![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Too long for FB comment
Apr. 11th, 2017 11:21 amWas going to post this on FB, but didn't really want an argument about it, also, kinda not relevant to general conversation, but possibly of interest to me for later re current opinions on things.
Re: http://www.celebritytypes.com/feminism-5/result.php?trad=15&lib=65&radic=71&marx=74&cult=74
I noticed that none of the descriptions as were actually terribly close to my stance.
- Liberal (closest?): Although I don't necessarily think it's dreadful if there are slightly more of one gender in a profession than the other, big discrepancies are a sign of a cultural problem. Also, there seems to be a bit of an "it'll go away if we ignore it" attitude pervading this one. Simply giving basically equal legal rights isn't enough if there's a massive culture to impose what are basically laws. Social pressure can be more powerful than legislation in many cases.
- Rad fem (next closest). Bit too much telling people what to do, also I think the oppression is a bit more complex than stated. Everyone in society oppresses by their internalised states, men are less inclined to challenge this by dint of them getting the better deal, and indeed, will sometimes defend the oppression. I also question whether the suggestion that it's just women who need to stop this actually accurately reflects the Rad-Fems views.
Re: Gender roles: it's not strictly about rejecting traditional gender roles, for me, so much as trying to completely remove the enforcement of them culturally or legally. The whole point is you're allowed to choose who you are. Prostitution / Pornography? Extremely complex issues, these are both full of exploitation, and that needs to go, going further and completely eliminating though? To illiberal for me, I'm afraid, at the end of the day both should be based on unfettered choice for all parties.
- Marxist? I suppose I sort of agree that capitalism spreads misogyny, but this is more a result than a cause. I don't actually see capitalism as being inherently "for men", that'd be gender-essentialist. Capitalism will basically leap on any societal unpleasantness if there's profit there. This means that it can be deeply oppressive, but it doesn't really care what race, colour etc. people are, as long as the cultural norms are in place for it to exploit them. In this society it means it follows, and perhaps reinforces sexism for its own gains. Splitting hairs perhaps, but it has an important upshot that I don't believe that stamping on capitalism will remove the root cause of gender inequality, and there are many other models which are equally, or more willing to use exploitation for their own goals, some of which actually *are* inherently misogynistic.
Cultural Feminism - Although I'm willing to accept that there may be gender differences, I also strongly believe that we'd need to achieve near complete equality of opportunity and regard before we could reasonably assess what these are. In the past the differences have been assumed to be very great indeed, lots of assumptions were made, and basically all of them have been shown to be wrong. The vast majority of descriptions of the "differences" I hear these days is swollen with tired and ancient stereotypes and very light on actual evidence. As such, I don't resemble this at all.
Re: http://www.celebritytypes.com/feminism-5/result.php?trad=15&lib=65&radic=71&marx=74&cult=74
I noticed that none of the descriptions as were actually terribly close to my stance.
- Liberal (closest?): Although I don't necessarily think it's dreadful if there are slightly more of one gender in a profession than the other, big discrepancies are a sign of a cultural problem. Also, there seems to be a bit of an "it'll go away if we ignore it" attitude pervading this one. Simply giving basically equal legal rights isn't enough if there's a massive culture to impose what are basically laws. Social pressure can be more powerful than legislation in many cases.
- Rad fem (next closest). Bit too much telling people what to do, also I think the oppression is a bit more complex than stated. Everyone in society oppresses by their internalised states, men are less inclined to challenge this by dint of them getting the better deal, and indeed, will sometimes defend the oppression. I also question whether the suggestion that it's just women who need to stop this actually accurately reflects the Rad-Fems views.
Re: Gender roles: it's not strictly about rejecting traditional gender roles, for me, so much as trying to completely remove the enforcement of them culturally or legally. The whole point is you're allowed to choose who you are. Prostitution / Pornography? Extremely complex issues, these are both full of exploitation, and that needs to go, going further and completely eliminating though? To illiberal for me, I'm afraid, at the end of the day both should be based on unfettered choice for all parties.
- Marxist? I suppose I sort of agree that capitalism spreads misogyny, but this is more a result than a cause. I don't actually see capitalism as being inherently "for men", that'd be gender-essentialist. Capitalism will basically leap on any societal unpleasantness if there's profit there. This means that it can be deeply oppressive, but it doesn't really care what race, colour etc. people are, as long as the cultural norms are in place for it to exploit them. In this society it means it follows, and perhaps reinforces sexism for its own gains. Splitting hairs perhaps, but it has an important upshot that I don't believe that stamping on capitalism will remove the root cause of gender inequality, and there are many other models which are equally, or more willing to use exploitation for their own goals, some of which actually *are* inherently misogynistic.
Cultural Feminism - Although I'm willing to accept that there may be gender differences, I also strongly believe that we'd need to achieve near complete equality of opportunity and regard before we could reasonably assess what these are. In the past the differences have been assumed to be very great indeed, lots of assumptions were made, and basically all of them have been shown to be wrong. The vast majority of descriptions of the "differences" I hear these days is swollen with tired and ancient stereotypes and very light on actual evidence. As such, I don't resemble this at all.
