An overview of Feminism and it's terrible representation

[Beorning]

A quick, somewhat provocative response, Steampunkette:

If feminism is misrepresented, then what should I made of the fact that (according to what I've been told) the feminist discussion in Sweden is dominated by "men are eeeeevil" mentality? Which leads Swedish feminists to such wonderful ideas like taxing *every man* on behalf of rape victims? Or like the idea that it's actually wrong for a woman to engage in any kind of romantic relationship with men - so, a truly liberaterated woman must also be a lesbian?

And what should I make of those feminists in my country, that claim that women are actually better suited for government than men? Because, apparently, all men are egotistic and selfish, while women are cooperative and selfless by nature?

[Steampunkette]

You should make of them this: They're primarily TERFs who are using Sweden's relatively small population to elevate themselves into the spotlight by playing into the 24/7 news cycle with ever more outrageous assertions to garner themselves 15 minutes of fame.

This has also had a chilling effect on mainstream feminism as they've been forced into silence for fear of being the target of the rampant hatred that has overtaken the Swedish Feminist Movement.

[Caehlim]

If feminism is misrepresented, then what should I made of the fact that (according to what I've been told) the feminist discussion in Sweden is dominated by "men are eeeeevil" mentality?

This is a little vague, I'll focus on your more specific follow up.

Which leads Swedish feminists to such wonderful ideas like taxing *every man* on behalf of rape victims?

Gudrun Schyman, the former leader of the swedish left party suggested this back in 2004. The policy did not pass in the Riksdag. She then left the part after being found guilty of tax evasion. Now she runs a particular party called Feminist Initiatives that received 0.4% of the votes in the previous election.

As Steampunkette said in her original post, it's often the second wave feminists who propose these kind of strict gender divided policies. Gudrun Schyman is 66 and certainly closer in age to that period of feminist ideology. Her inability to successfully pass these laws or attract any significant votes suggests that she is not a representative woman with a finger on the pulse of the nation.

Or like the idea that it's actually wrong for a woman to engage in any kind of romantic relationship with men - so, a truly liberaterated woman must also be a lesbian?

This idea, which begun in the 1960s was mostly promoted by a group known as The Furies Collective, who promoted this view in 1971... before their collective ceased to exist in 1972. Again, this appears to be a dated phenomenon from the era of second wave feminism.

And what should I make of those feminists in my country, that claim that women are actually better suited for government than men? Because, apparently, all men are egotistic and selfish, while women are cooperative and selfless by nature?

Well they're certainly being sexist, but I don't have sufficient details to track down further information on this.

[Beorning]

You should make of them this: They're primarily TERFs who are using Sweden's relatively small population to elevate themselves into the spotlight by playing into the 24/7 news cycle with ever more outrageous assertions to garner themselves 15 minutes of fame.

This has also had a chilling effect on mainstream feminism as they've been forced into silence for fear of being the target of the rampant hatred that has overtaken the Swedish Feminist Movement.

Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

This is a little vague, I'll focus on your more specific follow up.

Gudrun Schyman, the former leader of the swedish left party suggested this back in 2004. The policy did not pass in the Riksdag. She then left the part after being found guilty of tax evasion. Now she runs a particular party called Feminist Initiatives that received 0.4% of the votes in the previous election.

As Steampunkette said in her original post, it's often the second wave feminists who propose these kind of strict gender divided policies. Gudrun Schyman is 66 and certainly closer in age to that period of feminist ideology. Her inability to successfully pass these laws or attract any significant votes suggests that she is not a representative woman with a finger on the pulse of the nation.

A question: what was the reaction in Sweden to the "rape tax" idea? Was there outrage? How many people were against it? Did any feminists speak out against it?

This idea, which begun in the 1960s was mostly promoted by a group known as The Furies Collective, who promoted this view in 1971... before their collective ceased to exist in 1972. Again, this appears to be a dated phenomenon from the era of second wave feminism.

Actually, I've been told that this kind of thing is happening right now...

Well they're certainly being sexist, but I don't have sufficient details to track down further information on this.

One proponent of this idea include Magdalena Środa, who seems to be one of the better known representatives of the feminist movement here. She is frequently invited to TV programmes, writes articles in the leading Polish daily, has even been in the government...

[Vorian]

Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

The question I have though is, are they really the mainstream, or just the minority shouting the loudest, and that the media prefers to focus on?

[consortium11]

Pretty good post on the topic, Consortium. I disagree with the "Trivial Feminism" idea, though and here is why:

We live in a society where people are bombarded by media. Constant inundation of comedy, political theory, action, adventure, drama, and more. Where ideas are communicated far more strongly than they are by a teacher who talks about a given topic for a half an hour once a year. And a given person is going to be exposed to hundreds of tiny microaggressions in a given day. Microaggressions that shape the way we view the world because we're surrounded by the same viewpoint coming from a hundred different sources, whether as credible as a primary source (teacher) or not, gives the impression that the primary source of information is wrong in relation to greater society.

I guess my point is this:

Which is going to have an impact on more women's lives; the lowering standard of living that lower and middle class/income people are going through at the moment or the lack of women on banknotes? I'd argue strongly that it's the lowering of living standard... yet it was the banknotes issue that get the headlines, articles and campaigns (although I should note that's partly due to a semi-Streisand effect where it got into the news because of the abuse those supporting it received). Again, that's not necessarily to be critical of feminism or the campaign itself more the way it's presented and the media attention but it's still there. There may well be a case to argue that it's important for more women to appear on banknotes; I don't disagree. But is putting women on banknotes going to do as much for women's lives as improving access to healthcare (and the quality of that healthcare) for those less well off? Yet which gets the feminist attention and media coverage?

To give a topical example, the Fawcett Society is one of the oldest, most established and most respected femenist/women's rights groups in the UK and has led the way on campaigns relating to the makeup of board rooms and parliament. They recently released a campaign/t-shirt called "this is what a feminist looks like" which was worn by a number of celebrities and politicians. One can certainly debate the moral message of saying you need to buy a £45 t-shirt to look like a feminist but the real issue reared it's head when it was reported that the t-shirts were made in a sweatshop by primarily female workers. Now, there has been further investigation and conditions may not be quite as bad as original reports indicated but the central point remains; is it more important for a few celebrities and politicians to wear a t-shirt or for women to have good working conditions that pay a good wage?



I'm not going to engage with "Lady Laura's" entire posts for obvious reasons but I do think they touch on one thing worth mentioning.

The Rotherham abuse was a failure of lots of things, one aspect of which was the fear of being seen as Islamophobic. Unfortunately for far too long everyone was silent on it apart from the far right and when someone did speak up about it they got shouted down for giving succor to racists. And that fear of being seen as supporting racists or at least giving them ammunition is something of an issue within both feminism and the wider social justice movement. It shows one of the tensions within intersectionality; if a certain minority is frequently abused and insulted should one point out the issues within that minority or is that merely giving others ammunition to continue the attack?

The most obvious example of this is radical Islam. Radical, fundamentalist Islam has huge issues with LGBT and women's rights. Even given the most positive possible interpretation, that things like not being alone in the room with a male non-family member and having to wear obstructive clothing (to give two examples) are an attempt to protect women, it's hugely restrictive and authoritarian. Yet where you'd expect feminists to take the lead in opposing this all too often the space is given to the far right. I've seen a number of EDL protests (as a passerby/observer rather than participant) and it was interesting to note that while the vast majority of the crowd was the stereotypical drunken, skinhead football fan chanting "Muslim bombers off our streets!" and "I'm English till I die" there were a small number of slightly uncomfortable looking people holding up rainbows and the Venus symbol in support of LGBT rights and feminism specifically but they were a small, small minority.

The tension is this; is it "cultural imperialism" (frequently seen as a negative thing in social justice circles) to campaign for women's rights in other cultures and societies? Is it racist/islamophobic to demand equal rights for women in a culture that has long denied them that? And if one does so is one aiding the far right and islamophobes in doing so? One can look at the controversy around Ayaan Hirsi Ali and whether she should be embraced or rejected by feminism as an example of this.

Is calling Islam (or at least aspects of culture that have been integrated into Islam in some form) sexist a feminist act or an Islamophobic act? Should feminists speak out even if doing so they end up on the same side of the debate with far right Islamophobes? What happens when fighting for women's rights means contributing to an atmosphere where Islam is heavily criticized?

[Steampunkette]

Whether their voices are loudest or not they're still Radical Feminists rather than mainstream Feminists. The definition of the word doesn't change and the political position remains extreme.

It would take a massive geopolitical shift for feminism to become obsolete and then for the next wave of "feminists in name only" to push for a fully matriarchal society (with all attendant systemic oppression of men). Until such a time comes Radical Feminists will remain fringe, even if they're in power in a given location.

Does that make sense?

As for the cultural imperialism and impact on Islam: It's really touch and go.

If you're fighting for women to have the RIGHT to take off the Burqa or the Hijab and be a member of whatever religion they choose, but not explicitly trying to attack Islam for being sexist, then you're in the right zone as a Western Feminist. The problem comes when the attacks on the religion happen, and they happen fast and often when it comes to white western feminists. Often in the form of Dog Whistle Politics.

If you're fighting for women to have the RIGHT to move around the Middle East unaccompanied by a man safely and with all the same modes of transportation available to men then you're in the right place. But when you turn around and shit on Islam for being controlling or sexist you're in the wrong place.

The key difference is this: It's not your (generic your) religion. And when it isn't your religion you cannot understand it in the way that people who follow it do, no matter how hard you try. Even if it seems misguided or wrong it's not your place to tackle it. But laws that FORCE religion are a problem. Laws that restrict women are a problem. And those things are generally acceptable to tackle. Just don't be surprised when most of the women who gain the freedom to do things that are against their religion choose not to do those things, favoring instead to honor their God in whatever manner they feel is appropriate.

Not unlike how no one (credible, at least) in the US is trying to campaign for Mormon Underwear to be banned. But if it became mandatory, regardless of your religion, people would fight against it tooth and nail.

[Caehlim]

A question: what was the reaction in Sweden to the "rape tax" idea? Was there outrage? How many people were against it? Did any feminists speak out against it?

These are good questions but I'm not sure exactly. I did try to find out. A lot of the sources are in Swedish which makes it a bit difficult for me to research this very thoroughly. Also the newspaper articles I was trying to look at for this have been taken down, they don't seem to be still archiving them from back in 2004. That's why I had to try to guess from some rough statistics that I could find.

Actually, I've been told that this kind of thing is happening right now...

Well I can name one feminist that I've met in person who has this belief, so I know it does still exist. However I can also name people who believe the Earth is flat as well (albeit none personally). Name a political belief and I can point out some extreme radicals who propose ridiculous things.

So I guess the question is whether this is a significant part of current feminist thought or is this a fringe extremist philosophy? That's a subjective judgement and I'm sure people's mileage will vary. Personally I'm subscribed to quite a few feminist lists at the moment, many of them with a queer focus and I'm not seeing any articles appearing on this topic at the moment so I have a hard time accepting that this is a widespread view under active discussion. That said, I've mostly subscribed to more modern intersectionalist groups so it may just be a filtering bias.

One proponent of this idea include Magdalena Środa, who seems to be one of the better known representatives of the feminist movement here. She is frequently invited to TV programmes, writes articles in the leading Polish daily, has even been in the government...

Despite Sroda being reasonably older, reviewing some of her work that I've been able to see doesn't paint her as being a second wave feminist or ignoring intersectionality. She actually seems reasonably progressive from some of the things I can find. This is made difficult of course because I don't speak Polish either, but that's the impression I get from English translated summaries that I can find. Nor does she appear to be a fringe figure or radical. Everything I can find seems to suggest that she is taken rather seriously as a mainstream voice of feminism in Poland.

I couldn't find any sources in English where she said anything similar to what you quoted. I'm not saying that she didn't, just that I can't find any sources for better information.

I agree, that what you quoted her as saying is sexist. I really think that gives a bad impression to people who encounter that kind of statement from a feminist group. I can understand why she's pushing though, with Poland having a very low rate of women participating in the labour market for an EU country and a very high wage discrepancy. Still, I don't think she should be making statements like that.

[Steampunkette]

As for the other portion of your argument:

It's both a fallacious choice and it ignores the wider connotations in favor of singular vision.

Feminists can work on a wide variety of things at once because there are a hell of a lot of us engaged in different aspects of society as our personal fields of purview. You touched on that in your initial post in the thread, but then muscled on through to minimize and deflect the social implications of "Trivial" things.

As I explained, before, the long term social impact will continue to shape how people view women. And any long term plan of positive change must address that long term impact. Yes. Individually they seem like small, trivial, or even irrelevant issues. I acknowledge that. But as they impact us on aggregate they should be looked at as an aggregate, and in that light they become far more important and pressing than they initially appear. Will they save the lives of people currently living under the poverty line? No. But they will help to elevate future generations above the poverty line.

"Can't see the Forest for the Trees" is a great turn of phrase to explain the problem with this argument.

Though if you want to talk about the issues of Capitalism we'd need a whole separate thread for it (And I'd jump at the chance!) including examples of feminism benefiting off third world labor and outsourced and underpaid jobs. A pretty common saying in Social Justice circles, these days, is that "There are no Ethical Consumers in Capitalist Societies" and it's spot-on!

Caehlim: Two notes about Polish Translation.

1. It's never perfect.
2. Dog Whistles don't Translate.

[Hemingway]

Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

No. No, they're not. Sure, they claim that "men's violence against women is the greatest security threat to Europe", which is unfortunate - and somewhat weird according to the typical understanding of the word 'security'. It's not quite saying all men are evil, though.

Their stated politics, however, are anti-racist and anti-discrimination. I don't see much in the way of "men are evil" in their official platform.

Now, the real reason I wanted to post something in this thread was the mention of TERFs. Never actually saw that acronym before. Anyway. I agree wholeheartedly on that - you'd have to look very hard for a group with a more vile agenda than that. I really don't understand the logic. To me, it looks like a group of people 'advocating' for the rights of a historically oppressed and marginalized group, while being hateful toward some of the weakest and most frequently abused groups in society.

[Ephiral]

Well. Up until extremely recently, trans* people didn't have much in the way of a voice or platform anywhere, so even in a lot of movements that are progressive at their core, "throw trans* people under the bus" has become fairly standard operating procedure. Yes, it's horribly hypocritical, but... not unexpected.

What makes it tragilarious is that some of the most respected second-wave radicals - the sort of people the TERFs look up to - might have had some seriously misguided views on trans* folks, but they acknolwedged our right to exist and the necessity of getting us the treatment we need.

[Lustful Bride]

I think that some of the problem is that the radicals who are nearly out of their minds with hate towards everything male and bully other women who don't think like them are so loud and vocal. They get heard and seen far more than moderates who want positive change and choice.

If this image of feminism is to change then more women need to stand up and say "I'm not a radical like her! They do not represent feminism accurately. Look over here friends, this is what feminism is. Just wanting a choice, to be treated equally, to be respected. Not to take things from others and shame people.'

[Slywyn]

That's a good goal. It really is. But then you get people saying "No True Scotsman Fallacy! All Feminists are like that!" and other assorted crap.

People will use any excuse they can to discredit feminism. And it really sucks.

[Lustful Bride]

That's a good goal. It really is. But then you get people saying "No True Scotsman Fallacy! All Feminists are like that!" and other assorted crap.

People will use any excuse they can to discredit feminism. And it really sucks.

Yup, and sad truth is there will always be those few people who are the physical embodiment of the stereotype. *facepalm* that's the most infuriating thing in the world. When you are trying to say that the stereotype is not the majority and should be ignored, then one of them shows up and ruins your argument.

A pretty common saying in Social Justice circles, these days, is that "There are no Ethical Consumers in Capitalist Societies" and it's spot-on!

*just shakes head in response* As a capitalist who cares for all people I shake my head at this. Nothing in this life is ever 100% outside of math and scientific studies. You cant just lump people together like that.

[Beorning]

Whether their voices are loudest or not they're still Radical Feminists rather than mainstream Feminists. The definition of the word doesn't change and the political position remains extreme.

It would take a massive geopolitical shift for feminism to become obsolete and then for the next wave of "feminists in name only" to push for a fully matriarchal society (with all attendant systemic oppression of men). Until such a time comes Radical Feminists will remain fringe, even if they're in power in a given location.

Does that make sense?

Actually, I can't agree with that.

I feel that in your representation of feminism you're doing a lot of labelling: you create a definition of feminism according to which it's a sensible movement with balanced views - and, based on that definition, you label the more aggressive forms of feminism as radical, fringe and, basically, not quite right. And you insist on sticking to these labels with no regard to real power these various forms of feminism have.

I prefer to look at feminism not through labels, but through reality. And the fact is that, according to what I've heard, the man-hating version of feminism has some serious power in Sweden. So, sorry, I don't agree with you just shrugging at them and dismissing them as feminist fringe. How can you call them a fringe variant of feminism, if they have so much clout in Sweden?

I'm definitely not trying to say that what you call TERFs constitute the majority of feminists. But they are a significant group, an existing facet of the movement. You cannot just dismiss them as "not real feminists" and say that the "real feminism" is being misrepresented, when accusations of feminists hating men arise. Because the truth is that some feminists *do* hate men and that a part of the movement actually is kind of crazy...

And speaking of labelling, I really, really don't appreciate what you're doing with the women who don't agree with feminism. It's oh-so-conventient to label them as "Black Sashes" and treat them all as ignorant, privileged, naive or brainwashed by patriarchy. But it's not fair to them. Is it so hard to admit that, maybe, these women have some opinions worth considering?

These are good questions but I'm not sure exactly. I did try to find out. A lot of the sources are in Swedish which makes it a bit difficult for me to research this very thoroughly. Also the newspaper articles I was trying to look at for this have been taken down, they don't seem to be still archiving them from back in 2004. That's why I had to try to guess from some rough statistics that I could find.

I'd really like to know what the response to this idea was. Because if no-one aside from a few radical feminists treated it seriously, then okay - no problem. But if it really was something considered worth debating, then it'd show that this brand of feminism really does have influence in Sweden. And that it shouldn't be dismissed as something fringe and unrepresentative of the movement...

Well I can name one feminist that I've met in person who has this belief, so I know it does still exist. However I can also name people who believe the Earth is flat as well (albeit none personally). Name a political belief and I can point out some extreme radicals who propose ridiculous things.

Actually, I've been told that this is considered a serious idea in Sweden nowadays. It's not some ridiculous thing only a few radicals promote, it's a notion that's getting some traction there.

Despite Sroda being reasonably older, reviewing some of her work that I've been able to see doesn't paint her as being a second wave feminist or ignoring intersectionality.

Well, she can't ignore intersectionality - she's a lesbian herself  :-) At least according to my feminist sister who met her...

She actually seems reasonably progressive from some of the things I can find. This is made difficult of course because I don't speak Polish either, but that's the impression I get from English translated summaries that I can find. Nor does she appear to be a fringe figure or radical. Everything I can find seems to suggest that she is taken rather seriously as a mainstream voice of feminism in Poland.

Because she *is* treated seriously. At the same time, she does say some outrageous things. Aside from "men are selfish, women are selfless" thing, she also proposed that all and any parties that are in favour of death penalty should be banned across Europe. Because, according to her, death penalty is so uncivilized that it shouldn't be allowed to be a part of political discourse. You know, I am an ardent opponent of death penalty and even I find such an idea outrageous...

And again - despite of all she's saying, she's respected and considered one of the main faces of feminism here. So, with things being this way... how can I buy into Steam's claim that "mainstream" feminism is nice and friendly - and all claims of it being sexist and aggresive are just chauvinistic propaganda?

[Cherri Tart]

Actually, if you really want it to distill it to it's real essence, feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated equally as men, with the same rights. No more, no less. All that other stuff is just people defining it to their own vision. It's not about hating men, wanting to have more rights, or getting rid of men all together. It's simply about equality.

[Beorning]

Yeah, but these days, there's no such thing like "distilled" feminism. There are whole branches of these movement with specific opinions on various issues, specific demands etc. Some of these branches are okay. Some... aren't.

[Cherri Tart]

Yeah, but these days, there's no such thing like "distilled" feminism. There are whole branches of these movement with specific opinions on various issues, specific demands etc. Some of these branches are okay. Some... aren't.

Agreed, but that's why I tend to get my back up when someone makes assumptions about me after I identify myself as a feminist. Preconceived notions of what that means doesn't help anybody. Yes, I'm a lesbian, but I like guys. I have guy friends - I don't have sex with them (usually, it's complicated) but I do enjoy hanging out with them. I will jump on fighting for a lot of what one could consider 'women's issues', because they concern me personally, but I'm just as likely to speak up if I see the rights of guys getting stomped on as well and I will get up in the face of "feminists" whose actions are discriminatory or hateful or unjust.

[Beorning]

Agreed, but that's why I tend to get my back up when someone makes assumptions about me after I identify myself as a feminist. Preconceived notions of what that means doesn't help anybody. Yes, I'm a lesbian, but I like guys. I have guy friends - I don't have sex with them (usually, it's complicated) but I do enjoy hanging out with them. I will jump on fighting for a lot of what one could consider 'women's issues', because they concern me personally, but I'm just as likely to speak up if I see the rights of guys getting stomped on as well and I will get up in the face of "feminists" whose actions are discriminatory or hateful or unjust.

That's commendable  :-) Althought I'd like to point out that these people aren't "feminists" - they are feminists, without any qualifiers.

[Valthazar]

Further, if you look at the "Statue" image, you'll see what quickly became known as "Black Sashes" or "Black Ribbons". The Anti-feminist. Often bullied or coerced with social pressure into speaking out against the right to vote. We see Black Sashes in modern Anti-Feminist movements as well. Almost invariably they are people who live in an environment where either sexism harms them only in ways they cannot perceive (having been raised in that environment from birth) or is seen as a "Small Enough" problem as to be irrelevant to their life. Thus all women are doing fine and sexism does not exist because of their anecdotal evidence. Often enough Black Sashes are women who have been bombarded with imagery of the "Ugly bull dyke man hating feminist" to the point that they espouse "Equality, but not Feminism"

I don't think this is entirely accurate.  Like Beorning said, many of these women have interesting views on these issues that deserve equal merit - at least in my opinion.  Some conservative women that I have spoken with tend to feel side-lined when it comes to mainstream dialogue about feminism.  These are women who hope to see improvements, but don't necessarily agree with how feminism is manifesting itself today.

[Hemingway]

Beorning, where do you get these ideas about Sweden? I'm not Swedish, but I do live in Scandinavia, and news tend to filter across borders. In the recent election, the feminist party Feminist Initiative did not even cross the threshold for getting seats in the parliament - smaller than the toxis Sweden Democrats. How is this the case if the radical feminists are somehow in the process of taking over the country?

We do hear a lot of stories from Sweden here, but most of them are exaggerated.

In other words, sources. Sources are needed for what you're saying - "I heard" is not a source. Because right now you're just stating your own opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

[Beorning]

Beorning, where do you get these ideas about Sweden? I'm not Swedish, but I do live in Scandinavia, and news tend to filter across borders. In the recent election, the feminist party Feminist Initiative did not even cross the threshold for getting seats in the parliament - smaller than the toxis Sweden Democrats. How is this the case if the radical feminists are somehow in the process of taking over the country?

We do hear a lot of stories from Sweden here, but most of them are exaggerated.

In other words, sources. Sources are needed for what you're saying - "I heard" is not a source. Because right now you're just stating your own opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Uhm... would you believe me if I told that I'm actually getting these facts from a feminist living in Sweden..?

Sorry I can't point you toward any online sources...

[Beguile's Mistress]

I avoid feminists and talk of feminism because in my personal experience it's seldom anything but boring or confrontational most of the time.  Diatribes and lectures turn me off.  People are people and should be treated as such all the time no matter what.  I belong to a small group that helps people get the help they need to progress through life or fight individual injustices when necessary but in a more low key way than the most of the activists.

You don't like the way someone has treated you?  Have a conversation with them listening as much as you are talking because calling them names or bullying them with a rant is never going to work. 

[Hemingway]

Uhm... would you believe me if I told that I'm actually getting these facts from a feminist living in Sweden..?

I'd believe you were getting your information there, yes - but not that they were actually facts. Because they aren't.

[Beorning]

Well, I don't know. But my source seems very trustworthy...