Women's Rights, Equality and Politics

[Adora]

This thread is an oppurtunity for Sweetie to elaborate on this statement she made in regards to women's rights, politics and social equality...

you are also implying that the reason most movements are male dominated is because females are still fighting an uphill battle for dominance or equality. I disagree that that is the case in this day and age. I disagree with other things but those are not for here.

and start a new discussion here on the topic, since I'm interested to hear her views on it.

I'd also like to point out, before this discussion even starts, that feminism does not fight for dominance, and that the phrase is erroneous and misleading in all ways.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Adora

I'd also like to point out, before this discussion even starts, that feminism does not fight for dominance, and that the phrase is erroneous and misleading in all ways.

Good point.

[Sweetie]

Whatever.

You faulted Abe for claiming that most political movements were run by males and then set down to prove that very thing.

Then you argued:

"because of the gross gender imbalance in society, males have had more free time, privilege and resources to become part of the political system."

Which is just great but has very little meaning in a world where anti-lifers have already had the victory, where women run and win offices and where women hold positions of power. They have the free time, priveledge and resources to become part of the political system today so what happened before is of very little account when it's the Pro-Life movement of today that we are speaking of.

"so it is doubly hard for women to get into political movements"

This is your claim, you prove it.

because regularly women's political agendas fundamentally seek to remove male privilege in some way

Bah, that's......it's..... What do I say to that?

(eg- Abortion rights giving control of women's bodies back to women and out of the hands of male-dominated institutions)

And where is the question of personhood and reality in all of this? If men are smarter than women on the issue because they are more removed from it, all the power to them.

and so they encounter widespread counter movements run by men (eg- anti-abortion movements), which are better funded and more powerful because of the same privilege the women's movements are fighting against.

Your assertion, feel free to both clarify so it's understandable and prove it as well.

I'd also like to point out, before this discussion even starts, that feminism does not fight for dominance, and that the phrase is erroneous and misleading in all ways.

Oh, right yeah like they make that one very clear.

FYI, I generally have very little tolerance for feminists or Fundamentalists so. And yes you may respond that you have very little tolerance for theists et al, de nada.

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by Adora

I'd also like to point out, before this discussion even starts, that feminism does not fight for dominance, and that the phrase is erroneous and misleading in all ways.

You surprise me, Adora. I had you figured for an Andrea Dworkin type, and if she wasn't working for dominance, I have no idea what dominance means.

[Adora]

Well John, assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, aren't they? Personally I think Dworkin was an absolute fucking nutcase, and that her war-on-porn was one of the worst things to ever be associated with feminism anywhere. Now if only McKinnon would hurry up and die and we could be rid of the both of them.

You faulted Abe for claiming that most political movements were run by males and then set down to prove that very thing.

No, I faulted Abe for suggesting the anti-abortion movement was male dominated simply because most political movements are male-dominated. Big difference. But we're not discussing that here. We're discussing your claims that you disagree that feminism still has an uphill battle to fight in the world. So step up to the plate and back up your claims.

Which is just great but has very little meaning in a world where anti-lifers have already had the victory, where women run and win offices and where women hold positions of power.

Ever heard of the "Global Gag Rule", Sweetie? "Anti-Lifers" in power my arse.

But just to take this reply back on-topic, women in politics are still not in the majority, and regularly these women get into positions of power by being just as misogynistic and conservative as the men they run with/against. Around the world, abortion is still illegal in some form in the majority of countries, even in those where women hold a more balanced number of political seats, because the power is still held in the hands of the conservatives and the men who have th resources to promote their agenda.

Nor is women in politics the only markers of women's rights. Female sexual autonomy, equal stance before the law and any religion in culture, desctruction of sexist modes of thought that privilege one sex over another illogically, the breaking down of destructive gender constructions and the eventual removal of gender-based violence from society are, and always have been, the other major goals of the modern feminist movement. This is what I mean by "An uphill battle", because politics reflects all of these things on a political level, and thus puts obstructions in the way of true equality in society. For example, currently the Australian goverment is running a token anti-domestic-violence campaign, which has even been criticised by the businesses who were paid to design it as being useless, trite and a total waste of money. At the same time as the government is making this token effort, it has also gotten rid of the women's portfolio, is reducing the ability for women to enter the marketplace in full-time stable work (and thus gain economic independence) by changing industrial relations to suit a more neo-liberal-economic model, and blocking moves to get a proper, suitable paid-maternity-leave legislation through parliment. The women in significant positions of power in the current Australian administration are, to put it bluntly, hard-nosed bitches who would make Mr Burns look like Nelson Mandela, and they are still the minority gender.

They have the free time, privilege and resources to become part of the political system today so what happened before is of very little account when it's the Pro-Life movement of today that we are speaking of.

And this discussion is completely seperate from that discussion, as I pointed out, and this is the reason I started a new thread. I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out, but y'know, fuckups and all that.

And where is the question of personhood and reality in all of this? If men are smarter than women on the issue because they are more removed from it, all the power to them.

How can a man be "smarter" on an issue that he does no directly experience, and never will? You bring up the questions of personhood and reality - in the realm of pregnancy, females dominate, since they experience the reality of childbirth. Or did that slip your mind with your "women are irrational just because my mummy was a drunk" hangup?

If you want to continue to discuss abortion and childbirth, take it up in the abortion thread. If you want to talk actual politics, continue here.

Your assertion, feel free to both clarify so it's understandable and prove it as well.

You still haven't proven your claims Sweetie, so I don't see why I should until you do. I'll be more than happy to provide you with an explanation when you bother to put in the work you're asking someone else to do in a conversation.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

FYI, I generally have very little tolerance for feminists or Fundamentalists so. And yes you may respond that you have very little tolerance for theists et al, de nada.

Yeah, I hate those cocksuckers who want female equality. If you mean fringe groups you should say so. I agree that some of the feminist groups go overboard, but beware of the broad brush with which you paint.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Yeah, I hate those cocksuckers who want female equality.

I must not degenerate to your level but make no fucking mistake, it's very hard for me not to say, oh yeah, murder is equality? We all should have the right to declare personhood at will and at our convenience and then take human life as we please? I don't fight for that right for anybody and I do not take that right myself, I do not have that right over life and death of another person, no one does.

If you mean fringe groups you should say so. I agree that some of the feminist groups go overboard, but beware of the broad brush with which you paint.

Well, as things go at the moment, I doubt Adora and Beth and others are going to make feminism more attractive to me, broad brush aside. If the shoe fits. *ahem*

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

No, I faulted Abe for suggesting the anti-abortion movement was male dominated simply because most political movements are male-dominated. Big difference.

Right, ok.

Which is just great but has very little meaning in a world where anti-lifers have already had the victory, where women run and win offices and where women hold positions of power.

Ever heard of the "Global Gag Rule", Sweetie? "Anti-Lifers" in power my arse.

Here's a question. At the moment what percentage of my government is anti-life?

My main point is that if Pro-Life in the government is male dominated, so is Anti-Life in the government at the moment.

In other words, the claim is neutralized. That was my reason for discussing it in the first place. It just doesn't make any damned sense to argue that Pro-Life is male dominated then start claiming that women are oppressed and have unequal rights and then we can say that a large portion of the [male] government is anti-Life. Which way is it?

Wtf?

[Sweetie]

A review of the election results reveals that almost one-third of new or re-elected MP's are publicly anti-choice—that is, they have an anti-choice voting record, or have publicly spoken at or attended events organized by anti-choice groups, or have publicly stated they are "pro-life" or would support abortion only in limited circumstances.

From a source you might trust even, lucky you.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...-victory.shtml

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by Adora

Well John, assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, aren't they? Personally I think Dworkin was an absolute fucking nutcase, and that her war-on-porn was one of the worst things to ever be associated with feminism anywhere. Now if only McKinnon would hurry up and die and we could be rid of the both of them.

Not an assumption, but rather an impressoin based on the overall tone of your posts. I knew you don't agree with Dworkin's anti-porn stance, but that one issue aside, I can see little difference between many of your snide little asides and generally hateful attitude and her rhetoric.

[Sweetie]

I think anti-porn is rather consistent with a feminist stance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think anti-porn is rather consistent with a feminist stance.

Some feminists have an anti-porn stance, but it is certainly not universal.

It's difficult to generalize about "feminists" just as it is to generalize about all theists or any other group.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

FYI, I generally have very little tolerance for feminists or Fundamentalists so. And yes you may respond that you have very little tolerance for theists et al, de nada.

The comment about Fundamentalists suprises me, considering you are one.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Beth

The comment about Fundamentalists suprises me, considering you are one.

Nuh-uh, I seen her write "fuck" afore. No self-respecting fundie would write that, they'd write f**k or something like that.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Nuh-uh, I seen her write "fuck" afore. No self-respecting fundie would write that, they'd write f**k or something like that.

She is a Catholic fundy. My husband's family is fundy. They use fuck all of the time. Taught its usage to me.

[D. Scarlatti]

Yeehaw! This thread had "flame war" written all over it before it was even posted.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think anti-porn is rather consistent with a feminist stance.

I've thought of myself as a feminist since I was 15, that's what, 36 years? And I'm not anti-porn.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by natasha

I've thought of myself as a feminist since I was 15, that's what, 36 years? And I'm not anti-porn.

Neither am I.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Well, as things go at the moment, I doubt Adora and Beth and others are going to make feminism more attractive to me, broad brush aside. If the shoe fits. *ahem*

*shrug* * ahem *
If you like actually having the vote, not being legally the property as a chattel of a husband, and you actually like being legally able to own and dispose of property as you see fit, rather than only with the permission of a man, you can thank the feminists for that.
Who else do you think got you those rights ? The Catholic Church ?

[Adora]

Here's a question. At the moment what percentage of my government is anti-life?

Once again, it's not an issue about who is pro-choice or anti-abortion. This was covered in the original thread, and as I pointed out: it doesn't matter if the majority of people in a group are one or another. The people who have the []true legislative power[/i] and global influence (thus, my comments about the Global Gag Rule*) get to decide. You're ignoring issues of actual power, which doesn't surprise me since you're ignorant enough to claim women aren't still under the thumb of male privilege in politics.

But once again, you're avoiding my questions in regards to women, equality and politics (being what this thread was about), which I should have expected from you, really.

I think anti-porn is rather consistent with a feminist stance.

Actually, it's not, but considering you "don't have time" for feminism, I can't expect you to know this, can I.

The Anti-porn crusaders was a culturewar fad (similar to the whole Gay-marriage thing now) which (similar to other censorship campaigns in the past, eg- Comic paranoia in the 1940s) united a number of various groups against a common cause they saw as destructive. Personally, they were totally off the mark, but Dworkin made a bigger idiot out of herself because she was a feminist, rather than a conservative crusader or something. The plain-old lies about the pornography industry they used to promote their case did nothing, and, as the current size of the pornography industry shows, had no impact on society.

So Sweetie, unless you're actually going to back up your claims of the equality women have supposedly gained in society and politics, I think this thread was a waste of time.

*To elaborate, since you seem to need some kind of illustration: In Uruguay in 2004, the country was set to decriminalise abortion due to growing concerns in the society as to the way it was seriously impacting the health of women. In the general populace, there was a high level of support for it (63%), as there was in the House of Reps when they voted on the bill (47 for, 40 against, 10 absent). It was constantly being pushed by women's groups and health professionals (who were the ones most affected by the laws - ie politically invested in the movement), but when the Senate went to vote on it, under the gise of the Global Gag Rule, 6 US Republican senators put the hard word on members of the Ururguayan senate and got the law blocked, with 17 against & 13 for. They also, undemocratically, I might add, suggested in their communication that the Urugayan government not "leave it up to a referendum", and all the Urugayan people to decide how their country works.

See my point, Sweetie? Those with the power control the decisions, no matter what the general opinion on a topic.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Adora

But just to take this reply back on-topic, women in politics are still not in the majority, and regularly these women get into positions of power by being just as misogynistic and conservative as the men they run with/against.

I'd like to see you illustrate the 'misogynistic' claim a little more, but I think it is more generally erroneous to say that the smaller number of women in politics is because of the 'uphill battle' feminism has to fight.

The stark fact of the matter is that the majority of women in our country want to have children. It is undeniable that there is an overwhelmingly greater commitment to a child from the mother than the father, what with the whole pregnancy thing. It is therefore statistically less likely that women will be available to dedicate the amount of time that is required to climb the slippery pole of politics. It's not to say they can't, it's not to say they shouldn't, it's a simple fact of a slight unbalance between the female and male pools from which politicians can be drawn.

There is, after all, a demand for a minimum number of women to be present in a party, which indicates that there are in fact too few women willing and able to be competative for political positions. That's not male dominance, that's a female lack of interest.

At the same time as the government is making this token effort, it has also gotten rid of the women's portfolio, is reducing the ability for women to enter the marketplace in full-time stable work (and thus gain economic independence) by changing industrial relations to suit a more neo-liberal-economic model

How exactly? I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm legitimately curious, I don't know enough about the proposed model to say.

and blocking moves to get a proper, suitable paid-maternity-leave legislation through parliment.

I suspect it's because of the rather significant impact it would have on small business who quite simply couldn't afford to do it. It's all very well to think about the mother's rights here, but such legislation is effectively garnering the responsibility of the mother's decision onto her employer. In big organisations, no dramas. Small business is the concern.

On a related issue, the government thinks we need more babies. This is why y'all get 3Gs if you pop one out. This is a fickle one because women are - presently - the only members of our society who can have children. If the government needs more children (which it says it does, fucks me why) then the pressure must be placed on women to achieve this. That is - arguably - inherantly sexist, but if the government has correctly identified that more children need to be produced, how else could they encourage that end?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

*shrug* * ahem *
If you like actually having the vote, not being legally the property as a chattel of a husband, and you actually like being legally able to own and dispose of property as you see fit, rather than only with the permission of a man, you can thank the feminists for that.
Who else do you think got you those rights ? The Catholic Church ?

I think the feminism of the past is different than the feminism of the present is my differentiation. I support what was done in the past, I do not support the stupidity of those who have taken it too far as people are want to do when they start getting power.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by justaman

I'd like to see you illustrate the 'misogynistic' claim a little more, but I think it is more generally erroneous to say that the smaller number of women in politics is because of the 'uphill battle' feminism has to fight.

Well, let me put it this way: if you're a Liberal party senator and you're a female, you've got Issues.

There is, after all, a demand for a minimum number of women to be present in a party, which indicates that there are in fact too few women willing and able to be competative for political positions. That's not male dominance, that's a female lack of interest.

And yet, women who get into politics are subjected to discrimination and prejudice unheard of in regards to male politicians. This is a symptom of male-dominated political culture. Or are you telling me people really care what Beattie wears as much as they do with Vanstone?

The stark fact of the matter is that the majority of women in our country want to have children. It is undeniable that there is an overwhelmingly greater commitment to a child from the mother than the father, what with the whole pregnancy thing. It is therefore statistically less likely that women will be available to dedicate the amount of time that is required to climb the slippery pole of politics. It's not to say they can't, it's not to say they shouldn't, it's a simple fact of a slight unbalance between the female and male pools from which politicians can be drawn.

I agree with your statement of facts, but it doesn't have to be that way. The problem is, because modern female equality movements have focused primarily on the public spheres (ie- those outside the home which were predominantly male-dominated) it has ignored the private ones, and thus we still have problems like women doing just as much housework as they once did, yet also working full time, and the continuing problems of sexual and domestic violence, which by definition is hidden in the private sphere, and only dealt with in a token fashion by those in public. If society bothered to equalise the private sphere, the pressure on women to try and balance an imbalanced career and homelife would be less, and you would have more women with the time and energy to go into politics.

This is my problem with those articles you see pop up in the media every week or so that bullshit on about "Women can't have it all like they thought they could" and shit. They can't have it all because they're still doing the same work they did 50 years ago in the home, because nothing has changed there, only with an added stress and pressure from the public sphere. A symptom of this is that there's still this idea being promoted of men spending "quality time" with their children, like the kids are getting something special and out-of-the-ordniary, which has so many things wrong with it I don't know where to start. When a father nurturing his children is depicted as something "special" and not simply a normal state of family life, you know there's something wrong, both in the public and the private spheres.

How exactly? I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm legitimately curious, I don't know enough about the proposed model to say.

Currently the liberal government is in a shit with the unions over there reformations of the industrial relation reforms where they want to introduce more individual contracting, and they've already put in a loophole for the unfair-dismissal laws for companies with fewer than 100 employees. They're promoting supposedly getting more women into the part-time workplace (and individual contracts) being a good thing, but part-time work does not provide the same economic stability and independence permanent-full-time work does, because you don't get the same benefits. As I mentioned, they got rid of the women's portfolio, which, especially in the case of industrial reforms, would have been the ones pointing this out.

I am honestly not 100% clear as to how the government would get more individual contracts into the workplace, because I'm not well-informed about the wokrplace negotiation laws. I think currently there's something like legislation that says certain business have to do group-contracts (ie- the same plan for a certain group of workers) which allows these groups to then negotiate their conditions for pay and hours etc (like unions) and helps build worker solidarity. Individual contracts are usually used for casual employees and businesses that don't want their workers grouping together for workplace rights etc, since it cuts out any wider-group negotiation and means the worker has to negotiate on their own with their employer. It goes hand-in-hand with unstable casual work, especially in places like the food/retail sector where the majority of casual work is. Group contracts are mostly in the larger industrial sectors, education and factory workers, where there is more unionisation and larger economic powers who will benefit more from the requirements for group-contracts being lessened (if that's what the model proposes).

I suspect it's because of the rather significant impact it would have on small business who quite simply couldn't afford to do it. It's all very well to think about the mother's rights here, but such legislation is effectively garnering the responsibility of the mother's decision onto her employer. In big organisations, no dramas. Small business is the concern.

I question this, since the economic model being pushed by the government is geared towards big-businesses, not smaller ones, who would take a significant profit cut if they had to implement a paid-maternity-leave plan for all their female employees.

That is - arguably - inherantly sexist, but if the government has correctly identified that more children need to be produced, how else could they encourage that end?

Allow them paid maternity leave? Allow them more group/unionised contract negotiations so they can cut themselves a better deal, and thus have less hours to work, be less stressed, and have mor reproductive coitus? Lessen the cost of raising a child in general? The government is doing the same economic dance they did in England over 100 years ago: trying to trade off a happy baby-making population with the demands of economic powers. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is putting business first, and expecting the people to just do as they say for peanuts.

[Sweetie]

But once again, you're avoiding my questions in regards to women, equality and politics (being what this thread was about), which I should have expected from you, really.

Make this thread about whatever you want it to be about, my point was simple, my interest in discussing it in the first place was simple and however you want to bend or take out of context whatever I have to say with whatever I intended to say, I just don't know why you expect me to care. I don't care.

My question is:

How can you judge that a movement is male dominated?

If there's not enough women as Members of Parliament? What the fucking difference does that make if those who already are Members of fucking Parliament support Anti-Life? My government is predominately male and is Anti-Life dominated so therefore in my country, Anti-Life is male dominated.

My point is this and this only and this has only ever been my point, how can you bitch about Pro-Life male domination if male domination is also the cause of Anti-Life legislation.


Who's getting gagged?

Oh gee, I had to wade through the totally irrelevant to me information in astericks, whoop-de-fucking do.

What does that mean to me? People abuse power? Sure, does that mean that what I stand for is male-dominated? No, it does not.

Are men abusing power here and now in Canada, in Australia and in the USA? Are women? Does that prove female domination of whatever you want to claim they dominate?

Those with the power control the decisions, no matter what the general opinion on a topic.

Those in power? Who is in power, that's my question, by what do you judge male domination? If you really are going to claim that because of six US Senators it's very clear that the Pro-Life movement is male dominated.........wtf?

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think the feminism of the past is different than the feminism of the present is my differentiation. I support what was done in the past, I do not support the stupidity of those who have taken it too far as people are want to do when they start getting power.

Hey Sweetie,

We may not agree on Catholism, but I damn sure agree with you here. I am not a fan of modern day feminism either. I too am grateful for the women of the past that have paved the path before me, but I really think that feminism is taken to a terrible extreme in many cases today.