Feminism and Gender Equality

My way of explaining it is basically, 'I'm a feminist; I believe in equality for all.' Which really is the core concept behind the third wave especially. I'm not going to stop declaring myself as such because an extremist movement of keyboard warriors says I have no right to claim as such simply because I'm male or that I'm undermining the movement by trying to take it over or undermine it from within or some similar nonsense.

Eh, re: Germaine Greer, I'm more a fan of thinking before you speak, personally. I mean, sure, respect for her contributions, absolutely, but there's definately more than a few things she's said over the years that are worth vehemently disagreeing with or at least challenging.

Green Ranger said:

My way of explaining it is basically, 'I'm a feminist; I believe in equality for all.' Which really is the core concept behind the third wave especially. I'm not going to stop declaring myself as such because an extremist movement of keyboard warriors says I have no right to claim as such simply because I'm male or that I'm undermining the movement by trying to take it over or undermine it from within or some similar nonsense.

Eh, re: Germaine Greer, I'm more a fan of thinking before you speak, personally. I mean, sure, respect for her contributions, absolutely, but there's definately more than a few things she's said over the years that are worth vehemently disagreeing with or at least challenging.

Click to expand...

I'm the enemy of those keyboard warriors as well though it seems from 12 different angles. "You're gay that's great! Think like us and do what we say!" "You're white and gay that's now bad!" "You're mixed, oppression equals moral superiority!" "You're white passing, you're now part of the problem!" .

I tend to gravitate towards people like Germaine Greer. Camille Paglia as been my paramount influence but I also admire Christina Hoff Somers, Carol Gilligan, Naomi Wolf (who is sometimes a mixed bag), Cathy Young, Julie Bindel (selected works), Betty Friedan's later works and Alice Dreger. There are some overlaps with other Academic fields and I consider myself to be less of a feminist and more of a student of feminist theory or a cultural critic.

*SQUEE*

So I went out for the evening after my initial post, and I was kind of afraid to see where this would go. Instead we are now in hyper heady brain space which is sooo much fun, and I am delighted. I'm gonna leave my last two-35 cents quick, then try to bow back out as I joined this forum to play make-believe star wars with you people, and I ain't gettng enough of that done.

@Officiant I also like Greer. I don't agree with loads of things she has said, but to contradict @Green Ranger I believe that thinking too much before you speak can hinder the potential to learn. She has accomlished a great many things to be respected, and the fact that she does not feel a need to temper or control her humanity by concerning herself with her own political correctness is actually beautiful to me. It reminds me of the the very individualism that gets a little lost in social justice issues, which I think someone was talking about a page or two back. That's the poet in me though. I like ugly served with my sanctity.

Back to the topic. The reason I consider "4th wave feminism" a viable title is this: the reactive, editorial quality that is, for many, the introduction to socio-political discourse. The internet, and the cottage industry of clickbait create a quantifiable effect on culture, and it strikes me as condecending to ignore the unique quality of this effect, which we are only begining to understand. While ultimately I care little for the enormous eccess of extremely annectodal women's lib publications, or TMZ style social justice, it has a power that I hesitate to dismiss entirely.

Just two more things.

Misandry is almost entirely made up by men. Yes, the word means something, and sure, there are some people somewhere who subscribe to it.....but there is also a legitimate Unicorn Cult, which poses about as much of a real threat to men as misandry.

Assault and battery is illegal in almost every civilized culture. Implying equality means you can hit a woman is weird and gross because it vaguely implies you want to physically harm people, particularly women.

@Tsunami I know your job is hitting people, that's different, and badass; real talk though, if Rhonda Rousey insisted you go one on one with her....what would you do?

Where do you folks stand on quotas? I lean more towards an egalitarian view, anyone who can something and is better qualified or skilled should be the one to do something, and people get the oppurtunity to try, even if there's no guarantee of success.

But I've seen many arguments in favor of doing things via a "balance", ie hiring people based on their physical attributes or gender identity as to create a less effective but more theoretocally empathetic environment? I don't know what it means, but from what I understand of it, it's that more diversity means more representation which means better outcomes for everyone due to everyone being able to see a race and gender succeed even though it's judging people for their race and gender?

I'm terrible at this but I'm just not good at seeing the quota side of stuff. I'm wondering if any on the pro-side can explain it to me well.

@Storm Crow Well, I've never heard it put that way, but let me offer two points for it's value. First though, I want to point out that anything like this varries enourmously depending on the job...obviously.

1) In most professional situations, there is a portion of the job that involves teamwork. Even if it is indirect, any group working toward a unified goal is a team. In any team, diversity is always a very very very very strong asset. There is loads of practical data to support this, as well as common sense. Effectiveness of a group is dependant on alot, not the least of which is empathy. All of the same anything is not a great way to inspire creativity or growth. This also makes me wonder what qualifed means in any given situation, suffice to say that is entirely in the eyes of the employer...leading me to-

2) I imagine that any employer implimenting such a policy is perfectly clear on the type of workplace he/she wants, and it's noone's damn business but his/hers and her/his employees. The problem with your whole egalitarian premise is it assumes that effective, qualified, and skilled can be held to a universal standard.

@DarthNoodley
It's kind of against what how i was brought up. If hypothetically she was in the same weight class (Because she is 135 and I am 180 atm) and we were told to fight then I would have no choice.

I think the issue with this situation, is in the event of a bloke hitting the deck and I might hammer them bloody but because of the way I was brought up, my instinct would not be "Oh the woman is on the canvas, better bash her skull open" but yes, in a world where we were paired to fight each other, I would have no choice.

Not saying I'd beat her if we were both 135 it would just be highly uncomfortable the entire time, there were more than a few people that said Ronda should fight some of the guys.

Hope that answers your question :)

@DarthNoodley

1) Diversity isn't all about a race and gender. It's about ones experiences, and just as importantly, ones background both personal and professional. The issue I mostly have is the argument of "We need more of _____ race/gender in the workplace because representation". To me, this assumes things about people based on their physical or gender identity, that somehow universally each and every person of said race/gender have a universal experience needed to give them the "representation" factor. But everyone goes through a wide range of experiences, and it leaves people with vastly different lingering experiences. A person who grew up in poverty with a firm moral caregiver who installed in them a sense of values when they were younger is going to be vastly different from a person who grew up in a middle class environment with parents who were absent most of the time or abusive in nature. Diversity doesn't come from identity as much as it does ones character, and that in my opinion transcends all qualifiers, including that of male or female, straight or gay, trans or bi, fluid or fixed. I just have never seen the value of ascribing traits to a person without ever actually knowing the person, which is what I feel the quota system does, it assumes one person is different from another based on simply what they identify as, which to me smacks strongly of prejudice, a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

2) To be perfectly honest, yes I do believe that there is a universal standard involved in the terms Effective, Qualified, and Skilled. Effective, successful in producing a desired or intended result. Qualified, officially recognized as being trained to perform a particular job; certified. Skilled, having or showing the knowledge, ability, or training to perform a certain activity or task well. Put them all together, and you have a universal standard for which a person who is certified to preform a task, shows an ability, knowledge, or aptitude for said task, and does the task in such a way to get an intended result. It will vary between occupations, but generally businesses already have standards they wish met, goals they wish to achieve, and milestones they wish to cross. This notion that being good at a job is a subjective field to me never really stood up when you look at the basic definition of what a good job is. There's being good at a job, being adequate at a job which means you're smack dab in the middle and inner margins, and being bad at a job. You wouldn't want someone out of shape to be a fire fighter, you wouldn't want someone who couldn't count to be a mathematician, and you wouldn't want someone who couldn't drive to be a chauffeur, so why is it that we act like being good or bad is this subjective thing? Being good at a job doesn't have to do with your gender, it has to do with whether you are physically and mentally capable. And I'd say a good 90% of all people, regardless of their orientation, are in fact capable. And that 10% are usually born with some sort of complicating circumstance, be it physical or developmental, which makes it harder yet even then still not impossible to be capable. IMO, I don't see what judging people based on their gender really accomplishes, outside of creating stereotypes about certain genders.

Brandon Rhea said:

And before we go any further I just want to point out the obvious absurdity of what will surely be a conversation about feminism held entirely by a group of dudes here. I would love to see our female members join this conversation as well.

Click to expand...

I'm a woman, I'm a feminist. I wasn't going to comment because I don't like confrontation of any kind or debating. I never considered myself a feminist when I was younger, because I didn't really know what one was. I really had to step back and take a good look at my own experiences, aswell as the world around me to really appreciate how important it was.

You take things for granted when you're a kid and tend to shrug things off because you're used to them. I went to a very conservative, Christian high school which had a very poor attitude towards gender and sexuality (girls required to wear dresses, same sex couples disallowed at school dances, things such as homosexuality, non-binary genders were treated as virtually non-existent). Sexual harassment/bullying was rife with very little done to stop it. At the time it seemed normal, it wasn't until I got older that I realized how bad it was, and how damaging it was to me personally. Things may not seem that much of a problem to many people because they're used to it, it's not until you mature that realize how commonplace inequality and oppression in our developed societies really is.

I wholeheartedly agree with @Nameless on the topic of gender roles and perceived stereotypes, which are a big pet peeve of mine. To use Star Wars as an example, every female villain/Sith Lord I can think of up until recently has either been the elegant, thin Sorceress or assassin type, or wearing nothing but a latex bikini. Darth Talon as one example, is abhorrent. She's sexy, that's her character, she's nothing more than a poster. As a kid I didn't like Padme or Princess Leia, my favourite character was Darth Vader, I always wanted to see female characters like him that were women so I could relate to them more, so I made Andromeda on SWRP, heh.

If a girl wants to be a warrior, let her be a warrior. If a boy wants to be a princess, let him be a princess.

I know that wasn't very deep, I'm not usually political, but that's me contributing and representing the ladies out there on the site.

Okay guys, so I don't really have any real life examples to prove my point, so like a lot of other people, I'm going to use Star Wars.

Gender equality has gotten a lot better since, for example, the 80's. I don't know much about the time period then, but look at the main cast for the Star Wars original trilogy.
Luke
Leia
Han
Lando
Darth Vader
Yoda
Obi-Wan
and so on

Now, the Force Awakens
Rey
Finn
Poe
Han
Leia
Kylo Ren
Captain Phasma
Luke

Okay, so my point is that that there is only one girl mainish in the OT, and in TFA, there's three. Things have gotten a lot better, and I'm sure there is lots of other evidence to prove and go against my point, but this is a teen's point of view.

Also, just want to point out that, in my school, there's really no sexism.

And if you still hate the word [feminism], it is not the word that is important. It’s the idea and the ambition behind it... -Emma Watson

This quote is what changed my view on feminism, because really if you choose not to identify as one that's fine it doesn't make you a bad person (even if some people might say otherwise). It doesn't make you a woman hating misogynist who wants to force little girls into marriages. As long as you recognise there are issues and do the small things in life that can help bring about a more equal society you're doing the right thing. You don't need to be out at rallies every weekend protesting for the cause, just take the steps to prevent discrimination in your own life and lead by example, you aren't born with hatred you learn it, so eventually (even though it will take a long time) these small things will add up to make the world a better place.

There have been people in this thread telling people what they are and what they aren't but that's part of the problem, as long as you compartmentalise people like that you're just adding fuel to the fire and it's something I never understood. Sure I understand that there are the BIG BAD BIGOTS out there, but segregating people into these niches defeats the whole purpose of trying to bring us together as an equal society.

But that's just my opinion, some may call me apathetic to the issues but whatever.

Reya Starlyght said:

Okay guys, so I don't really have any real life examples to prove my point, so like a lot of other people, I'm going to use Star Wars.

Gender equality has gotten a lot better since, for example, the 80's. I don't know much about the time period then, but look at the main cast for the Star Wars original trilogy.
Luke
Leia
Han
Lando
Darth Vader
Yoda
Obi-Wan
and so on

Now, the Force Awakens
Rey
Finn
Poe
Han
Leia
Kylo Ren
Captain Phasma
Luke

Okay, so my point is that that there is only one girl mainish in the OT, and in TFA, there's three. Things have gotten a lot better, and I'm sure there is lots of other evidence to prove and go against my point, but this is a teen's point of view.

Click to expand...

It has been better, but here's what I said as well:

Brandon Rhea said:

Rey is a major step in the right direction. But let's also look at the main cast of The Force Awakens:

• Rey
• Finn
• Poe
• Han
• Chewie
• Leia
• Kylo
• Hux
• Phasma
• Snoke
• Luke

3 women, 8 men.

Rey is extremely important and I don't want to diminish that, but over 70% of the cast was still male. It gets slightly better when you look at background players, such as Jess Pava, but the background is still largely dominated by men. White men to boot.

Rogue One is even worse in gender representation. Of the main actors who have been announced, only one (Felicity Jones) is a woman. She's also the lead of the movie, so again it's great that Star Wars movies have female leads now, as well as how racially diverse the male cast members are. But it's still unbalanced from a gender perspective.

For the record, I say this knowing full well that your post might have been sarcastic. But I thought that this was a reply worth making no matter what. Because there are legitimately people who would hold the belief "Rey was the main character, therefore there's no inequality." Which is just as foolish as "Obama is president, racism is over."

Click to expand...

There's a lot of work to be done.

Reya Starlyght said:

Also, just want to point out that, in my school, there's really no sexism.

Click to expand...

I bet there is. Remember, sexism (like racism) is not always overt. Sometimes it's subtle, which is far more insidious.

Also, in TFA, one of said women only had like a combined total of ten minutes of screen time. Here's hoping she'll have far more in Ep VIII.

I was really disappointed to see how little a role Captain Phasma had, I hope she'll have a larger presence in the next film.

Brandon Rhea said:

Remember, sexism (like racism) is not always overt. Sometimes it's subtle, which is far more insidious.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was part of what I was trying to get across. We're accustomed to it because of its' seeping nature, which makes it much harder to notice. As you get older and develop your thinking more, you realize how wrong it truly is, at least many people do anyway.

I will say, when it comes to being progressive about women in The Force Awakens, my favorite scene was at the end when Leia tells Rey "May the Force be with you." It was two women, and it wasn't (on its face, at least) about a dude, and it was one female warrior passing the torch to another female warrior.

Pretty cool.

So is the argument that everything had to be done by a 50/50 quota or it isn't good enough in terms of gender diversity in films? Or is it as long as there's more woman then men, it counts as diverse enough to be a good story? I'm just trying to see where the end goal is here, because it doesn't seem to be about making it so anyone can be inspired by these characters and can see anyone filling the role regardless of what gender they are, thus eliminating the preconceived notions thst a character has to be of a certain gender to fill the role, or that you don't need to act a certain way just because you're born a certain gender. It seems like a reinforcement of that, just done in a more benevolent sense, but still creating roles for genders in order to make a work progressive.

There's nothing wrong with creating roles of a specific gender, just as there's nothing wrong with creating roles that are gender neutral. Take Rey and Phasma, for instance. Phasma could have been male or female (and, indeed, was male and was potentially going to be played by Benedict Cumberbatch). Rey, on the other hand, was written as a woman.

But it's very easy for a man to turn their nose up at the idea of pushing for more diversity. You're used to seeing yourself represented heavily in media, particularly in science fiction. Women, minorities, etc. are far less used to that. I would say there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to balance roles for more diverse characters.

And it doesn't have to be 50/50 every single time. But when you're at 72% male in The Force Awakens and, even worse, something like 90% male in Rogue One, then more can be done to diversify the casts.

Also keep in mind that, especially in the film industry, it goes much deeper than main character ratios. Casting calls for women are notoriously described on their physical qualities, while men are described more in depth in terms of personality. Minor female roles often go unnamed, which means they get paid less, and so on. The opportunities afforded to females are fewer than their male counterparts and often pay less on average, and it's a real problem, not just in film, but in industries of every nature.

And just to briefly address the quota thing? The fact of the matter is that we've left industries to their own devices to try and resolve the issue, and it hasn't happened. Pay inequality in some fields has actually broadened rather than lessened iirc. It's unfortunate that we even have to consider such measures as quotas and whatnot, but the unfortunate truth is that these changes aren't going to happen without a push in the right direction.

A lot of the problem too comes from talent agencies not surfacing more diverse actors. They get plenty of diverse talent, but largely funnel white actors to casting directors and filmmakers.

It's gotten to the point that JJ Abrams just recently mandated that all recommendations talent agencies make to Bad Robot have to be proportional to the diversity of the American population.

It's probably the media I consume, but I usually see female and male characters having a pretty even split in most of the games I play and shows I watch, if not much more heavily leaning towards female more then male ratios. One of my favorite video game series, the Dragon Age series, has had a remarkable amount of diversity, both between male and female characters, but now including LGBT characters as well, with said LGBT characters being front and center within the story.

I'm not a very big movie guy in general, so it's probably why I mostly don't notice. I just look at a dumb action film with a mostly male cast, completely tune it out, and go back to watching Steven Universe. And tend to follow stuff like that or RWBY way more then stuff most normal people watch like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead. ((people still watch those, right? I got rid of my cable last year so I'm not in the loop much.))

Yeah, and this is something that's problematic in all industries. The culture in terms of interviewing and recruitment in general is very skewed towards white males in most industries (in some, the inverse is true where females are disproportionately over-represented, but it's only one or two fields - I think here in Aus it's basically nursing and teaching), and it's been shown as very unwilling to change its practices without being influenced externally.