To hav3 had enough of Harvey Weinstein on the radio

Iam64 you make some very good points.?

I am not at all sure that everybody does agree with my post though.?

Before your continue you aggressive stance about disability or dyslexia try reading what I actually said. My post was nothing particularly to do with either. Not the first time in reply to your rather weird statement " "I wonder what abut those of us who have never experienced sexual harassment, are we then supposed to think there is something wrong with us?" nor when I replied as you had brought it up.

Why do they have to Lemons? Why do you need so badly to be told you are right?

Because I hope that all on GN are rational, hence my comment about abuse of children.

You really don't change do you Lemons

The argument being presented now Iam64 is that present day feminism has departed so far from the values of first and second wave feminism that it is in danger of returning to Victorian ideas, that women are delicate creatures always in need of protection. The only way to contest this is to maintain the idea we first brought to our actions, that women may suffer, may be abused, but if they remain strong, if they refuse to be victims they can achieve far more.

But only you have said anything like "women are delicate creatures always in need of protection" trisher. No one else has.

The only way to contest this is to maintain the idea we first brought to our actions

Whose idea; whose actions? Who decided "but if they remain strong, if they refuse to be victims they can achieve far more." Are you just saying we must accept that you are right? - again!

Feminists- second wave feminists GGMK2.
You are very good at taking remarks out of context and criticising aren't you? Pity you don't have the ability to understand argument.

Pity you don't have the ability to understand argument.

But I am not a second-wave feminist trisher. I just have my own views. I don't need to join a cult, for those opinions or any others. Such a pity you cannot put over your personal views over and in a way everyone can understand.

If the 'second-wave feminists are the Feminazis I have heard about I now know how they got tagged with that name.

So what I'm taking from your posts, Trisher, is that if women complain about the behaviour of men towards them, they're victims. So in order to be strong they must say nothing?

First wave feminists were the suffragettes GGMK2 1905-1914
Second wave were 1960s,70s
Present ones are sometimes called post modern.

No SueDonim the idea is you complain but then you go on to act and to refuse to be seen as a victim, because labelling yourself as a victim actually gives more power to your abuser.

The feminist movement, first second or current isn't one thing is it. There have always been divisions. It's generally been dominated by white women, who have benefited from more privileged lives. I have to add, I was active in various women's movement activities throughout the 1970's and 1980's. I was usually seen as the party feminist in my working life. I didn't understand the reference to the argument being presented being that present day feminism has departed so much from its origins, its in danger of returning to Victorian ideas, that women are always in need of protection. If we're to have a debate on feminism, maybe that should take place on the feminist forum, rather than introduce it in that kind of way into this discussion.

The feminist movement has aways been split into various factions with their equally strong views on how things should be. This discussion is about a predatory man, who is alleged by numerous women to have behaved appallingly in a sexual manner towards them. They are beginning to speak out. Are we to silence them because they have the temerity to work in La La Land, to do work we see as beneath us, to wear makeup and have manicures, how very dare they. The argument seems to be reduced to suggested that they somehow asked to be victims because of the way they dress. That's an argument I believed all feminists rejected many years ago.

I never suggested anything about dress Iam 64 I did discuss how the values of Hollywood impact on behaviour and how that makes things complicated. I've no desire to silence anyone. I would prefer it if people reserved judgement until the law has taken its course.
I brought feminism into it because there has been a great deal of criticism of my comments. I can post the link to the book that considers that modern day feminism is possibly becoming Victorian if you would like.
I agree there have always been factions, but the concept of a woman as standing strong and standing tall underpinned much of the philosophy.

No the suffragettes were the suffragettes. They didn't claim to be feminists so I don't see how it can be claimed for them.

A feminist does not oppress other women but is both a supporter of the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men (we can probably all still remember that) and a supporter of women on that woman's basis of need- not just on their own terms.

I never met a feminist who had views like yours and don't think they were the views of the 60s or 70s feminists I mixed with. I think you are one on your own and I think your views - which seem to comprise telling women what to think and do - are as sexist and oppressive as any man's ever has been.

Isn't that what these women have done, Trisher? They've taken action, stood up to be counted. I don't see that as labelling youself a victim.

trisher You quoted Mandy Hale ("Strong women don't play victim, don't make themselves look pitiful and don't point fingers. They stand and deal")

She has made her money out of being a sort of relationship guru to single women. Her books are aimed specifically at that market and, from what I have seen, her philosophical wanderings could hardly be described as profound, eg:

"Keep your heels, head and standards high"

I doubt that her statement about victims was intended to encompass women who have been intimidated, sexually assaulted or raped, but if it does I think it is an unworthy one and it sends out completely the wrong message to women and men.

Men are more likely to be murdered or victims of violence and can be the victims of rape too, but it is not women who commit these crimes. Nor do statistics show that two men a week are murdered by their female partners.

It is, in my view, completely unacceptable to say that a woman who feels she will be mistreated at work unless she yields to the sexual demands of her male boss, or is at risk of being assaulted, should leave her employment.

I can't believe some people still use the term "easy lay"

Try Betty Friedman- founding feminist and author-
"transcend sexual politics and anger against men to express a new vision of family and community. We must go from wallowing in the victim's state to mobilising the new power of women and men for a larger political agenda on the priorities of life"
If you are interested read
books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BiEP-j9rh8AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=60s+feminists+and+victims&ots=tw1aKErnTi&sig=13Cpy5hVkH3ZvVYdRs6bCRIXQy0#v=onepage&q=60s%20feminists%20and%20victims&f=false
It basically states how women who present differing views about harassment will be dismissed, harangued and vilified for their views

And the suffragettes wanted the vote, fair treatment for women workers, equal wages for equal work, proper care for poor and women and children, and they took direct action. Which was why feminists in the 60s gave them the name first wave feminists. It's widely used by historians and academics, but never mind them if GGMK2 says they weren't of course they weren't.

Eleothan it's a nice statement. Maybe some of the messages aren't but everyone is entitled to one good saying surely.

trisher I have only quickly read to page 8 of the link re Betty Friedan that you provided.

Your dislike of what you believe to be the trend to encourage women to see themselves as "victims" seems to largely reflected in your link which, in turn, gives a particular view of the stance of certain feminists and the impact on society as a whole, which views I'm sure would not be universally accepted.

I do not agree with many of the statements made in the link and, in any event, wonder if the views of career/academic feminists like Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinhem, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett et al, are a reference point for most women anyway. My guess is that the majority of women have very little knowledge of the particular views of any of these women or the "branch" of feminism that they represent.

The link says that the feminism of the 50s and 60s (what the article describes as "liberal feminism") changed in subsequent years to a more strident form of feminism, described as "gender feminism". This allegedly sees women as victims of patriarchy who "must be protected from making wrong choices" and which concentrates on the "politics of revenge". Frankly, I do not recognise this form of feminism. There may well be a few women who would put forward this view but I certainly don't think it is a mainstream one.

As in any movement, there are disagreements regarding issues like access to abortion, pornography, prostitution, equality legislation, etc., etc., and I think it is natural and healthy that there are strong debates on these important issues.

It was stated that modern feminism is primarily an ideology propagated by the left, with an emphasis on exploitation, and gender/class oppression - and had gone from "liberalism to political correctness - from a demand for equality to a demand for privilege".

Well, if such a demand ever existed (and I don't believe it did or does), it certainly hasn't been fulfilled has it? In every respect in public life there are significantly fewer women represented at high levels. Added to that, women are more likely to be paid significantly less than men for doing very similar jobs, to be living in poverty in old age and to be the (often hidden) victims of domestic/sexual violence.

The linked article was also a strong critique of "political correctness" which it claims deems western civilisation to be sexist and racist. My view is that women are, at varying degrees, discriminated against in all areas of the world and equal treatment hasn't even been achieved, let alone privileged treatment.

From what I have briefly read - and I know very little about the feminist movement - Friedan seemed like a heck of a mixed-up character to me.

Her original, and most influential, book The Feminine Mystique described the role of homemaker as "stifling". She asserted that women were as capable as men for any type of work or career path. She called a women's strike for equality. She helped to de-rail the nomination of an anti-feminist and racist candidate. She was pivotal in allowing women more access to abortion.

However, in later years she took issue with what she called "gender feminists", admitted to being "uncomfortable about homosexuality", studiously ignored lesbians, and decided there was too much focus on issues like abortion, rape and pornography. In her autobiography she stated that her former husband had beaten her regularfly throughout their marriage. He denied it and she later retracted it, saying "We fought a lot and he was bigger than me". So we will never know whether her own personal life reflected her public opinions but, either way, it seems that she wasn't averse to "finger pointing" or the "playing victim" that she was so critical of.

Thanks for this Eloethan, your summary and analysis reflects my experience of being active within the women's movement in the UK from the late 60's to the mid 80's. Some good work towards setting up the early women's refuges, support for young women fleeing domestic abuse in their family of origin and so on took place. Alongside that, there were intense and often painful disagreements about what the correct line should be on any issue. There was the period when we were all to either be lesbians or declare ourselves political lesbians. The endless debates about whether boy children could attend women's events at all and certainly after the age of 7.
Many hard working women were alienated by this when their focus had been more on equality within the work place, highlighting the extent of domestic abuse women and children were experiencing etc. I was one of the many who left and set up groups where we could explore our work with a feminist perspective. Much more productive in my experience.

I doubt that feminism, in all its various modes, is relevant when faced with the unexpected situations these women faced. They either felt able to say ‘Watch you take a shower? No thanks I’ll pass on that you randy old goat’ or not.

Women aren't in need of "constant protection," but we do need to be treated with respect and dignity, just as men do. The "casting couch" needs to be discarded, imo, and women need to feel comfortable and safe saying, "No. I'd rather be judged on my talent, thank you very much!'

Maybe all the focus on Weinstein will raise consciousness and lead to necessary changes. If not, then it's just sensationalism.