Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Tao wrote:Heh, if we want to stick to pure definitions, then neither is chauvinist an insult:

chauvinism n. plural chauvinisms, see also chauvinist

1. Excessive patriotism, eagerness for national superiority; jingoism.

That is why we call them chauvinist pigs, since as you have demonstrated, the word on its own is not insulting.

Marduk wrote:I'd just like to point out, at this point, that we are all discussing things irrelevant to the question. If you go back and read, Singleton points out that she has been arguing with feminsits, not feminists. What we really need to find out is just what a feminsit is.

Marduk, you are delightful. I believe that 'feminsits' are those who fail to understand basic feminist theory... and also fail to understand the concept of spellcheck.

Marduk wrote:I'd just like to point out, at this point, that we are all discussing things irrelevant to the question. If you go back and read, Singleton points out that she has been arguing with feminsits, not feminists. What we really need to find out is just what a feminsit is.

Feminsits sit on people who want to get married, hoping to squash the femininity out of them.

Katya wrote:Feminsits sit on people who want to get married, hoping to squash the femininity out of them.

They sound....fat.

Katya wrote:

Marduk wrote:I'd just like to point out, at this point, that we are all discussing things irrelevant to the question. If you go back and read, Singleton points out that she has been arguing with feminsits, not feminists. What we really need to find out is just what a feminsit is.

Feminsits sit on people who want to get married, hoping to squash the femininity out of them.

*smirk*

One problem with the word "feminist" -- along with words like "conservative" and "liberal" -- is that it tends to be relative to one's context. For instance, I went to a very politically and religiously conservative college, and compared to many of my peers I would have been considered a liberal and a feminist, but compared to the general American population, I probably have fairly traditional ideas about gender.

When I describe myself as a feminist, there are two main things that I mean. One, I believe that historically and presently, men have used their greater physical strength as an excuse to mistreat women and to look down on them. I believe that these injustices continue in cultures throughout the world, and that I see it as my goal to right some of those wrongs when it is in my power to do so.

Secondly, and probably more relevantly to Singleton's question, I do not allow the fact that I am single to cripple me. Do I want to get married? Yes, very much. But I'm not sitting around waiting for my life to start because I'm not married yet. I don't think that I have to have a husband to be a valued and valuable member of society.

I wonder if that's the point that the so-called "feminists" in Singleton's life are trying (unsuccessfully) to make: that she's so wrapped up in wanting to be married that she's not living her own life right now. My guess is that both they and she are distorting each other's views out of frustration.

Marduk wrote:I think a more adequate definition (as the one Katya gave was merely flippant, and not really intended to be workable) would be that a feminist is "one who believes that a woman should have every right and priviledge bestowed to a man under similar circumstances." And while almost everyone would agree with this in theory, many don't believe it when it actually comes to practice (myself included, but usually for logistical reasons rather than misogynistic ones.)

So, a Mormon feminist holds the heretical view that women should have been given the priesthood? Are Mormon feminists on the road to apostasy?

vorpal blade wrote:

Marduk wrote:I think a more adequate definition (as the one Katya gave was merely flippant, and not really intended to be workable) would be that a feminist is "one who believes that a woman should have every right and priviledge bestowed to a man under similar circumstances." And while almost everyone would agree with this in theory, many don't believe it when it actually comes to practice (myself included, but usually for logistical reasons rather than misogynistic ones.)

So, a Mormon feminist holds the heretical view that women should have been given the priesthood? Are Mormon feminists on the road to apostasy?

Mormon feminism as it relates directly to Mormonism and not women's rights everywhere else is a whole 'nother question.

Vorpal, yes, some Mormon feminists allow for the possibility that at some point women will be given the priesthood, and the reason they haven't yet is because mankind simply isn't ready to accept that yet. And such a view does not put one "on the road to apostasy" as long as one doesn't begin to preach it from the pulpit and call for the removal of apostles and prophets.

Marduk wrote:Vorpal, yes, some Mormon feminists allow for the possibility that at some point women will be given the priesthood, and the reason they haven't yet is because mankind simply isn't ready to accept that yet. And such a view does not put one "on the road to apostasy" as long as one doesn't begin to preach it from the pulpit and call for the removal of apostles and prophets.

Sadly, I have seen this call. Not in such direct words, but along the lines of 'waiting and praying for the day when [those in power] die so that we can see justice established'. As if the prophets and apostles are in the way and thwarting God's will...

On the odd chance that anyone in that particular discussion group attends these forums: the priesthood doesn't work that way; it isn't the right to establish your will as God's. Rather the opposite, God establishes his will through you, even if it goes against everything you want. The prophet and apostles can all want and hope and pray that something happens, but until God says so, it waits. So because your views aren't immediately expressed does not necessarily mean that they are opposed by those holding the priesthood, and praying for the day that we get a new quorum is... sigh... less effective at the best.

In a very real sense, what I learned with that particular group of individuals is surely part of the reason I question why anyone would willingly take the mantle of 'feminist'. The moderate definitions offered thus far on this thread are what I consider the norm, not warranting a title of any sort.

Imogen wrote:and vorpal, have you met men who think women are sub-human? or their victims? because i have, and every time i see a woman who was abused by a man because he didn't respect her person-hood, it makes me MORE feminist. or when a student refuses to respect me because he is taught at home that women don't need to be respected.

No, not really. I know women have been abused by men, and I have known men who have little respect for women. It had nothing to do with considering a woman sub-human or not respecting her person-hood. I have known men who have been abused by women, and men who weren't respected by women. Should this make men more male chauvinistic?

I don't doubt you when you say that some students show no respect to you because they have been taught at home to have little respect for women. And I sympathize with the difficulties you face. I have also known children who were taught at home to have no respect for men. Or any respect for people of a different color (white or black). Or any respect for authority figures. That also makes teaching difficult if you are on the opposite side.

I see a problem when rhetoric reaches a point when we categorize our perceived enemies as being sub-human. Calling police officers "pigs" is a form of characterization that this class of being is sub-human, a kind of animal. Referring to men as eating or behaving or living like animals is also to down-grade their status as people. The common phrase "chauvinistic pig" to describe a perceived enemy of feminism is another example.

In time of war it is also common to accuse our enemies as treating our side, or our captured soldiers, as less than people. So, whenever I hear someone say that some group of people treats him or her as though he or she was not a person, then I suspect that that individual has been brainwashed with war propaganda. It also tells me who that individual considers to be his or her enemy.

Tao wrote: Case in point. How do you take a superlative of those who believe women are people? "One whose belief that women are people supersedes all others"? "One who believes women are more people than others"? "Everyone not me believes that women are less people than I do"?

Brilliant, Tao.

krebscout wrote: woooo bsg

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this language. A Google search makes me wonder:
bsg = Battlestar Galactica? Business Strategy Game? Billing Service Group? Beacon Street Girls? A particular gene? Barry Green?

Good comments, Emiliana. Feminism, like liberalism, means different things to different people, so we have to be careful how we use the word if we wish to be understood correctly.

If you take the dictionary definition of liberal as a noun you have http://www.onelook.com/?w=liberal&ls=a

dictionary wrote:noun
▸someone who accepts many different opinions or ways of behaving and tends to be sympathetic to other people.
▸someone who believes that social and political changes should be made gradually if most people want them.

then we all think of ourselves as liberals.

VORPAL IS NOW CLAIMING HE'S A LIBERAL!

Keep an eye out for the four horsemen, in my opinion.

Marduk wrote:VORPAL IS NOW CLAIMING HE'S A LIBERAL!

Keep an eye out for the four horsemen, in my opinion.

I've always claimed to have the traits described in that definition of liberal, so if we go by that definition I've always claimed to be a liberal. And so has everyone else in this forum. What kind of an idiot is going to say that he does not accept many different opinions or ways of behaving? Who does not believe that he tends to be sympathetic to other people? Who does not believe that social and political changes should be made gradually if most people want them?

Do you honestly believe, Marduk, that only liberals -- as commonly understood -- believe this of themselves? Or that conservatives believe they don't fit that definition? Is that what you think, that conservatives don't fit this definition of liberal?

Marduk wrote:Vorpal, yes, some Mormon feminists allow for the possibility that at some point women will be given the priesthood, and the reason they haven't yet is because mankind simply isn't ready to accept that yet. And such a view does not put one "on the road to apostasy" as long as one doesn't begin to preach it from the pulpit and call for the removal of apostles and prophets.

I phrased my question as "should have been given the priesthood," not believe that some day in the future there is a possibility they may have the priesthood. If the answer to the question I actually asked is "yes," then they do not sustain our leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators. Hence, they are in a state of apostasy.

Take a joke.

sorry, still proud to be a feminist, and i will be one until i die. you may have your own definition of it, but by MY definition it is something to be proud of. when the wage gap is gone, when politicians stop trying to tell me when and where and how to birth my child, or whether or not to HAVE a child, when rape is no longer used a tactic of war or to gain power over any person, or when LGBTQ people are afforded the same rights as everyone else to pursue happiness, then i will stop being a feminist.

but, until all those things happen, i will be a feminist who wants to get married and have kids (on my own terms), and i will teach all of my children, male or female, to be feminists as well.


i finally read singelton's answer, and she seemed very....snide. i can't think of the exact word i want to use, but i got the feeling from reading her question that she IS a bit marriage obsessed, and who wants to marry someone who just wants to get married with no desire to find werfself as an individual first? i hope the man i marry is just as independent as i am and has goals and dreams outside of marriage that we can then pursue together. but i agree with all who said it's dangerous to define yourself by your relationship status.

Imogen- I completely agree with everything you just said!!!! I could not have said it better.

Vorpal- to be honest, I actually know several people who, considering the definition of liberal you gave, would not consider themselves liberal. I think it really depends on the issue. Sometimes people are willing to see the other side and be open to change while other times, people are just going to be stubborn. I know I do this about certain issues that I feel strongly about. Therefore, I think it might be fair to say that it depends on the issue and the individual as to whether or not they're liberal. I think that with that definition, it would be extremely difficult to say that everyone is liberal because it implies that everyone should be liberal with every issue when, unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case.

Imogen wrote:sorry, still proud to be a feminist, and i will be one until i die. you may have your own definition of it, but by MY definition it is something to be proud of. when the wage gap is gone, when politicians stop trying to tell me when and where and how to birth my child, or whether or not to HAVE a child, when rape is no longer used a tactic of war or to gain power over any person, or when LGBTQ people are afforded the same rights as everyone else to pursue happiness, then i will stop being a feminist.

but, until all those things happen, i will be a feminist who wants to get married and have kids (on my own terms), and i will teach all of my children, male or female, to be feminists as well.

See, now that is what I would call feminist. And I would have no problem with you on holding those views. I would hold different views on some of them. (Reproductive rights, and we probably differ on what the reasons for the wage gap are and the best ways to resolve it.) But regardless of how I feel about those views, those are what I would consider feminist views and what are automatically brought to mind when I hear someone say "I am a feminist." It is also why I raise an eyebrow when people at BYU say they are feminists because abortion without cause is pretty clearly outside of Mormon thought and teachings. Again, I have no problem with people being outside Mormon thought; it merely makes me confused when people claim to be both within and outside of Mormon thought simultaneously (which gets back to the debate of whether or not reproductive rights are inextricable from feminist thought.... which no one seems to budge on.)

wired wrote:Again, I have no problem with people being outside Mormon thought; it merely makes me confused when people claim to be both within and outside of Mormon thought simultaneously (which gets back to the debate of whether or not reproductive rights are inextricable from feminist thought.... which no one seems to budge on.)

With the broad definitions of feminism including the belief that women are people, I'd say that feminism can exist with or without the belief that babies are people.

I don't think that a feminist has to believe in abortion without cause. A feminist could still believe in moral and divine laws, such as the sanctity of life. She could believe that pregnancy is a consequence of sex and that she does not get to choose the consequences of her actions. Others may not believe that, but you cannot say that to be a feminist, you must believe in abortion without cause. It's that kind of thought that gets people's guard up and why 'feminist' gets stereotyped.

I'm not sure if I identify as a feminist or not. I used to, but I no longer feel the desire. Perhaps because of the stereotypical feminists that would take away my choice of life, the traditional role of staying at home, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc., because that is what they're working so hard to overcome. Some feminists allow for the choice; others want women to be exactly like the stereotypical man and tell me that surely I don't want what I want--I just don't understand my choices and what I could be doing.