Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ladies Against Feminism- so shocked I had to click

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
Helen_Davis

Post by Helen_Davis » Sat December 13th, 2008, 4:10 am

[quote=""LCW""]The problem with this argument is that the notion of what is "feminine" is so relative and changes with the times and with different cultures and societies. Because the world is run by men and the feminist movement sought to change the very perceptions of what is feminine and what is masculine. Those who are stuck on the notion that women should be soft spoken, gentle, demure, etc. will obviously think that a woman with a strong personality who is highly opinionated and has ambition is behaving too "masculine".

It is the very idea of what is feminine vs. what is masculine that is slowly changing in our society. The old ideas of appropriate behavior for women are changing in order to allow them to break molds and branch out into territories and careers that were traditionally male. I stongly disagree that a feminist is trying to be masculine. It is just that she wants to challenge the gender sterotypes that have kept women subservient to men for so long.

While we're on the subject, if we want women to be "feminine" maybe next time woman who is beautiful, dresses well, wears make-up, and doesn't man-down her look runs for public office we as a society can judge her based on her ideas, experience, and character rather than her appearance! I'm speaking specifically of Sara Palin. I may vehemently disagree with her politics and think her intellect leaves much to be desired but the sexist treatment from the media pissed me off as much as it did when they were doing it to Hillary Clinton![/quote]
agreed entirely! Gender is socially constructed, IMO.

User avatar
Leo62
Bibliophile
Posts: 1027
Joined: December 2008
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Leo62 » Mon December 15th, 2008, 11:21 am

Ah well. It takes all sorts I guess. :eek:

Way too wordy - who is going to bother to wade through all that text apart from the, er, converted?

If they want to be provocative, they need a better copy-editor ;)

User avatar
princess garnet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1630
Joined: August 2008
Location: Maryland

Post by princess garnet » Tue December 16th, 2008, 1:17 am

Here's their introductory letter:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/starthere.htm

It explains what they are and not, even if you don't agree with it.

User avatar
Christina
Reader
Posts: 167
Joined: November 2008
Location: Yorkshire, England
Contact:

Post by Christina » Fri December 19th, 2008, 2:11 pm

Gender is socially constructed, IMO Hmmm...I am not sure about that. There are differences in the way males and females think and behave. It might be hormonal or some other physical reason (men - in general - are physically stronger; women, I believe, are more intuitive) and I honestly believe it is more than socially constructed. It's true that for centuries the world has been dominated by a masculine way of thinking, and people have been forced into rigid stereo-types. This has been difficult for both sexes and is ridiculous but, at the same time, in trying to make it an even playing field, I sometimes think that the finer aspects of what it means to be feminine, have been lost, as have the finer aspects of what it means to be masculine.

Ladies Against Feminism seems a bit pointless. Why not just call themselves 'Ladies' and do what they want to do, believe what they want to believe? Why do they have to be 'against' something else? Most peculiar!

John Royce
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: December 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

The Problem of Forgetting History

Post by John Royce » Fri December 19th, 2008, 3:27 pm

As an author with a viewpoint, of course, I have some thoughts about this. I think historical fiction is very powerful and important to human progress going forward, for it is the new imperative of the 21st Century that we remember the mistakes of the past and don't repeat them.

The "Ladies Against Feminism" are making such a mistake. There is some kind of forgetting malady that afflicts the human race, which causes a cyclical rinse-and-repeat of mistakes leading to horrors. Societal memory is an Etch-O-Sketch that is erased with the flow of new generations. Historical fiction holds great value if it can illuminate the past and "bring it to life" so that humans can see and remember.

The value of powerful HF is seen, for instance, in the Holocaust remembrances including books and films that have kept this awful history alive for the past decades. Often the accurate fictionalized accounts are the ones that sear society's memory and make the longest lasting impression. (ie, Schindler's List) And we have managed, so far, to avoid having a repeat of that particular disaster. As long as that lesson remains in our consciousness, we have a chance to avoid repeating the mistake.

The "Ladies Against Feminism" don't understand the implications of what they are doing. Having lived in a world where women have autonomy and self-determination, they have grown self-serving individual consciousnesses that now seek to undo the gains won by feminism. They are imagining a world that they would prefer, and further imagining that feminists are standing in the way. If they do get their way, such anti-feminists will have a big surprise when they find out that the "natural order" does not include them having any thoughts at all and that it is brutalizing tribal thugs that will own them, because without liberal ideals the men they so lovingly wish to serve will revert to treating them as troublesome property.

How to engage people who don't have the grace or knowledge to understand that the human animal and civilized man are completely different? How to show the warning of the past?

This is why I believe that gripping, accurately rendered, fact-based, empathetic Historical Fiction has a role in educating society going forward. Maybe even a vital one. It preserves the present and honors our ancestors to let their cries be heard today.
John Royce
Eclipsed by Shadow | The Legend of the Great Horse – Book I of III

71 Prince Street
Boston, MA 02113

User avatar
Ludmilla
Bibliophile
Posts: 1346
Joined: September 2008
Location: Georgia USA

Post by Ludmilla » Fri December 19th, 2008, 5:01 pm

[quote=""Christina""]Gender is socially constructed, IMO Hmmm...I am not sure about that. There are differences in the way males and females think and behave. It might be hormonal or some other physical reason (men - in general - are physically stronger; women, I believe, are more intuitive) and I honestly believe it is more than socially constructed. It's true that for centuries the world has been dominated by a masculine way of thinking, and people have been forced into rigid stereo-types. This has been difficult for both sexes and is ridiculous but, at the same time, in trying to make it an even playing field, I sometimes think that the finer aspects of what it means to be feminine, have been lost, as have the finer aspects of what it means to be masculine.

Ladies Against Feminism seems a bit pointless. Why not just call themselves 'Ladies' and do what they want to do, believe what they want to believe? Why do they have to be 'against' something else? Most peculiar![/quote]

I agree with you, Christina. I tend to think gender is a lot like the nature vs nurture debate. It's a mix of both, and almost impossible to ascertain whether more of one than the other (and probably highly variable).

User avatar
LCW
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 756
Joined: August 2008
Location: Southern California

Post by LCW » Fri December 19th, 2008, 5:24 pm

I personally think that there is a biological baseline for gender. Gender and gender identity is very much influenced by our own individual physiological makeup. But then society and culture shapes gender ideas and ideals as well.

John Royce, you make some excellent points! I love the comparison of our short memories to an etch-a-sketch. That's brilliant! Women today take so much for granted because we don't know what it's like to be owned by our fathers, husbands, or brothers. Or thought of as imperfect versions of men. We don't know what it's like to slaves to our reproductive cycles! So we don't care about these rights that these awful "manly" feminists have fought for. IMO, it's really disprespectful to be so cavalier about what previous generations of women have fought and earned for us by their blood, sweat, and tears. We owe those women a huge debt and we can repay it by appreciating the rights we have and not taking them for granted or worse, allowing them to be infringed upon!
Books to the ceiling,
Books to the sky,
My pile of books is a mile high.
How I love them! How I need them!
I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

John Royce
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: December 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by John Royce » Sat December 20th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Thanks for your response, LCW. It's true that we all take a lot for granted, and don't always appreciate what has gone before.

I think it's even a bit worse, though--it seems like many don't even realize there is anything vital to be learned from the past. Like we are self-contained, without debt to anything. So when ancient truths begin to reassert themselves, such as the wars and economic meltdowns, it is a just whole new day. This is a bad situation: We need to learn from our past, and hold the lessons.

It seems particularly egregious for these "anti-feminist" Ladies, because in the entire history of mankind (see?) there have only been temporary pockets of equality for women. Womankind has been liberated only in the last century, yet already a significant number of women seem to take their freedoms as established and assured.

Personally I think gender has biological origins that became codified in a Might Makes Right world of domination by brawn. If we return to a "Might Makes Right" society, I think all the old injustices will return again. I don't know for sure, and would rather not see it.

One reason I love historical fiction is its potential to educate. HF can bring the past alive and show truth in a way not possible from a textbook. We have to find ways to remember. If you could somehow show those "Ladies against Feminism" some examples of the past, they may reach some different conclusions.
John Royce
Eclipsed by Shadow | The Legend of the Great Horse – Book I of III

71 Prince Street
Boston, MA 02113

User avatar
C.P
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: February 2009

Post by C.P » Tue February 17th, 2009, 8:05 am

Some people just take it too far. I'm a very religious person, but more balanced. Women should have rights.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Tue February 17th, 2009, 8:19 pm

Women do have rights. They're just not recognized by everyone.

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”