to say their work is done, however. We still have people that think you need a penis to pull a trigger or aim a cannon and wish to keep women out of combat. Women still make on average about 75% of what a man with similar qualifications and experience does for the same job. There are those that think women should be made to stay home with their children rather than work, even if that means living in poverty. Our political process and Parliament are still made up of men, when 51% of the population are women.
I would consider myself a feminist, in that I believe in the equality of the sexes - equality of opportunity and equality of treatment.
So long as there are people out there who will tell my daughter that she cannot do something, or must act a certain way, simply because she lacks a penis, then we still need feminism.
posted by Mike @ 9:39 AM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Then again, you might be lucky your mom didn't just abort you, like 3 million others babies have been since it was legalized. That's half the number of those killed in the holocaust.
Of course the flip side is the version of feminism that says:
1. There is no such thing as gender and thus children should be indoctrinated into sexuality at a young age robbing them of childhood.
2. Women are liberated by being promiscuous, which of course means that they define themselves by their sexuality, not their intelligence.
3. Women do not need any men to be happy, which of course has led to a generation of men into thinking that they can treat women as playthings because being promiscuous is 'enlightened and evolved' (see 2).
4. Marriage is part of an oppressiive patriarchy which needs to be destroyed. This has led to a generation of women entering their 50's alone and bitter and feeling betrayed (see Maureen Dowd's recent book).
5. That all men are 'evil' and 'bastards'. This has led to a generation of women who take the worst character traits of men and apply it to themselves as norm. Hence all of the high rates of women teachers sexually abusing young boys.
Everyone is for the 'equal work equal pay' feminism, but this is not 1952 and modern feminism is a twisted, perverted view of human nature rooted neither in science nor morality. That is why so many young women no longer call themselves feminists.
Nicol, what on earth are you talking about?
In point # 1, you contradict yourself. First you say feminists say there is no gender, and then you say feminists sexualize children. How can there be sexuality without gender? And I call bullshit on feminists sexualizing children. From where I stand, the sexualization of children (and let's be honest here, you mean girls more than you mean boys) has nothing to do with feminism and a whole lot more to do with objectification -> the same kind of objectification women have long been subject to. But now it's being marketed to younger people.
2. Recognizing that women are sexual beings, can enjoy sex, and can have orgasms does not necessarily lead to promiscuity. Shouldn't you be glad that the women in life are learning that they can and should enjoy sex instead of being taught that it will be uncomfortable and she won't enjoy it, but it is her duty to her husband? Aren't males taught that they are sexual beings who can enjoy sex?
3. Of course women don't need men to be happy, any more than men need women to be happy. In a good world, everyone would be emotionally strong, centered, and independent. Then we could build strong relationships - with people of either sex - instead of messed up co-dependencies rife with dominance struggles and manipulation. If you are happy with yourself, inside your self, that makes every other relationship, from your spouse, to your co-workers, to your friends and family, that much stronger. And I'll think you'll find that there have always been men who thought of women as nothing but playthings. After all, traditional Christianity considers women to be either the "Madonna or the whore" - the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene. Doesn't leave much room for other careers for us ladies, does it?
4. No one is describing marriage as a oppressive patriarchy. They're describing some of the traditions of marriage as being part of the oppresive patriarchy. Those traditions include: husbands are head of household and must always be obeyed (instead of sharing responsibilities and discussing issues and finding a consensus), men must propose marriage on their timetable (instead of discussing whether to marry and when to marry with his prospective fiancee), husbands must support his family, while wives look after children (instead of determining who has the better job, who wants to work, who would prefer to be at home, and whether there are other options). Many of these traditions are just as oppressive for the man as the woman - isn't it better for all of us to try to work past the traditions that don't work anymore, and try to find ones that serve us - all of us - better?
5. No one is claiming that men are evil or bastards. What you will find is that feminists are both male and female, who believe in equal rights for women and men. Because that's all feminism is; a striving for equality. Despite what the anti-feminists say.
Nicol,
Spoken like a true idiot. Listen to Deanna and get a freaking life. And thank you for proving that the job of feminism is not yet done. Hey, instead of cut and paste reposting crap from your blog, how about actually presenting an arguement?
Anon,
If I would have been aborted, why would I care, since I would not exist. Or is that just a little too philisophical for someone with your simple thinking.
If you are so worried about abortion, why not teach proper sex ed in schools or provide real access to birth control, or give women better options than abortion. Naw, that would make too much sense - let me just remove a woman's right to control her own body and enforce my particular social mores on everyone, whether they accept them or not. Again, proving that the work of feminism is still not done.
Deanna, nice rebuttal. Keep it up.
Very well said, Mike!
I answered Nicol on her blog. Nothing like distorting the truth to make some people happy in their smug self-righteousness.
Nicol is a him, oddly enough.
Thanks Mike! I value your praise, as I've long respected your blog posts and comments. You sold me on your public health care and Afghanistan posts, so I guess you could call me an RR groupie. Not a drooling one, though, I draw the line at drooling. :D
Folks like Nichol get on my nerves - I grew up in northern BC and in my family and community, it was (and still is) taken for granted that women can't do certain jobs (and that men shouldn't do "women's jobs" such as waiting tables, nursing, being flag persons for road repair crews, etc), or that daughters aren't as desireable as sons. It's under the surface, but scratch it, and it all comes bubbling up.
And I see it in the corporate world too; from the making-less-money, and the less-likely-to-be-promoted point of view.
"Spoken like a true idiot. Listen to Deanna and get a freaking life."
Wowza! What an articuate rebuttal.
Lemme guess, you have a PHD in gender studies?
I know many leftists like yourself who hate to have true modern feminism thrown back in their face.
The fact that you can only respond with glib insults is a testament to that. You're a true progressive!
It was not meant to be an articulate rebuttal it was meant to be an insult to an asinine, mean-spriited, non-thinking response. You will get an articulate rebuttal make an actual arguement, rather than repeating the unsubstatiated talking points of REAL Women and other such conservative groups.
I do not suffer fools lightly. When you are prepared to have a real discussion, rather than throw out straw men and make outlandish claims, you will have a proper response.
The fact that you cut-and-pasted this from your blog (and likely from some other place) indicates you are not making original thoughts or thingking about this at all.
My frankness and anger stems from being a father of a daughter. I will be damned if I will let a troglidyte like your self or your Conservavite fellow travellers tell my daughter she cannot do soemthing or be something or think something because she has the wrong chromosome pairing.
Let me guess - you are in your early 20's and single? Go figure.
Huh?
David Byron, as I have made it clear to Nicol, if you present cogent arguements with you know, evidence, I will gladly have a discussion.
Stating the feminism is about promiscuity or man-hating, or special privileges is a straw man attack and thus illogical and unwarranted. If you quote certain radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin as representing the whole movement, I will point you to others that do not agree with her that are far more representative.
I will not censor you, nor will I sit back and let people tell lies simply to back up their conclusions. If you would care to actually address the issue I raised in my post and be on topic, that would be a bonus.
Nicol is a him, oddly enough..
Whoops. Thanks for letting me know. And he still has no idea what so-called "modern feminism" is all about.
Nice, Nichol.
Give Mike a bad time, but ignore my rebuttal of your remarks.
Which is it? Was it because a woman nullified your remarks, or because you don't deign to notice women?
Please, enlighten me - and while you're at it, consider how your (lack of) reaction helps prove why we still need feminism today.
Well, that went rather well, I think.
"So it's common ground that the feminist movement contains elements that are anti-equality and hate men. But you guys want to paper over that fact. You want to call it a "strawman". The problem is that the very fact that you try to cover this up proves something stinks."
No it merely shows there is a wide spectum of opinion within such a movement as there are in any movement. I could be a great supporter of MLK and still not support the Black Panthers. That doesn't mean that niether was about equality for blacks or that, because one existed and was radical, that the entire civil rights movement should have been ignored. That is simply illogical.
"Your government has a department for women but no departement for men. That's sexism. Your reaction to this is to demand more money to be spent only on women. That's sexist too. catnip mentioned women's history month in Canada. There's no men's history month. That's sexist."
You fail to recognize the power differential between the two sexes here. In fact all of your arguements miss the clear difference in societal, cultural and economic power difference that men still have over women. Historically, women have been the oppressed and men the oppressors. Have a look at our MPs and our government at every level. While women are 51% of the population, almost 80% of the ruling party is men. Most of the civil service is men. In the government EVERY department is the 'department for men' - that's the problem. Do you remember your history classes in highschool or university? EVERY month is 'men's history month', since it is almost always men (except for Laura Secord) that you learn about. Hence the need for a 'Women's History Month' (or a Black History Month) to focus on the historical deeds and accomplishments of women, since we never hear about them otherwise. Proof again that feminism is not done yet.
"So what you are both doing is lying to your audience to suggest you are defending equality when you are actually advocating for inequailty."
Nope, I am advocating giving women the same power and oppotunity that us men have had for so long that we don't even know we have it anymore. I want women to be looked at and treated equally. Having an organization that helps the oppressed climb to the status of the oppressor does that.
"Another example. You both brought up the gender wage gap myth. Now this is a lie that attacks men and creates gender jealousies and hatred. Feminists repeat this lie so much that often people say it without knowing it is a lie so before we go further I'd like you both to say whether you knew when you repeated the gender wage gap myth, that it was a lie. Are you lying knowingly, or are you dupes who have been lied to by your own movement?"
Not a myth at all. Feel free to check out the latest from Stats Canada. Its all there.
"neither of you considered it for one of the five points"
Uhm, that's because women are still paid less than men on average. So this hasn't been done so feminism can't have improved it yet. So it isn't on my list. But thanks for reminding me why we still need the SoW.
"Mike says feminism helped set up DV shelters. That's fine except of course that Canada's shelter movement is a sexist movement that has been sucessfully sued for its discrimination and lies. Male victims can't use the services. It would be unconstitutional if Canada had a constitution banning sex discrimination."
Really? Care to point me to the case where a shelter has been sued? I'd love to read that. BTW, read Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - it does ban discrimination based on sex, unless, according to Section 1, it can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society that a [reasonable] limit can be put on it. Women go to shelters because the are attacked by men. Not allowing men in the shelter is a reasonable limit. Women are the victims of these assaults literally orders of magnitude more than men. If there was a men's shelter to protect men from abusive women, I would support not allowing women into those shelters. Now, how many shelters like that are there? Oh, right, none. There's that power thing again.
"As for the other serious issue Mike raised it was a simple lie. Women were never property in canada."
My dear David, rest assured I would not make up such a thing. Anyone who has studied English Common law knows that rape was a tort, a civil law practice, until approximately 1910 everywhere that English Common law was practiced. This did not change until rape was consider a crime of the person and added to our criminal code. Rape was a property offence (a tort) before then. And the reason it is not still this way is because of the work of the suffragettes and other womens organizations - feminists. But don't take my word on it. Women may not have been property, but they were treated as such. In fact, they were not even considered "persons" until 1927. Feel free to google the Person's Case.
"So there you have it -- feminism is based on sexism and lies calculated to create gender hatred by stereotyping men as evil brutal oppressors of angelic innocent women. Neither of you could defend the movement without resorting to lies -- even though you'd probably want to claim you are not man hating "extremists". Extremists or not you use the same lies they do and push the same sorts of prejudices."
So there you have it...everything that you claimed was a lie, is not. Every instance you cite is false. I have no prejudice of men or women, but I can recognize the very real history nature of our society. To do otherwise is to ignore litterally centuries of history. In Canada, it has only been 50 years since women could be tossed in jail as "encourageable" for daring to date an oriental man. It has only been 70 years since women were considered "persons" under the law. It has only been 89 years since women could vote or hold office. It has been less than 40 years - yes within my lifetime - that a woman could even charge her husband with assault, or divorce him without his consent on grounds other than infedelity. Today women are still not equally represented at any level of government, or in certain professions.
Feminism has done a lot of great things, but it is not done. Sorry you don't agree. Perhaps its because your view of feminism is twisted and wrong. I hope that we won't have to worry about this stuff for my daughter, but I'm not holding my breathe, not so long as ther are still men like you that pretend there isn't even a problem.
"pointed out that you already admited that many feminists hate men."
No David, I said some, not many. In fact, I stated, that most do not hate men. So your very premis is faulty and thus the rest of your arguement.
Now every paragraph in here you accuse me of lying yet you show no proof what-so-ever. Simply because I disagree with you, you state I am lying. Meaning that you think you have a monopoly on truth. Yet you claim not to be able to find the stats I mention, you claim that the Persons case does not say what every legal scholar in Canada say it does (Please pick up Peter Hoggs "Leading Constitutional Descisions" and read the analysis there.)
Look if you don't agree with me that's one thing, but to claim I am outright fabricating things is quite another. That is somethig you sir need to prove - more proof than simply writing the word "LIE" or "LYING" in all caps.
"Of course assault isn't a civil but a criminal law so technically even what you said is wrong. men could always be charged with asault. The idea that people could go around beating up their spouses is another feminist LIE."
David, fuck you. I watch my mother get the shit beat out of her for 7 years by my so-called 'father'. I watched the police come and take HER away. He was NEVER charged because the changes to the Criminal Code did not take effect until the mid 70's. Throughout the 90's I worked for the Metro Toronto Police Victim Services unit. Quite literally 8 out of every 10 calls was a domestic violence call, almost every one of them a man beating his wife or partner. Again, go to stats Canada - women are most likely to be the victims of violent crime and that crime is most likely to be committed by someone they are related to.
If you cannot get that simple fact right, then there really is not debate is there. If you cannot accept that there even is spousal abuse going on in this country, they how can we even talk about equal pay or representation.
Thank you for once again proving why we need and SoW and feminism - merely because you exist and believe these things which are wrong (notice I don't accuse you of lying David, I just think you are horribly wrong and mistaken).
David Byron has made some excellent points. Thank you for your impassioned posts, David!
"I didn't look because I know it isn't there."
But earlier you claimed you did look but couldn't find them. Now who is lying?
Here. Look here. And here.Or here. How about this?
5 minutes with Google...there are plenty more.
"Have you actually read it? It's not hard to fact check this idiotic rubbish you spout you know. Have you ever?"
Yes, a number of times. I studies it in Constitutional Law under Prof Jim Mackenzie. I know it quite well.
"Ah the argument by emotional anecdote. So typical of feminists. Did it never occur to you that male victims could tell the same story?"
Please show me the stories of males suffering like this and I will advocate on their behalf as well. In the mean time here are some more facts for you to read, since clearly you don;t think this is a problem:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/spouseafs.html
From the article:
"For example, compared to men, women were:
* six times more likely to report being sexually assaulted
* five times more likely to report being choked
* five times more likely to require medical attention, as a result of an assault
* three times more likely to be physically injured by an assault
* more than twice as likely to report being beaten
* almost twice as likely to report being threatened with, or having a gun or knife used against them
* much more likely to fear for their lives, or be afraid for their children as a result of the violence
* more likely to have sleeping problems, suffer depression or anxiety attacks, or have lowered self-esteem as a result of being abused, and
* more likely to report repeated victimization."
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_012_e.htm
Again, there is lots more. Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=spousal+abuse+canada&btnG=Search
You may call it "emotional anectdote" but it was in response to you stating that it didn;t happen. I have seen it with my own eyes.
"That's false Mike. Men are. Look it up. God you can't even remember the "factoids" that the feminists gave to you."
Well see the link above. As well:
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/facts_e.html
http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/freda/articles/statsw.htm
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw23/fsw23e01_e.shtml
From the last one:
"n Canada in 1991 88% of all those charged with violent crime were men, and 12% women. This amounted to 110,000 charges against men, compared with 13,000 against women (Statistics Canada reported in Johnson and Rodgers, 1993)."
And
"ost violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."
Compare those to the stats above which show where women were victims.
There is lots more here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=women+violent+crime+canada&btnG=Search
"One way feminists twist statistics is by ignoring domestic violence against the elderly or against children -- both examples of domestic violence where women are the majority of the criminals, not men"
That's not what the statistics I just quoted and linked to say. Care to provide a link?
"Men can be victims and women can be the criminals."
No one is aying they aren't. But as I showed earlier men are the agressors in 88% of violent crime, not women.
http://www.cserv.gov.bc.ca/womens_services/stopping-violence/facts.htm
I don't know what else to say to you David, I really don't. Everytime I counter your arguement and negate your premise, you move the goal posts and claim something different. Unlike you, I have actually caught you contradicting yourself. If you want to ignore all of this data from around the country and the world an pretend that women are the vitims as much as men, that women make as much as men or have the same power as men, you are entitled to do that, but don't expect anyone but guys like jeff to take you seriously.
"Mike do you support the way feminist ban all male victims of domestic violence from getting state aid?"
No because that assertion is simply not true. Please show me where feminists "ban" such things. Again, as a former worker in this field with the Metro Toronto Police Victim Services Unit, we sent the very rare male victims of domestic violence to services within the city. In 4 years I think that happened once, BTW, as opposed to nightly for women. Did it occur to you that perhaps these services don't exist because men are so rarely the victims of domestic violence?
"Btw -- third time of asking -- can you think of ANY issue whatsoever in Canada where women have less rights than men do? It looks like you can't."
Can women take part in any and every combat role in the CF? Nope. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can chime in and tell you a few more.
BTW, is your back getting sore from dragging those goal posts around?
"You just admited you refused to serve them in that paragraph Mike."
No David, I did not. Not anywhere on this page. It was against the law for me to refuse to serve any one. You are now making things up.
With all of this I must conclude that you don't really want debate this, you simply want a platform for your simple minded, angry little spasms. You completely missed the page which lists IDENTICAL jobs held by men and women where woman earn, on average about 73% of what their male counterparts - in the same job - do.
But I digress. I will let our little exchange stand on its merits and let others judge. It was fun while it lasted. Good luck in the next discussion.
Gosh David you are right. Sorry Girls, we've been found out. David is too smart for us. All that time and effort put into infiltrating universities, Stats Canada, the government has gone for naught. The fiendish plot to enslave men has been uncovered by DavidByron.
Damn you DavidByron!
Time to switch to Plan< B, though I'm pretty sure with the attitude he has displayed here, David is probably used to this too.
Buddy, you might want to get the nurses to up the dose...
I thought I'd pass this link along:
http://www.liberalavenger.com/2006/10/03/five-things-feminism-has-done-for-me/
A post by a guy who is struggling with the idea of feminism. David and Nichol, you might like to read this one.
David (is it it Richard...the tone is awfully familiar) why don't you start your own blog?
It is clear that you have a bee under your saddle about this. I mean, you already have a blogger id, just take the next step. This is really tiresome. I have made my point and you have move the goal posts every time, been caught contradicting yourself and are generally behaving rather angry and unstable. You are clearly suffering from some kind of delusion, nearing paranoia.
Now for your warning: Its been fun, but now its done. If you want to continue, get your own blog. If you continue to post with out my reply, I will simply close off posting here. If you continue to obsess, I will delete any further posts about this subjuect in any of my other entries.
Easy.
Now get your own blog and I'll go over and se you there. But we are done here.
Mike, you are a shitty loser. Did you know that?
I'm sorry Mike, that came off a bit harsh. It's your blog, your rules, etc....
jeff,
Thanks jeff, I appreciate it
DavidByron,
I do not tolerate people calling me a liar, comparing me to Hitler and using my own blog to launch into ad hominem screeds with no connection to to issue at hand.
Blogger does allow me to remove ALL evidence, but chose to leave the minimal indication to point to you that your attacks are not welcome.
Our conversation started well enough but has now devolved to the point that your posts are the blog equivilent of a crazy man on the corner screaming paranoid, angry insults at passersby, and then wondering why people ignore what he says and think he is nuts. Your freedom of speech is in no way censored or curtailled as you are perfectly free to start your own blog and scream all you want. You are no longer welcome to use my blog to attack me.
You'll also notice the cordial bit that occured between jeff and I. Jeff and I do not agree on most things, and over the past couple of years have tangled - sometimes quite passionately and bittersly - on many occasions. But jeff has never once resorted to the frothing-mouth personal attacks that you have resorted to. Hence, we agree to disagree and are still civil. I dare say that should ever meet in person, despite our differences, we might even be friends. You could learn from jeff and many others in the blogsphere.
Until that time, you are not longer welcome to comment on this post. Everything you post will be deleted. If you are compelled to continue, start your own blog - it takes about 3 mouse clicks...
Wow.. Mike, that davidbryon guy is seriously f@k'd up. My women studies courses didn't even come close to touching the discussion coming from that guy. I thank god for my mom, my grandmother, my sister and my niece. I couldn't imagine being that angry at women in general. He needs to take some women studies courses I think. Maybe it would help free his mind. Congratulations on a well said and put argument. It's a shame it degenerated to that point though. I am truly surprised that people would still have that much of an issue with feminism. I guess I live in my own bubble, but all the men I know appricate the women they have in their lives and are thankful for the way they are. And the way they are is largely due to the efforts of feminists everywhere. Good post, by the way.
Shawn
Um... sorry, if I'd gotten here sooner, could have warned you... you dealt with him bravely and as patiently as anyone could have been expected to, but as you noticed, the grab bag includes insults, undeserved bile and hatred, and finally--or firstly, in this case--the claim that "a-ha! You're censoring me!"
You horrible cad, Mike. You're just like Hitler, you know that? Exactly like Hitler, no difference.
Wish I had gotten here sooner to warn you.
I think this DavidByron has had the same exact spiel everywhere he's gone, too, but isn't seeing that it's received exactly the same way every time... who was it that said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result"? You wish he'd choose some more positive, productive pastime. What a waste of one's life. Oh well.
Post a Comment
<< Home