Feminism in News and Popular Media

[Allison W]

Femmadian: Indeed we are allowed to disagree, and for all that there are concerns that we actually do share, I'm going to invoke exactly that right here. We don't agree and aren't going to.

Originally Posted by Kobi

Even tho I have been unable to track down the sex of the developer(s), what I see in their "explanation" is a lot of man speak i.e. believe our intent as opposed to what we actually developed.

He's a man, though he's not the only person on the writing team, and it does include a trans woman. (Had she been given more control over the publicity, this might have gone better.)

Originally Posted by Kobi

I also see a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is, thus the portrayal of a feminist society gone bad looks just like the patriarchy i.e. same power dynamics, same oppression, same violence, same isms.

I'm still pretty sure that the conspiracy at the top is a metaphor for patriarchy, but obviously I can't make anyone agree with me on that.

Originally Posted by Kobi

And, the developers stated goal is about the struggle for gender identity and empowerment....which apparently can only be achieved thru violence.

To me, this is just the same crap, different game.

I'm resisting the urge to get into a dissertation about how the fact that men have been permitted almost sole ownership of violence is what's enabled patriarchy to run rampant throughout virtually every society and that nothing short of women's violence will change that, but pacifism is fashionable and so I don't really expect a lot of agreement.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Allison W

I'm resisting the urge to get into a dissertation about how the fact that men have been permitted almost sole ownership of violence is what's enabled patriarchy to run rampant throughout virtually every society and that nothing short of women's violence will change that, but pacifism is fashionable and so I don't really expect a lot of agreement.

Can you explain this , minus the dissertation? Not sure what this actually says.

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Can you explain this , minus the dissertation? Not sure what this actually says.

I get this warm and fuzzy feeling in my chest whenever I hear of a woman who beat the shit out of a man who thought he could victimise her because he thought violence belonged to him and not her and learned otherwise.

I suppose if I wanted to put it in more academic terms, I could say that I think a lot of the fundamental power imbalance between men and women in our society is that women are taught that they don't own violence (whereas men are taught that they do own it), and that nothing else will fix that fundamental power imbalance until women get that same tacit message that they own their share of the use of force, because at the end of the day, whether it's an "acceptable" form of power or not, it is absolutely a form of power. Peace, on the other hand, is pleasant, and non-threatening, and exactly what the patriarchy expects of women. It might be a controversial opinion, but I've stated it more than once on these fora.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Allison W

I get this warm and fuzzy feeling in my chest whenever I hear of a woman who beat the shit out of a man who thought he could victimise her because he thought violence belonged to him and not her and learned otherwise.

I suppose if I wanted to put it in more academic terms, I could say that I think a lot of the fundamental power imbalance between men and women in our society is that women are taught that they don't own violence (whereas men are taught that they do own it), and that nothing else will fix that fundamental power imbalance until women get that same tacit message that they own their share of the use of force, because at the end of the day, whether it's an "acceptable" form of power or not, it is absolutely a form of power. Peace, on the other hand, is pleasant, and non-threatening, and exactly what the patriarchy expects of women. It might be a controversial opinion, but I've stated it more than once on these fora.

Ahhh ok, now I am following your train of thought. This explains why we disagree on the methodology and message of this game. It also explains why this was topic was put in the feminism thread as opposed to the misogyny and sexism thread.

As a point of reference, feminism is about the eradication of power, control, and violence which are the hallmarks of a patriarchal framework and mindset.

And, feminists tend to get warm and fuzzy feelings from justice, not violence.

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ahhh ok, now I am following your train of thought. This explains why we disagree on the methodology and message of this game. It also explains why this was topic was put in the feminism thread as opposed to the misogyny and sexism thread.

As a point of reference, feminism is about the eradication of power, control, and violence which are the hallmarks of a patriarchal framework and mindset.

And, feminists tend to get warm and fuzzy feelings from justice, not violence.

I appreciate that this particular line of discussion has remained civil (for some values of civil, I suppose), but I have absolutely no faith in it ever being remotely feasible to completely eradicate power, control, and violence. They can be reduced, they can be managed, they can be distributed in patterns that result in fewer people getting ground in the gears, but humans are still animals. Endurance predators, to be specific, with some degree of predator instincts inherent to us. Good is possible, better is possible, but perfect just isn't an option. I'm not about to turn down "better" because it wasn't the "perfect" I wanted. Perfect is a pipe dream and that way lies madness.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't presume to define your brand of feminism as the only one. I know you don't care for liberalism any more than I care for radicalism, but that was kind of patronising.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Allison W

I appreciate that this particular line of discussion has remained civil (for some values of civil, I suppose), but I have absolutely no faith in it ever being remotely feasible to completely eradicate power, control, and violence. They can be reduced, they can be managed, they can be distributed in patterns that result in fewer people getting ground in the gears, but humans are still animals. Endurance predators, to be specific, with some degree of predator instincts inherent to us. Good is possible, better is possible, but perfect just isn't an option, and be mindful that you don't turn down a better world because it wasn't the perfect world you wanted.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't presume to define your brand of feminism as the only one. I know you don't care for liberalism any more than I care for radicalism, but that was kind of patronising.

Obviously, we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I dont see people as predatory animals in an endurance contest. To me, thinking that way means humans are slaves to animalistic impulses and incapable of change. To me, this is a hopelessness about human nature and the human condition.

My beliefs are contrary to that. I believe in people. I believe human beings have the capacity of higher levels of thought, feeling, reasoning, leading to the capacity to change. I have hope.

We can agree to disagree on that point.

The basic tenets of feminism have not changed since their inception. What I am speaking to has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, or radical ideology.

We can also agree to disagree on this.

Have a good evening.

[Kobi]

Robin Morgan is an author, activist and feminist. She is also a co-founder, with Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda, of the Women's Media Center

I know, I know, TIME’s annual word-banning poll is meant as a joke, and this year’s inclusion of the word feminist wasn’t an attempt to end a movement. But as a writer — and feminist who naturally has no sense of humor — banning words feels, well, uncomfortable. The fault lies in the usage or overusage, not the word — even dumb or faddish words.

Feminist is neither of those. Nevertheless, I once loathed it. In 1968, while organizing the first protest against the Miss America Pageant, I called myself a “women’s liberationist,” because “feminist” seemed so 19th century: ladies scooting around in hoop skirts with ringlet curls cascading over their ears!

What an ignoramus I was. But school hadn’t taught me who they really were, and the media hadn’t either. We Americans forget or rewrite even our recent history, and accomplishments of any group not pale and male have tended to get downplayed or erased — one reason why Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and I founded the Women’s Media Center: to make women visible and powerful in media.

No, it took assembling and researching my anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful to teach me about the word feminism. I had no clue that feminists had been a major (or leading) presence in every social-justice movement in the U.S. time line: the revolutionary war, the campaigns to abolish slavery, debtors’ prisons and sweatshops; mobilizations for suffrage, prison reform, equal credit; fights to establish social security, unions, universal childhood education, halfway houses, free libraries; plus the environmentalism, antiwar and peace movements. And more. By 1970, I was a feminist.

Throughout that decade, feminism was targeted for ridicule. Here’s how it plays: first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then prosecute you, then try to co-opt you, then — once you win — they claim they gave you your rights: after a century of women organizing, protesting, being jailed, going on hunger strikes and being brutally force-fed, “they” gave women the vote.

We outlasted being a joke only to find our adversaries had repositioned “feminist” as synonymous with “lesbian” — therefore oooh, “dangerous.” These days — given recent wins toward marriage equality and the end of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military, not to mention the popularity of Orange Is the New Black — it’s strange to recall how, in the ’70s, that connotation scared many heterosexual women away from claiming the word feminist. But at least it gave birth to a witty button of which I’ve always been especially fond: “How dare you assume I’m straight?!”

Yet in the 1980s the word was still being avoided. You’d hear maddening contradictions like “I’m no feminist, but …” after which feminist statements would pour from the speaker’s mouth. Meanwhile, women’s-rights activists of color preferred culturally organic versions: womanist among African Americans, mujerista among Latinas. I began using feminisms to more accurately depict and affirm such a richness of constituencies. Furthermore, those of us working in the global women’s movement found it fitting to celebrate what I termed a “multiplicity of feminisms.”

No matter the name, the movement kept growing. Along the way, the word absorbed the identity politics of the 1980s and ’90s, ergo cultural feminism, radical feminism, liberal/reform feminism, electoral feminism, academic feminism, ecofeminism, lesbian feminism, Marxist feminism, socialist feminism — and at times hybrids of the above.

Flash-forward to today when, despite predictions to the contrary, young women are furiously active online and off, and are adopting “the F word” with far greater ease and rapidity than previous feminists. Women of color have embraced the words feminism and feminist as their own, along with women all over the world, including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

As we move into 2015, feminism is suddenly hot; celebrities want to identify with it. While such irony makes me smile wryly, I know we live in a celebrity culture and this brings more attention to issues like equal pay, full reproductive rights, and ending violence against women. I also know that sincere women (and men of conscience), celebs or not, will stay with the word and what it stands for. Others will just peel off when the next flavor of the month comes along.

Either way, the inexorable forward trajectory of this global movement persists, powered by women in Nepal’s rice paddies fighting for literacy rights; women in Kenya’s Green Belt Movement planting trees for microbusiness and the environment; Texas housewives in solidarity with immigrant women to bring and keep families together; and survivors speaking out about prostitution not being “sex work” or “just another job,” but a human-rights violation. From boardroom to Planned Parenthood clinic, this is feminism.

The dictionary definition is simple: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Anyone who can’t support something that commonsensical and fair is part of a vanishing breed: well over half of all American women and more than 30% of American men approve of the word — the percentages running even higher in communities of color and internationally.

But I confess that for me feminism means something more profound. It means freeing a political force: the power, energy and intelligence of half the human species hitherto ignored or silenced. More than any other time in history, that force is needed to save this imperiled blue planet. Feminism, for me, is the politics of the 21st century.

http://time.com/3588846/time-apologi...-robin-morgan/