FAQ: But men and women are born different! Isn't that obvious?

That idea is known as "essentialism": the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences which exist independently of cultural conditioning. Both actual (minor) and alleged (major) differences between the sexes have been used to justify inequities and constraints which harm women emotionally, financially and physically.

Even where (and if) such differences do exist, why should such differences justify sexist oppression? *

Biological determinism is one form of essentialism which has been used to argue for male superiority for all of recorded history: that men are naturally stronger, smarter, more rational and more trustworthy and thus are entitled to rule both politically and domestically. The more science discovers about biology the more this male biological superiority is shown to be utterly without foundation: for any quality measured there is far more variation among the group of all men and among the group of all women than there is on average between individuals of opposite sex.

A common corollary belief is that while men are physically and rationally superior, women are morally superior. At times influential groups of both men and women, both feminists and anti-feminists, have subscribed to this view. It is equally without evidentiary foundation, and has often been used to give women a sense of power in the role of morality enforcer which acts to support the larger social system of male dominance (and which especially excuses the male sexual exploitations of women as due to a baser moral nature which can't be changed, but which "good" women have the duty to "tame").

Masculine and feminine traits have been culturally placed in opposition to each other, and claimed to thus complement each other and result in harmony when men and women are constrained within the accepted sex roles. Masculine roles differ across societies, but are always portrayed as not only different from but also superior to the feminine. Women and men who transgress the boundaries of the accepted sex roles are considered "not real" men/women, and usually denigrated and sometimes abused and punished by outraged defenders of normative sex roles. It is this rigid ghettoising of masculine and feminine, and the assigning of superiority always to the masculine, that feminism challenges.

* Spot-the-strawfeminist: It is often claimed that feminists say there are no differences between men and women, by people who tend to condescendingly point to women's chest area as they "debate". Rubbish - feminists are, on the whole, not blind. What feminists say is that neither the size of the fatty glands on one's pectoral muscles, nor whether one's reproductive organs are innies or outies, are indicators of deeper essential differences, and nor such indicators of sexual dimorphism relevant when discussing rights, equity and sexual egalitarianism.

Clarifying Concepts:

Winter (Mind the Gap!): Biological Determinism - A Rant

Kathleen Trigiani - Out of the Cave: Exploring Grays Anatomy - a series of essays ripping the veil off the romanticised submission of Venusians in John Gray's odes to essentialism and thus male dominance, the Mars/Venus canon.

Evidence vs Myth:
A classic debunking from Mark Liberman(Language Log): the popular claim is that women utter 20000 words per day compared to men's 7000 (recently resurrected by Louann Brizendine). A survey of linguistic studies show no such evidence - men and women are found to utter roughly equivalent numbers of words and more often as not the men talked more than the women.

Recommended Reading Offline:
Myths of Gender: biological theories about women and men
By Anne Fausto-Sterling 1992 ISBN 0465047920

Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What can I do for feminism?

Object to any speech or action which demeans, constrains and/or harms women, whether you know the women concerned personally or not.

Do not accept that there is a "war between the sexes" and challenge anyone who assumes that there is and that it is natural.

Do not accept that "men just can't help being X" wherever X is something that women are complaining about as demeaning or harmful to women (or gender roles that are constraining, demeaning and harmful to men).

If you are a pro-feminist man, this is especially important, because when you don't object:

"You are missing an opportunity to help stop the bad guys.

You’re missing an opportunity to stop the real misogynists, the fucking sickos, the ones who really, truly hate women just for being women. The ones whose ranks you do not belong to and never would. The ones who might hurt women you love in the future, or might have already.

‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…

I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.

But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.

And that guy? Thought you were on his side.

As long as we live in a culture where the good guys sometimes sound just like the misogynists, the misogynists are never going to get the message that they are not normal and that most people–strong, successful men included–do not hate women.

Kate Harding: On being a no-name blogger using her real name

What else can we do for feminism?

.
Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: what do you mean by "Not my Nigel"? (feminist abbreviations/jargon)

Updated 03May07

Like any other field of debate and controversy, a lot of issues and positions in feminism end up being discussed so often that they are abbreviated for convenience into acronyms, initialisms and shorthand phrases that make up a jargon.

"Not my Nigel" is shorthand for the common reaction of many women to feminist observations and explanations of sexist activity and sexist motivations i.e. "Not my Nigel! He'd never do anything like that" or more invidiously "well sure, my Nigel says/does that but he doesn't mean any harm by it".
(The feminist response is that truly one has no idea what sexist activities one's Nigel engages in when performing manliness to impress other men (you think all those gropers and harassers tell their wives/mothers/sisters what they do?) and that not meaning any harm because "boys will be boys" is exactly the root of the problem.)

Below are a few common abbreviations/jargon terms. There's a more formal academic list of terms at Feminist Lexicon, and you may find some of the differences/distinctions between their entries and this list instructive (for more on differences/distinctions see the Feminisms FAQ).

Descriptive:

first-/second-/third-wave - different periods of feminist activism with different priorities. An Anglo-Americocentric description of feminist history, although largely generalisable.
First wave feminism : the advocacy of basic legal (de jure) equality: suffragists, property inheritance and contractual agency rights. Historically a movement for wives of the propertied classes, but a broader movement today in those countries where women are still denied de jure equality.
Second wave feminism : working for the implementation/enforcement of de jure equalities but also concerned with de facto (unofficial) inequalities: finding the political in the personal and fighting for changes in long-standing sexist prejudices and traditions - socioeconomic equality not just legal equality, and for more than just the propertied classes.
Third wave feminism: a challenge to essentialist views of femininity (as biologically reductive) and feminisms (as homogenously directed) combined with an emphasis on the intersectionality of oppressions.
MRA - male rights activist (an extreme masculinist example)
patriarchy - one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a hierarchy of inferiorities), privilege and the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions. Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies. [more in the Patriarchy FAQ]
"the personal is political" - a radical 1960's concept that there is a politics of sex/gender based on power relationships in families, and that describing family power imbalances as "personal" was simply dismissive and condescending. First cited in an essay by Carol Hahnisch in 1970 defending consciousness-raising from charges that it was merely "therapy": Hanisch states "One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time."(the term has since been adopted by other protest movements).
PHMT - Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. Men are also constrained from full individualist expression by strict gender expectations. (Corollary: FBMT - Feminism benefits men too - thanks Helen)
privilege - advantages that some groups have over others in the social hierarchy. Some privileges are situational and temporary (parent over child, employer over employee) and serve a pragmatic social purpose but other privileges are societal and traditional and serve to perpetuate elitism. Some elitist privileges are de jure (e.g. South African racial apartheid, rules against the ordination of women as priests) but most are de facto (informal discrimination against "others" in the workplace, education, financial transactions (e.g. exclusionary "mates' rates") and social recognition/reward). [more in the Male Privilege FAQ]
radfem - radical feminist
rape culture - a constellation of behaviours and attitudes embedded into patriarchal society. These attitudes, socialised from birth and often wielded unconsciously, enable and encourage the subordination of women by maintaining a environment that is pervasively hostile and threatening to women. The behaviours include a spectrum of acts which function to keep women in an object role and perpetuate their fear. They include (but are not limited to) certain aspects of "chivalry", victim-blaming, leering, intimidation, sexual harrassment and coercion, domestic violence, assault and rape. (defn from lauredhel) [more: Biting Beaver]
sex-pos - sex-positive feminist
strawfeminist - a false construction, created to scare people away from the juicy crops of equality, equity and the end of female subjugation (See "strawman fallacy" and our "spot the strawfeminist" category)

Disparaging:

empowerful: used to reveal how sexist marketing appropriates "empowerment" in order to persuade women into yet more sexual displays for male titillation [Twisty's post coining the term]
godbag - religious authoritarian, theocrat (not used to describe tolerant believers who respect the rights of others to make their own choices)
"I'm not a feminist, but" - a common utterance by those who notice and are disturbed by instances of sexism, and totally agree that something should be done to combat such sexism, if only they could argue against such sexism without perhaps being mistaken for one of those humourless, hairylegged, manhating feminists. (i.e. folks who have been intimidated by the strawfeminists(see above)). Often women who disdain feminism while describing the benefits of feminist-earned rights to work, child care, education, vote etc as "basic rights".
“Nice Guys™” - There are two types, which often overlap in one individual:
1.a guy who believes that the simple act of being decent means that the universe owes him a girlfriend.[defn from Mickle]
2. men who are looking to date a woman with the appearance of a supermodel, and yet they continually whine about how "women don't like nice guys - they only want good-looking assholes" [source] [more at the NiceGuy archive at Heartless Bitches International]
pornulated/-acious - extremely sexualised women's fashions, usually uncomfortable and impractical as well as emphasising the vulnerable flesh of female secondary sexual characteristics.
PUA - Pick Up Artist. Sexual predator as serial scorekeeping seducer. [link from theriomorph] The goal of PUA as a sport is to defeat the minds so inconveniently attached to ladybits rather than treat women as people who could enjoy sexual fun together with egalitarian men. A growing movement designed to persuade both men and women that this reduction of gender relations to a hunt for sex is a reasonable and sane model for human interaction.

The list could go on and on, and that's where you, dear readers, come in. Please add more abbreviations/jargon in the comments of terms you've had to explain most often, or requests for explanations of abbreviations/jargonisms that have been puzzling you. (Update: thanks for all the suggestions so far!)

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?

I/we often address Y, but right now we're addressing X. We can and do work on both X and Y, but persuading others and planning productively means concentrating selectively. Besides, working on X and Y seperately but in parallel is more productive for both matters, as they both counter Z (which we both detest, right?) from different directions.

Derailing a discussion of X with demands that others address Y because "it's so much more important" is a very common trolling tactic, and long acknowledged as a cheap rhetorical trick: just another red herring.

If you don't mean to troll, if you are genuinely and adamantly of the opinion that discussing X is a waste of time in light of the importance of Y, then simply disrupting the discussion of others is unlikely to make them sympathetic to your arguments.

Even if you are a fellow-feminist with a different area of emphasis, demanding that your special concern is discussed Right! Now! is disruptive nonetheless, and actively works against feminist solidarity. Are you sure that's what you want to do?

How about you, whether feminist or anti-feminist, instead try this? Write about how much Y matters on your own chunk of cyberspace, and then make a short comment in the discussion-about-X saying "By the way, I'm also hugely concerned with the problem of Y, and I've written about it [here] if you would like to discuss it".

Point made, discussion of X still on track, and very possibly a productive discussion of Y taking place in parallel. Everybody wins, except the trolls.

.
Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Why "feminism" and not just "humanism"? Or "equalism"? Isn't saying you're a feminist exclusionary?

This question implies that one must be either one or the other. People and philosophies are far more complicated than that. A feminist may also be both a humanist and an equalist.

There's no law that says only one box can be ticked here, and it's hugely important not to get sucked into thinking that one choice excludes the others. A major reason that most populist debate in the corporate media (and in online forums too) is a pitiful sham is that way too many questions are argued on an either/or basis, instead of acknowledging the probability of a both/and stance. The either/or method of framing a debate is technically referred to as a "false dilemma" [more], and is one example of a logical fallacy.

As to why feminism requires a distinct agenda within the equalist movements? The special and distinct problem of misogyny both oppressing and directly harming women, pure and simple. Unless misogyny is directly addressed and acted against, general equalist activism will not be enough. [FAQs: Does feminism matter? and Isn't feminism just "victim politics"?]

P.S. It's also a good idea when throwing around the term "humanist" to make sure that one's audience is on the same page about exactly what you mean.

Reading:

Introductory:

Andrea Rubenstein (Official Shrub.com Blog): Why “feminism”?

Colleen Wainwright (Communicatrix): ¡Feminista!

Clarifying Concepts:
More on Either/Or and Feminisms

We’re not either/or thinkers here, but both/and thinkers. I am neither a liberal feminist who supports only attacking power by going after its underpinning through the courts and through legislation nor a radical feminist who wants to address how oppression is lived out in the day-to-day. I’m both. Without focusing on how sexism and heterosexism permeates our very existence, attacks our very way of thinking and our daily existence, it’s far, far easier for people to not care because it’s someone else’s problem. But, as I state firmly in this post, it everyone’s problem.
[Amanda Marcotte, in comments to a Blog Against Heteronormativity post at Pandagon]

Lauren (Faux Real Tho): On Feminism and Attractiveness

.
Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: I've got nothing against equal rights for women, but we've got that, so isn't feminism nowadays just going too far ?

aka "Why do we still need feminism?" (see "Does feminism matter?")

This question is based on several misconceptions.
1. Even if women in your part of the world do have legal equality, what about women elsewhere? Feminists who fight for the rights of other women to have what they already have are justified in doing so.
2. Simple, basic legal equality regarding the right to own property, sign contracts or vote does not always translate into social equality in work, the community or the home. Feminists who point out residual cultural traditions and reactionary business practises that disproportionately disadvantage women are not making it up (see FAQs on Patriarchy, Gender Gap and Objectification).

This FAQ is mostly clarifying-concepts rather than introductory. If you haven't read any of the basic level FAQ posts (See FAQ roundup here) then I suggest you start with some of those before reading these posts.

I've been seeing a lot of "Why we still need feminism" posts around lately. Here's a few I've found powerful. Please add links to other posts on the same theme that I've overlooked in comments.

Natasha Walter (orig. in The Guardian): We Still Need Feminism

The suggestion is constantly put out that women must be "free" to choose their own way of life, even if it is clear that many women whose choices are shaped by discriminatory workplaces and poor childcare provision do not feel very free at all. Indeed, even if few people choose to identify themselves as feminists, it is hard to find a young woman who would not sign up to the feminist goals that are meant to be so outdated, such as being treated equally at work and being able to share family responsibilities with their husbands. But even if the desire for equality remains, it is still unmet.

Rad Geek (Rad Geek People's Daily): Atrocious Dating Violence Against Young Women: We Still Need Feminism

If anyone asks you why we still need an organized, agitating feminist movement, tell them to think of five women they know. Ask them whether they want one of those five women to be tortured by someone she should be able [to] trust. If the answer is no, we still need feminism.

Mr Shakes (Shakesville): Feminism benefits us all

Men need to get it through their heads that they, too, are under the heel of power structures that have no interest in promoting their welfare. They must understand that the rights and privileges that they have hitherto been enjoying fall far short of the privileges they could enjoy were they to try and achieve them. The internecine warfare that occurs between women and men, people of color and white people, straights and gays, as they all squabble like schoolchildren in an attempt to gain or deny rights, is exactly what those in power want.

Aunt B.(Tiny Cat Pants): Remedial Feminism

Does Ivy hate men and want to mock and belittle them at every turn? No.

Ivy wants to be able to walk into McDonald’s and get for her daughter a toy without it turning into a lesson in how either 1. Boys get all the cool toys and girls have to learn how to put up with shit. Or 2. Because you’re a girl, you usually only deserve the girl toy, which sucks, but because someone has pointed out that you are “exceptional,” you might be able to get the boy toy.

See how nothing about this has to do directly with boys? This isn’t an anecdote about boys. No one is suggesting that any boy should have to suffer or put up with a shit toy. There’s nothing in this story directly about boys.

(nb a lot of the attitude of the questioner for this FAQ overlaps with "I'm not a feminist, but...", which is a common utterance by those who notice and are disturbed by instances of sexism, and totally agree that something should be done to combat such sexism, if only they could argue against such sexism without perhaps being mistaken for one of those humourless, hairylegged, manhating feminists)

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What is sexual objectification?

Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities. This is done by speaking/thinking of women as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.

Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual objectification: objectification only occurs when the individuality of the desired person is not acknowledged. Pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment and the representation of women in mass media and art are all examples of common sexual objectification.

The concept of objectification owes much to the work of Simone de Beauvoir regarding the basic dualism of human consciousness between the Self and the Other: the general mental process where humans classify the world into 'us' and 'them'. Women are universally viewed as the Other across all cultures, a role which is both externally imposed and internalised, and which means that women are generally not truly regarded as fully human. An important point of de Beauvoir's was that this Othering effect is the same whether women are viewed as wholly inferior or if femininity is viewed as mysterious and morally superior: Otherness and full equality cannot coexist.

Introductory:

earlbecke (Definition): But don't you like to be objectified sometimes?
Persona non grata (☀☁☂☃☠☠☠☠): Objectified does not equal Idealized

Clarifying Concepts:

Gaze, especially the "male gaze" (Wikipedia): Gaze

More on gaze and objectification:

Yes, I admit, there is a “female gaze,” although some feminists like Laura Mulvey argue that “the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification,” and that besides, the female gaze is merely the co-optation of the male gaze. I would myself add that the female gaze is inherently different. While the male gaze objectifies and sexualizes, the female gaze is “emmasculated,” that is powerless.

[Belle Lettres (Law and Letters): Pictures and Patriarchy]

drumgurl (Redneck Feminist): Hot enough to be feminist (see also: tough enough to wear pink)

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Isn't "the Patriarchy" just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women's woes?

Updated 18March07

Patriarchy: one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a hierarchy of inferiorities), privilege and the subjugation of women via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions. Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies.

Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others.

Men do not generally conspire with Patriarchs (although they may aspire to become one): men simply have a place above women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of Patriarchy than women do (as a group).

In primitive and lawless societies patriarchal organisation has survival benefits for women and children, at a price: subjugation and often misogynistic abuse. Civilisation (generally) has advanced a long way from the days of the ancient ruthless patriarchs who held the power of life and death over their extended families/clans, and survival is (generally) no longer dependant on formal subjugation to a Patriarch, either for men or women.

However, society is still structured along patriarchal lines of submission in nearly all forms of organisations, to the great benefit of those at the top. The male elites, the magnates (currently white, but who knows what the next century will bring?), continue to wield disproportionate influence and power over the situations of other men and especially women.

"So, there is no one Patriarch, leastaways not outside of Constantinople. There's no single dude in a nifty hat (or not) at the top of the power structure, surrounded by scantily clad women whom he feeds to tigers for his kicks and giggles. If it were only that simple, we could off the old wanker, free the women and give them some trousers, find loving homes for the tigers, and have a great party around the bonfire of his palace (after salvaging all the good art, books, and chocolate). Alas, because the patriarchy is instead a very very old system that has warped everyone's thinking right down to the sub-rational, axiomatic, non-verbal ideological level, it's much more difficult to overthrow. (We've seen how well wars against ideas work.)"

[jennie (zingerella): Who Are The Patriarchs, Anyway?]

Extra-Credit Reading (not a feminist primer):

"patriarchy is a violently tyrannical but nearly invisible social order based on an oppressive paradigm of class and status fetishizing dominance and submission. Patriarchy’s benefits are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky males and at the bottom of which are poor women of color."

[Twisty Faster (I Blame the Patriarchy): Patriarchy-Blaming the Twisty Way]

Even in modern-rule-of-law countries with full legal sexual equality, there are still many patriarchal remnants in the way that men (as a group) seek to discourage women (as a group) from social independence and independent financial security. These remnant patriarchal traditions do more harm to women, on balance, than good.

The continuing subjugation and abuse of women in more traditional societies, along with the continued inequity even in rule-of-law societies, is why feminism seeks to dismantle patriarchy. Which is why some patriarchs are so antagonistic towards feminism:

Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

[Pat Robertson, multi-millionaire televangelist and former presidential candidate, 1992]

Clarifying Concepts:

Patriarchy and sexism intersect and buttress each other:

"It's using a male default as the standard and then because (well, duh) women are different from that standard, we are found lacking."

[Sarah in Chicago(kiwi_grrl) in comments at Bitch PhD, Misogyny in Real Life]

High Status Women defending the Patriarchy:

This phenomenon doesn't mean that Patriarchy isn't unjust, it only means that such women like the benefits they derive from high status and wish to keep them.

"student, it seems to many of us that the people you mention are actually anti-feminists in feminist clothing. essentially they say they care about equality in the workplace, and that we've already gotten there; and that all the other stuff is not important because the sex-differences there are meant to be. frequently they dismiss feminist concerns about sexual harrassment, about women being forced out of their careers and back into the home, or about date-rape, saying that these things are not about equality and are oppressive to MEN. it's frustrating for these women to call themselves feminists because it seems like they're just trying to dismantle what many of us think are legitimate equality-related concerns "from the inside"."
[roula (in comments here) responding to questions about Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young et al (emphasis added)]

As usual, please feel free to add your favourite links to articles about the subject to the comments thread.

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Can men be feminists?

Edited 26Mar07

Many men are entirely comfortable with calling themselves feminists, and many feminist women are very happy to accept them as fellow feminists working for the end of sexist oppression.

Photo: A man wearing a "This is what a feminist looks like" shirt at a political rally. Cropped (with permission) from an original image uploaded by Alarming Female (it's her father).

However, there are also men and women who are ideologically uncomfortable with men calling themselves feminists, because it seems to be a co-option of movements built by and for women. These groups express a preference for the terms pro-feminist or feminist allies when speaking of men who support and advocate feminism.

The debate over the terms is an undercurrent of controversy rather than an enormously divisive issue.

Introductory

Michael Flood(XY-Online): Pro-feminist men's FAQ
jeff (Feminist Allies): Allies; Another reason I call myself a Feminist

Clarifying Concepts

Chris Clarke (Creek Running North): Why I Am Not A Feminist
Tia (Unfogged): An Uncongenial Post - "guidelines for avoiding actively irritating women who are discussing feminist concerns".

.
Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Aren't you all just a bunch of "feminazis"?

The word "feminazi" is a false construction, a strawfeminist, created to scare people away from the juicy crops of equality, equity and the end of female subjugation.
(See the "strawman" entry in the Logical Fallacies section at the Critical Thinking Website.)

stealthbadger (Stealth Badger): A dudely introduction to feminism (utterly debunks the arguments made to support the "feminazi" invention by slime-shill Rush Limbaugh)

For further contrast with the actual feminism movement, examine 12 Warning Signs of Fascism here.

More strawfeminists and myths about feminism:
Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon): Feminist Myths 101
Mad Melancholic Feminista: Feminism 101 - Myths & Facts


.
Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What do feminists mean by "reproductive freedom"?

Updated 19Mar2007

Reproductive freedom is so much more than merely being pro-choice. Without reproductive freedom, women's rights to legal equality and social equity cannot be guaranteed.

"Defined by feminists in the 1970s as a basic human right, it includes the right to abortion and birth control, but implies much more. To be realised, reproductive freedom must include not only woman's right to choose childbirth, abortion, sterilisation or birth control, but also her right to make those choices freely, without pressure from individual men, doctors, governmental or religious authorities. It is a key issue for women, since without it the other freedoms we appear to have, such as the right to education, jobs and equal pay, may prove illusory. Provisions of childcare, medical treatment, and society's attitude towards children are also involved."

--The Encyclopedia of Feminism (1986) Lisa Tuttle
ISBN 0-09-944900-5

There are many issues affecting reproductive freedom in various parts of the world: forced-childbirth (eg Romania), forced-abortion (eg China), access to affordable birth control (all countries without universal health care), any access to birth control, access to a healthy diet sufficient to grow healthy babies and safely undergo childbirth, unnecessary caesarians (most Western nations), female genital mutilation (increases childbirth risks), inequitable access to healthcare for women, and many many more.

Submissions are requested for articles addressing these issues.

The pro-choice/pro-life debate will be covered in detail in a separate post (in progress).

Introductory
Evidence Based Midwifery Care
Joyous Birth (homebirth advocacy)
Birthrites (caesarian advice): Scroll down their sidebar for various links (shocking site layout) | Planning a Positive Caesarean for women who need/want a caesarean and want to be in control.

Anyone know some sites where Obstetricians fully embrace evidence-based obstetrics rather than economically/professionally/traditionally rationalised obstetrics? There must be a few. Surely?

Clarifying Concepts

Rights during Childbirth/Birth Abuse
You may never have considered intrusive obstetric practises as abuse, or as "birthrape", a term coming into wider use. This may change your mind.

"Just because it is the standard of care, doesn't mean it's ethical."

Navelgazing Midwife: Oh, the homebirth debate blog...

Why pro-choice?
thinking girl (Thinking Girl): Blog for Choice Day 2007 (lots of links, and a very interesting discussion addressing dissenters)

Check Googlesearch for top-linked "Blog for Choice" posts.

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ Roundup: Introductory material

Updated 03May07

Wanting to join in a discussion with feminists on a blog or other online forum? Need more information? It's a good idea to start with one or both of these two posts, depending on how you came here:

• I asked some feminists a question, and instead of answering they sent me here. Why?
• How to Use This Blog.

Below are the FAQs thus far (this page will be regularly updated on approximately a weekly basis). Qs in small font are in progress but not yet posted. If your question is not addressed in the FAQs below, please check the Open Suggestions Thread to see whether someone else has suggested the same question and/or provided a useful link to an article addressing that question.

Each of the FAQ posts below contain links to other material, especially other blog-posts, from other authors online. The comments threads provide links to further reading supplied by the readers of this blog.

There is some necessary repetition in some of the FAQs, because not everybody is going to read every Q, so material needs to be placed in more than one post to effectively cover various issues.

NB: The FAQs attempt to be descriptive from a reasonably neutral position. There are other posts on this blog which are not FAQs which are intended as general feminist resources and op-eds: these posts are not intended to be neutral documents.

Absolute basics:

• What is feminism?
• What do feminists want?
• Does feminism matter?
• Isn't feminism just "victim" politics?
• Why do some people talk of "feminisms"?
• Can men be feminists?
• What can feminism do for me?
• What can I do for feminism?
• What do you mean by "Not my Nigel"? (feminist abbreviations/jargon)
  

Specific Issues:

• Why are there so many fights between feminists?
• Why do you feminists hate men?
• What is male privilege?
• What is the "Gender Gap"?
• What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped?
• Isn't "the Patriarchy" just some conspiracy theory?
• What do feminists mean by "reproductive freedom"?
• Aren't you all just a bunch of "feminazis"?

Clarifying Concepts:

• What is "sexual objectification"?
• What is the "male gaze"?
• I've got nothing against equal rights for women, but we've got that, so isn't feminism nowadays just going too far ? (aka Why do we still need feminism?)
• Why "feminism" and not just "humanism"? or "equalism"? Isn't "feminism" exclusionary?
• Why are you concentrating so hard on "X" when "Y" is so much more important?
• But men and women are born different! Isn't that obvious?
• How can Feminity be "socially constructed"?
• Feminists just hate heterosexual sex
  

.
Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What can feminism do for me?

Updated 16Mar07

1. You will find that you are not alone in thinking something is disturbing and unjust with the way that society deals with gender.

my first encounter with feminist writing reassured me that i wasn't insane, and that amongst other things, it was in fact normal to be bothered by violence and misogyny.

[m. (sthreeling): 5 things feminism has done for me]

This is one of a series of testimonials from bloggers via a meme on feminism. Find more of these testimonials using this Google search string "5 things feminism has done for you"
(If you want your own feminist testimonial to show up on that search, write a post using the quoted words in the post-body)

2. You will find ways to actively work for reform, both singly and collectively.

Organisations:
Global
Association for Women's Rights in Development
Global Fund for Women
UNIFEM: United Nations Development Fund for Women
UN: Womenwatch
Global List of Women's Organisations

National/ethnic: (alphabetical order)

Australia
Emily's List
National Foundation for Australian Women
Govt: Office of the Status of Women
Women on Boards
Women's Electoral Lobby

India
India Women's Organisations (Names and contact details, no websites)

New Zealand
Auckland Women's Centre
Govt. Ministry of Women's Affairs
NZ Women's Centre's Directory

United Kingdom
Emily's List
The Fawcett Society
Older Feminists' Network
Women Against Rape

United States of America
Emily's List
Feminist Majority Foundation
National Organisation of Women
Radical Women
The WISH list
List of many other US women's organisations from feminism.eserver.org

Feed the FAQ! Links to national directories of women's activist organisations for other countries, please! (Or if someone knows an existing international directory that I've missed, even better)


Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Does feminism matter?

Updated 22Mar07

Hell yes.

1. Society deals with gender in a way that, on balance, harms women.
2. This is a problem that must be corrected.

[yami (Green Gabbro): Feminisms]

Related reading:
All FAQ articles below have links to further reading on other sites

Harm to women:
FAQ:Isn't feminism just playing "victim" politics?

Gender inequity:
FAQ:What is male privilege?
FAQ: What is the "Gender Gap"?

Clarifying Concepts

Feminist Theory in Liberal Arts Courses
What is Feminism (and why do we have to talk about it so much)?


Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: -What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped?

Updated 04May07

Short answer: because it puts the onus on women not to get themselves raped, rather than on men not to do the raping; in short, it blames the victim.
(from Grendelkhan, in comments, emphasis added)

Introductory:

Blaming the Victim
Melissa McEwan (Shakespeare's Sister): Dear Ladies: Please Stop Getting Yourselves Raped

Key quote:

Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad (another phrase appearing once in the article), I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist.

JoAnne Schmitz (Jupiter9): It's not the empty street that causes rape

The question is, why do the warnings not help? Is the warning not strong enough? I don't think so. I don't know any women who don't consider rape a realistic threat to them, and I don't know any women who never alter their behavior because of a fear of rape.

Well, the obvious answer: Rape keeps happening because rapists keep doing what they're doing. Because it works. So how can what they're doing work if we have all these strong warnings about?

The warnings women get are misleading. They leave out the acts of the rapist himself. They focus on the situation. They also may focus on the "kind of man" the potential rapist is. If he's a friend of a friend, or your uncle, he's "safe." It's the stranger who's the threat.

And we know that's not true.

Men against rapists:
ross (The Talent Show): I am not my cock

Clarifying Concepts:

Rapists are rarely Strangers
ifritah (GROWL): Facts and Figures - a 2005 post citing studies several years older then, however patterns have not changed much.

Stranger rape and sexual assault is only one of several possible types of sexual violence. Here's the reported percentages according to National Health and Social Life Survey:

- Someone with whom the respondent was in love: 46%
- Someone that the respondent knew well: 22%
- Acquaintance: 19%
- Spouse: 9%
- Stranger: 4%

(Rathus, Nevid and Fichner-Rathus, 565)

Consent:
Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon): Real Consent Manifesto

.
Share:  del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: I asked some feminists a question, and instead of answering they sent me here. Why?

Updated 03May07

Your question probably covered ground they have gone over many times before, and they didn't want to derail the interesting discussion they were already having.

People find ignorant questions frustrating, and questioners find being ignored frustrating, and such mutual dissatisfaction can totally disrupt a discussion. By sending you here the feminists hope to avoid being interrupted, yet are also not completely ignoring your question(s).

Maybe you didn't ask a question at all, but stated an argument that denied the importance of the topic being discussed. Feminists naturally don't care for the thought of trying to run you through reams of introductory material before you gain the grounding to realise the basis whereby they perceive an important problem where you may not.

Either way, educating you on the basics would derail the discussion about the actual topic the feminists are interested in, just for you. That's an awful lot to ask of people on the net who don't even know you, isn't it?

This blog exists to give you a few pointers to places you can find more information to answer your question (although we're only in early days yet, FAQs will continue to be added until the basics are covered). Once you are better informed you will be able to contribute to lively feminist discussions productively, armed with facts and theory, even if/when you don't end up agreeing with all the theories.

First:

• How To Use This Blog

NB: If you had a specific question rather than a general question, and the person who sent you here didn't give you a link to a specific FAQ that answers your question, then you may be feeling somewhat aggrieved. Fair enough, too. Polite persistence ("That's a large resource - which particular FAQ should I be reading?") should make the point that a little bit of effort on their part as well can be fairly expected, without derailing the discussion. Hopefully what you read here can generate on-topic discussion in good time.

Second:
Use the sidebar links to navigate through the Frequently Answered Questions (FAQ).

• Peruse the FAQ Roundup post, which is irregularly updated.
• The Introductory archive is here.
• If you have a more theoretically-advanced question, try the Clarifying Concepts archive here.
• Scroll down to the category listings to find posts discussing particular topics.
  

NB: The FAQs attempt to be descriptive from a reasonably neutral position. There are other posts on this blog which are not FAQs which are intended as general feminist resources and op-eds: these posts are not intended to be neutral documents.

Third:
If your question is not yet amongst the FAQs, please add it to the Open Suggestion Thread (and if you read through the comments there you may find that someone else has suggested a link that fits the bill). Read the comments policy in the sidebar before commenting, please.

OK, then. Welcome to the blog.

Socialize: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What do feminists want?

To end the perpetuation of gender expectations that, on balance, harm women.

To explain the many ways that sexist stereotypes, double standards, and oppressions harm women generally is beyond the scope of this introductory post, but the reading below should give you some starting links.

Related:
What is feminism?
What is male privilege?
What is the "Gender Gap"?
Isn't feminism just "victim" politics?

FAQ: why do some people talk of "feminisms"?

Most recently updated 17 March 2007

Because, as was said back on the What is a feminist? and Why are there so many fights between feminists? posts, Feminism is not a monolith.

From the soc.feminism Terminologies FAQ compiled in 1993 by Cindy Tittle Moore, here is a following non-exhaustive list of feminisms (read fuller descriptions at the given link to clarify concepts). Some of the following groups are very small compared to the major strands of modern feminism:

Feminisms
Amazon Feminism
Anarcho-Feminism
Cultural Feminism
Erotic Feminism
Eco-Feminism
'Feminazi' **
Feminism and Women of Color
Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism
Lesbianism *
Liberal Feminism
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Material Feminism
Moderate Feminism
'pop-feminism' **
Radical Feminism
Separatists

There are important new movements not included in the list above, particularly the Radical Women of Colour movement and the many non-Western national/ethnic feminist movements, which have all been caught up in the single classification "Feminism and Women of Colour" above.

The Feminist eZine (LilithGallery): 1001 Feminist Links (just keep on scrolling, and then scroll some more)

Feminist Theory Website (choose English/Francais/Espanol on homepage): Different National/Ethic Feminisms - biased towards academia, but a good starting point for specific readings.

* Just as not all feminists are lesbians, not all lesbians are feminists. It's a "correlation, not causation" thing, and not an easily distinguished movement as such either.
** Essentially media inventions rather than meaningful classifications.

Men's Movements
From the same FAQ: "many of these movements were started in reaction to feminism: some inspired by and others in contra-reaction to it"

Feminist Men's Movement
Men's Liberation Movement
Mythopoetic Men's Movement
The New Traditionalists
The Father's Movements

The Father's Rights Movement has grown greatly since this FAQ was compiled, and is probably now the largest cohesive Men's Movement.

Further reading into the differing details of these movements will be added to this post as time allows. I especially apologise for the US-centricity of the list thus far, (and me an Aussie!) and hope to add more information on other feminisms around the world. (Update: national/ethnic feminist movement directory now added above) Feel free to leave links to distinctive voices characterising one or more of these movements in the comments.

Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: What is male privilege?

One example of the privileged status that some groups have over others in the social hierarchy.

tekanji:“Check my what?” On privilege and what we can do about it
Covers the following concept areas with multiple links to other writings in each section.
[Accept Your Privilege]
[Understanding Your Privilege]
[Adopt a Language of Respect and Equality]
[How to Approach Minority Spaces]
[Treat Us Like Humans, Not ‘The Other’]
[If You’re Not the Problem, Then You’re Not the Problem]

Read the whole thing.

B. Deutsch: The Male Privilege Checklist: An Unabashed Imitation of an Article by Peggy McIntosh
[and Peggy McIntosh's original article here: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack]

Socialize:   del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Squidoo | Technorati

FAQ: Isn't feminism just "victim" politics?

updated 01May07

No. Women as a class are subjected to real hardship and oppression just because they are women. This is unjust. Pointing out that women are disproportionately victimised is accurate analysis, not "playing victim".

Witchy-Woo on the "will you women just stop whining" subtext:

I think that those who would rather avoid acknowledging the global injustices that women face, those who deem themselves successful in the struggle, those who find it easier to accuse us of ‘whining’ rather than critically examining their own role in those injustices when we speak about them, are further enabled in their deliberate ignorance by the “you can help yourself” school of thought. Individual solutions for collective problems don’t work.

Not everyone can help themselves. Should we stop speaking about that because it’s percieved as ‘whining’? Many, many women actually are victims - and many more still are survivors - should we, as feminists, really be saying “shit happens, get over it - I have” when, globally, the making of women as victims (and survivors) is systemic and political? I’m thinking, not.

I’m thinking the “stop whining” response is one that comes from those who’d like to close us down, shut us up, make us be quiet.

Read the whole thing.

Kevin T. Keith posted the following list from the UN about the worldwide traditions of impunity for violence committed against women:

• Violence against women is the most common but least punished crime in the world.

• It is estimated that between 113 million and 200 million women are demographically “missing.” They have been the victims of infanticide (boys are preferred to girls) or have not received the same amount of food and medical attention as their brothers and fathers.

• The number of women forced or sold into prostitution is estimated worldwide at anywhere between 700,000 and 4,000,000 per year. Profits from sex slavery are estimated at seven to twelve billion US dollars per year.

• Globally, women between the age of fifteen and forty-four are more likely to be maimed or die as a result of male violence than through cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war combined.

• At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Usually, the abuser is a member of her own family or someone known to her. Domestic violence is the largest form of abuse of women worldwide, irrespective of region, culture, ethnicity, education, class and religion.

• It is estimated that more than two million girls are genitally mutilated per year, a rate of one girl every fifteen seconds.

• Systematic rape is used as a weapon of terror in many of the world’s conflicts. It is estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 women in Rwanda were raped during the 1994 genocide.

• Studies show the increasing links between violence against women and HIV and demonstrate that HIV-infected women are more likely to have experienced violence, and that victims of violence are at higher risk of HIV infection.

KTK (Sufficent Scruples) then analysed how sexism leads to inequities in healthcare provision for women.

Ginmar (A View From A Broad) wraps the whole issue up in a gloriously clarified rant: One Simple Thing

Society is based on the notion that women are things to be used up and discarded. Therefore, while it is possible to work within a framework of society, one has to be very careful as to how one goes about it. Feminism is nothing less than an insurgency in society, disturbing the very framework of our lives. You have to brace yourself for hostility and hatred when you're an avowed feminist. You're disturbing people who've never much thought about women except when those damned women didn't do what they were supposed to.

There's a lot more to read on women's oppression. It really exists.