Thanks seeformiles for you last comment. I too see feminism as all embracing.
Rereading the posts again I am now completely confused by Michael's post. So probably missing the point completely again but if you want to talk about gender inequalities both ways, surely it is just enough to call it gender inequalities. Why would feminism or some other ism or anti need to be a reference point?
Wikipedia combined definition: Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.
It is those last two words that are important, and that make the concept different from a philosophy that wishes to remove all gender inequalities.
The fight for equality for women is still an important one, as women often suffer from poor opportunities and rights in our society. But it should be a fight for equality for all genders. If this is what people mean when they talk about feminism then they should recognise that the term is loaded to imply that it is always rights for women is always most important - just like spaceman implies that women can't go into space. Gender neutral language is part of the solution and something that feminists have fought for but I would have thought it was obvious that it should work both ways.
Surely once women have equal opportunities in all respects to men, men will have the same opportunities too.
On a more serious side that is one definition, and lot of feminsts will add 'and men' at the end of wikipidia definition.
I just checked and it says:
Quote:
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.
...men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism....
Which is why the name is so inappropriate. I have a problem with my 'liberation' being classed as part of feminism. There is an issue of ownership. And whilst I would like to consider myself as a feminist in many ways, I am primarily against any gender discrimination.
Feminism is for feminists - who specifically want to advance the cause of women in regard of gender equality. Most of the people who'd define themselves as feminists are likely to be women.
Whereas, if someone of either sex is against gender discrimination, and if they regard that discrimination as affecting both sexes, then they can't they just say they're 'against gender discrimination'? Of 'for gender equality'? Or, if a snappier -ism is required, then 'anti-sexist' might do at a pinch.
(Although I would personally wonder whether proudly claiming any of the above labels would make me sound a bit of a self-important unctuous berk, even though I'm sympathetic to feminism.)
Do I see an interesting new usage emerging on the thread about the teachers' strike - 'striked' rather than 'struck' as the past tense of 'strike' (as in 'to go on')? I don't think I've come across it before.
Maybe because 'struck' sounds too fast and finite, whereas 'strking' conveys the sense of time which is a necessary part of going on strike - striking for a single moment wouldn't do the job.
Ladies and Gents are not the same.
Programme on BBC 1 about the origin of our species which emphasised this.
Of course they should be treated equally where possible but there are many examples where it has gone too far.
For instance the size of the Police has reduced a great deal in my lifetime.
Some of the ladies look like they could be blown over. Because of equality they are now accepting reduced men size as well.
Police have a tough job to do and the criminal fraternity are often larger than the Police.
Both sexes should be treated with respect but they are not the same and certain occupations are better done by either sex.
In response to Rachael and Jane, I think I have come across 'struck' in this context, although I can't prove it. But I agree it sounds a bit odd - perhaps it's journalese.
Brian, I have never come across a thread before discussing reduced size policemen let alone the concept of the force having to lower its minimum height criteria as part of its equal opportunities policy. I was however once told that that the Met police tended to be shorter as they couldn't recruit and therefore had to be less fussy. Its an interesting evening and this is becoming an interesting thread.
I've noticed recently that people on the wireless are increasingly saying 'at the minute' rather than 'at the moment'. (Perhaps also 'for the minute' instead of 'for the moment'.) Interesting but inconclusive discussion about this here. It seems others first noticed it some time ago. Not an American import, apparently. Does any dialect of British English use it?
He would have certainly spoken Northumbrian Angle ish.
Brian, can't resist reporting that I asked a Geordie (Northumbrian Angle) friend about this last night. He said he was brought up to say 'at the minute' rather than 'at the moment.' Perhaps Bede did the same!
Search
Help
