1) Equality of the sexes (equal rights etc.)

2) Improving the life and status of women

The interesting part, from a male perspective, is the prioritization of these two. What do the feminists do, if the two goals contradict?

How do you personally view the priorities of these goals?

a) Equality is more important

b) Improving the life and status of women is more important

I believe some feminists would answer that "There is no way that the two goals could contradict". However, let us assume that there could be such a case. Let us think theoretically.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

1. Which is more important, 'formal equality' or 'improving women's life and status', if the two of these contradict?

2. Which is more important, 'substantive equality' or 'improving women's life and status', if the two of these contradict?

A good explanation of why "improving women's life and status" is more important than formal equality is illustrated here.

You are saying that improving women's life and status is more important than formal equality, as formal equality may be just a "disguise" for the actual substantive inequality. I generally agree with that.

However, I want to show you a theoretical case in which substantive equality and improving women's status contradict: Let us assume a country in which substantive equality has been reached. In such a case, which do you consider more important: Keeping up with the substantive equality or improving women's status in respect to men (which would lead to the oppression of men)?

Another example, which is a bit less theoretical:
Let us assume a country in which there is no wage discrimination, about 50% of all managers and decision makers female, a female president and excellent laws protecting the equality of the sexes on the labour market. Men and women use their right for the maternity/paternity leave with relatively similar numbers. However, there is one area of life (area A) in which women are slightly discriminated. Yet, there is an other area in life (area B) in which men are slightly discriminated.

In this kind of situation, the idea of improving women's status may contradict with the idea of substantive equality: For example, if the state has a certain budget for equality purposes, allocating all of the money to sector A would be an act of trying to improve women's lives, but simultaneously, it would be an act that takes the country away from an substantially equal society.

Which will you prioritize in that kind of a situation? Or, do you deny the possibility that such a country and situation would ever exist? Or, are you telling that such a world is so far away that you need not waist your time with such unnecessary ethical considerations?

I believe that we are in such a situation in Finland after a couple of decades. I am curious to hear, whether the feminists will still be fighting to improve women's status (at the cost of men) after substantive equality has been reached.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

Your point about equality needs to be challenged. Feminism has not been about notions of equality for at least a decade and a half. Equality to whom? When women in the early 70s talked about equality, they were speaking as middle class white women and what they meant was, they were paid less in the workforce than men who were doing the same jobs.

Slowly, over time, equal pay was reached, although I doubt it is across the board, even if we just stick to Canada. Then came the notion of jobs that are done primarily by women, such as paid child care, nursing, various kinds of domestic labour. Then the politic was "equal pay for work of equal value", which had the very difficult task of trying to measure, in dollar signs, the value of women's work that had no male equivalent.

Both these tactics were successful in particular ways, and flawed in very specific ways.

In a relative sense, equality is not equal.

When (white middle class) women say they want to be equal with "men" they don't mean "poor men of colour with jobs that require physical labour". They mean white men with well-paying white collar jobs.

The entire discourse around equality is thus flawed, as if feminism only used women's status in relation to men, we would have become stuck in a narrow and ultimately non-changing world.

I don't want there to be the same number of women CEOs as men, with complete racially diverse representation. CEOs are part of the problem. I don't want everyone to have equal access to purchase all the SUVs they want. You see where this logic takes us?

In more recent times, within feminist and other social movements, there is talk of equity, of justice, and of righting past wrongs as much as possible, and in revolutionizing how we actually conduct ourselves and our society. This is the feminism that I am a part of.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

I understand some points you made but still, equality (or equity or substantive equality) is such a big value to me that I get somewhat angry when I notice some people do not share the same value with me.

quote:

---

Your point about equality needs to be challenged.

---

Do you know my point about equality? If you know, how does my point need to be challenged?

quote:

---

Feminism has not been about notions of equality for at least a decade and a half.

---

That is why I am suspicious towards the modern form of feminism. To me equality is the opposite of discrimination and oppression. Therefore everybody, who does not value equality is an active or passive proponent of inequality, discrimination and oppression.

If feminists try to loose maximal amount of supporters, then I assume, the idea of not considering equality important, is a good one. It will surely get people cautious and alert. It will be a good way of building the stereotype of the "feminazis". (I say this as I do not want people to consider feminism a bad ideology).

quote:

---

Equality to whom?

---

Equality of men and women, in the same fashion as black and white are equal and should be equal. In the same fashion as nobles and common folk are equal, as noted during the French revolution and in the US constitution.

quote:

---

When women in the early 70s talked about equality...

---

If women in the early 70s have talked about equality in some kind of an unwise manner, why should we drop the concept of equality altogether? That is similar logic as saying that "Some men in the 80s understood justice in an unwise manner. Therefore, we do not need justice any longer".

Why don't you just improve your definition of equality between the sexes instead of dropping the concept and the goal altogether?

How about defining "substantive equality" or "equity" so that they could become our common values and goals?

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

why don't you tell me as woman what feminism should be about... how I should frame it...the arguments I should make and the battles I should be part of

quote:

---

Originally posted by SosiologiR:
Feminism comes in various forms. Therefore, we may not define the goal of feminism in such a fashion that would suit all feminist approaches. However, we may distinguish the following primary goals behind most of the feminist branches:

1) Equality of the sexes (equal rights etc.)

2) Improving the life and status of women

The interesting part, from a male perspective, is the prioritization of these two. What do the feminists do, if the two goals contradict?

How do you personally view the priorities of these goals?

a) Equality is more important

b) Improving the life and status of women is more important

I believe some feminists would answer that "There is no way that the two goals could contradict". However, let us assume that there could be such a case. Let us think theoretically.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
why don't you tell me as woman what feminism should be about... how I should frame it...the arguments I should make and the battles I should be part of

---

I am asking you because I want to hear your answer. If I do not like your answer I have the right to disagree.

quote:

---

cause poor little me needs your big strong maleness to tell me what to do.

---

I am not a big strong male. You do not need my big strong maleness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spiritbear:
From a male perspective you're an asshole. If you eat with with a fork is one tine more important than another?

---

Glad that you are a female, so that you do not consider me an asshole

why do I meet hostility when I ask, whether feminists value the equality of the sexes - or the "substantive equality" - or equity?

Why do you consider discussion of the fundamental goals of feminism as crap?

I would like to participate in building such feminism that views men and women equal. A form of feminism that considers all kind of oppression, discrimination and inequality as harmful - no matter the sex.

In some discussion forums some very wise and nice feminists have told me that feminism is an ideology for equality. They tell me that feminism is not just fighting to improve women's life (at the cost of men). They are telling me that also men can be feminists and that the removal of the "patriarchal ideology" may also benefit men.

- Joan Scott (1988)
- Zillah Eisenstein (1988)

These authors are "revisionists" as they do not consider it necessary to drop the concept of equality altogether.

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
Clearly you don't see how women seeking to achieve substantive equality can't merely rely on formal equality to bring it about.

---

I do see the importance of substantive equality. Yet, the concept would require some additional clarification.

To me substantive equality sounds like formal equality which has been added with the idea that men and women are truly equally valuable.

If my huch on this is correct, I see substantive equality as a very valuable thing. Still, that brings back the original question: Which is more important to feminists:

1) Substantive equality or
2) Improving the life and status of women

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
I do not think a discussion of the fundamental goals is crap.

---

I thank you for that.

quote:

---

I think discussing social equity and justice as zero-sum equations is pointless and needlessly distracting, and your approach of discussing equality like it was air temperature is bound to support your hypothesis: "Look! The equality index shows only 49% equality for men! The tables have turned! Women are now the oppressors!"

---

Please give me a good definition of "substantive equality". After that we may study the degree of substantive equality that has been reached.

Do you consider all equality indexes as crap? For example, this one?

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gender_gap.pdf

If you say that this index is ok, do you oppose the idea that the researchers created a similar index for the discrimination against men? Why would you consider statistical pro-women index a good thing and a statistical pro-men index a bad thing?

quote:

---

Clearly you don't see how women seeking to achieve substantive equality can't merely rely on formal equality to bring it about. That's the crap part.

---

Actually I do. However, the substantive equality concept should be defined clearly. Otherwise it becomes a "fuzz-word" that may be interpreted in any way that promotes someone's political agenda.