Why Feminism Isn't Taking Off In Non-Western Countries - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14939380
The countries where feminism is failing to gain traction are many and diverse. As such, the answer to this question is probably not specific to a given country (as liberals who analyze this issue tend to suggest) but rather it must be something shared by all of these countries, and/or something to do with feminism itself.

A common argument against feminism is that women are typically happier not being a feminist; being able to live out traditional gender roles seems to be the most consistent route to happiness.

The explanation for the international failure of feminism that I will suggest here is, in order for a woman to not appreciate the happiness that a traditional gender role can bring, in lieu of having a job, a woman must necessarily not understand what the downsides of this "job" thing are.

The reason I say this is because unlike in the west recently, in many non-western countries the women have long been and continue to be forced to do petty manual labor of many types. So they understand that being a housewife is better than that. In contrast, the west outsourced most petty manual labor to minorities instead of having the women do it. A generation after this happened, many women developed completely rose-tinted perceptions of what having a job and a boss is like and only then was modern feminism born in the west.

Going up to a woman in India or China who has been lugging packages around all day, or farming, or working on a factory assembly line, etc. and telling her she should empower herself by seeking a job instead of being a housewife gets a blank look and rightfully so. It's impossible to convince people like this that being a housewife is worse than what their actual lives are like.

It probably also bears mentioning that since the conditions which allow these narcissistic delusions to arise ultimately requires the labor of minorities, both locally and abroad, it is fundamentally impossible at this point in time for the feminist delusion to spread to other countries because those are the places where women are doing these forms of petty manual labor jobs. In other words, without the conditions that undermine feminism in some places, it cannot exist in the upper-class west.
#14939389
I don't think you've delved into the subject enough to have anyone accept on the face of it that the woman question hasn't found significance in organized movements in non-western countries.
Particually because even in western countries, the real world possibility of a feminist/womens movement is based in women being forced into paid work and often exploited.
Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective By Pamela Paxton, Melanie M. Hughes
ECONOMIC POWER
In most societies, women's work has long been overlooked or underestimated. Although many ofen think that throughout history men have been the workers while women have been the mothers and wives, anthrpological research indicates that among early civilizations women were the primary labor force in teh vast majority of gathering and cultivating societies (Murdock 1967; cited from Blumberg 1984). Even today, statistics on labor tend to ignore the work of poor rural women (Donahoe 1999). Therefore, it is clear that women's labor alone is not sufficient to give them economic power. Specifically, economic power is based in control over the means of production and control over the allocation of surplus. It is control over surplus (in money, goods, land, or the labor of others) that leads individuals to have resources to pursue and acquire political power. So though women's level of labor force participation or income may be important, gender stratification theorists argue that it is control over labor or income that matters (Blumberg 1984; Chafetz 1984). For example, Staudt (1986) explained that although women in Africa have control over money within their households, they cannot own land, putting them at a serious economic disadvantage compared with men in that society.

Although economic power does not guarantee that women will gain formal political power, gender stratification researchers argue strongly that women's economic power must precede political power. For example, according to Rae Lesser Blumberg (1984), a power hierarchy exists - political power rests at the top, and other types of power, such as economic power, appear below. Achievement of power at the lower levels of power, such as in the labour force, must occur before power can be reached at the next highest level (cited from Paxton 1997)> IN an ethnographic analysis of 61 preindustrial societies, Blumberg (1984) found only one instance in which women had significant political input without autonomous economic power. (The exceptional example was the Mende of Liberia. Although the women did not do much of the productive labor, they were organized in a secret society and used their clout to influence the political sphere.)


And you should also endevor to make a convincing case for satisfaction for women based in their traditional gender roles controlled for other factors that might interfere with it being a clear distinction between working or not.
Generally my impression of your view of what constitutes feminism seems likely narrow both in what constitutes it as well as it's historically origins and trajectory.
It's not as if women in the west previously weren't without their unpaid work and the same idealization of the housewife, yet feminism objectified itself in a liberal form (there were socialist/worker variants who have along with the general movements been sidelined and died down).
I guess your idea of feminism is upper class academics isolated from working women, to which I wonder how much you have engaged yourself in looking at such works as opposed to perhaps depictions in mainstream or social media rendering your concept of what feminism is and has been rather poor.
#14939392
He literally brought up women's earning power as a basis for their disregard of feminism. So the wage gap imposed on them by industries in their countries that push them into traditional roles are now Feminism's fault. It seems to me that in Blue Puppy's fantasy women who earned a living wage would reject traditional gender roles and that their only reason for clinging to them is economic necessity. That's not a particularly powerful argument for traditional gender roles being natural or that women prefer them.
#14939419
Wellsy wrote:I don't think you've delved into the subject enough to have anyone accept on the face of it that the woman question hasn't found significance in organized movements in non-western countries.
Particually because even in western countries, the real world possibility of a feminist/womens movement is based in women being forced into paid work and often exploited.
Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective By Pamela Paxton, Melanie M. Hughes


And you should also endevor to make a convincing case for satisfaction for women based in their traditional gender roles controlled for other factors that might interfere with it being a clear distinction between working or not.
Generally my impression of your view of what constitutes feminism seems likely narrow both in what constitutes it as well as it's historically origins and trajectory.
It's not as if women in the west previously weren't without their unpaid work and the same idealization of the housewife, yet feminism objectified itself in a liberal form (there were socialist/worker variants who have along with the general movements been sidelined and died down).
I guess your idea of feminism is upper class academics isolated from working women, to which I wonder how much you have engaged yourself in looking at such works as opposed to perhaps depictions in mainstream or social media rendering your concept of what feminism is and has been rather poor.

Thanks for your post but you're literally citing things as old as 1967 (the most recent one appears to be 1999) to make an argument about modern feminism in 2018. I think you're also hedging towards conflating modern western feminism with things like women trying to get the vote, I believe no one is truly convinced by that kind of conflation today.

Red_Army wrote:He literally brought up women's earning power as a basis for their disregard of feminism. So the wage gap imposed on them by industries in their countries that push them into traditional roles are now Feminism's fault. It seems to me that in Blue Puppy's fantasy women who earned a living wage would reject traditional gender roles and that their only reason for clinging to them is economic necessity. That's not a particularly powerful argument for traditional gender roles being natural or that women prefer them.

There's a lot of things wrong with this post.

First, you make the jump from the nature of labor to "earning power" which by itself is not that much of a leap, but then you compound it by bringing up the myth of the wage gap which I definitely didn't discuss, then you compound it further by stating that the wage gap will "push" women into traditional gender roles. And here is where you are most wrong.

Living out traditional gender roles (which I'm defining here as being a housewife, since that's how affluent western people view traditional gender roles) is a luxury for most people, not something that women get "pushed" into because they're not making enough money. When you're not making enough money, you have to work more. Let that sink in. I'm amazed that you apparently haven't noticed this.

The only places where this isn't true is in places where the economy is strictly not developed enough to offer women jobs and in places like that, even discussing feminism is pointless because nothing remotely resembling modern western feminism can physically exist.

[Bulaba note: double posts merged]
#14939421
There's a much larger irony here in that you are complaining about Wellsy citing an article from the 60s and saying that's too old, while you are literally championing thousands-year-old things while arguing those thousands-year-old ways of life should apply to us today.

In addition to being oblivious to that sort of thing, the OP's argument is based on emotion. You feel that most people are happy with traditional gender roles dating back thousands of years before modern society provided us with easy alternatives to living like that. The clearest issue with that emotional line of argument is that for educated women in the West, most of them are not going to be happy if someone took away their choices and told them they couldn't work and needed to behave like second-class citizens with no parity in the labor force or at home.

That's akin to saying people should tell @Hong Wu in the street he shouldn't have the same rights as white Americans because he's Asian, and he would be happier being less of a person than white people because Asians historically mattered less in the US, and they are clearly happier to live like that, right? Something tells me you wouldn't like that arrangement, Hong Wu, and the fact you think women would like the arrangement you argue for makes it clear that RA is right. :lol:
#14939423
Just because feminism is different in different cultures does not mean that it isn't expanding and taking off in Non-Western countries. Just because it's not taking the same form as what happened in the West, does not mean it isn't there.

It's taking off in Thailand, for one thing. It's got a long ways to go, but you can see things changing, even now. The no-fault divorce is a recent thing in Thailand, and that was on of the big changes to feminism in the West.
#14939425
Your posts are rambling and hard to follow, but the crux is such: women in the countries you describe are not making enough money because of capitalism. The labor standards in certain nations combined with international corporations wanting to save money on labor are the reason women are not making enough money and have to work more. This has nothing to do with feminism. Of course women will choose to be an affluent housewife in this situation. Almost anyone would choose to be affluent if that was an easy choice.
#14939427
Godstud wrote:Just because feminism is different in different cultures does not mean that it isn't expanding and taking off in Non-Western countries. Just because it's not taking the same form as what happened in the West, does not mean it isn't there.

It's taking off in Thailand, for one thing. It's got a long ways to go, but you can see things changing, even now. The no-fault divorce is a recent thing in Thailand, and that was on of the big changes to feminism in the West.

IMHO, using the same term for different things doesn't make them the same thing. That's called narrative building. If "feminists" in one time or place and feminists in another time or place are for completely different things, that makes them different. The only exception to this is if they have the potential to merge and start working towards the same goals, which is what I am arguing is not going to happen.

Bulaba Jones wrote:The clearest issue with that emotional line of argument is that for educated women in the West, most of them are not going to be happy if someone took away their choices and told them they couldn't work and needed to behave like second-class citizens with no parity in the labor force or at home.

No one is doing this except for some Muslims. The argument on the right isn't that women shouldn't be allowed to work, it's that women are foolish to desire feminism as it currently exists.
#14939431
@Hong Wu Feminists are for the same thing. Equality. The methods to get there are varied, however. Different cultures deem differing things to be more important, and some take them at a different pace.
#14939433
Godstud wrote:@Hong Wu Feminists are for the same thing. Equality. The methods to get there are varied, however. Different cultures deem differing things to be more important, and some take them at a different pace.


What some Feminists believe is equality is different to others. For example noted feminist Germaine Greer strongly believes Transexuals should not be considered women at all and that this is unfair and unequal to natural women who will get beaten in "all female" sports by "former men".

Do you think other feminists agree with her on equality? No... Of cause not.
#14939442
"No... of course not.", not cause.

Sorry- you've done it a bunch of times and it's simply flat out WRONG. The grammar nazi in me simply took over.

"Of course not" is the normal negative form of "of course." You'd have to think hard and stretch the imagination to find a way to use "of course no." You could come up with something, but that would still not be the normal way of saying "of course" in the negative.

I do agree with you, and Feminism takes different forms, depending on who you speak to. Equality of opportunity is the general rule, however.
#14939451
:lol: Only a misogynist would say such a colossally stupid thing. :lol:

The whole Western world has benefited from feminism.

Here's something to mull over:
23 ways feminism has made the world a better place for men
1. It gave our economy a huge, long-lasting boost.
2. It helped men achieve better relationships and more satisfying sex.
3. It successfully overturned laws that discriminate against men.
4. It made life a little easier for single men.
5. It expanded the possibility of more sexy time opportunities.
6. It gave men more reproductive control through abortion legalization.
7. It triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men.
8. It gave men some well-deserved time off from work.
9. It helped male survivors of violence in the military pursue justice.
10. It ensured that the burden of war doesn't only fall on male shoulders.
11. It made the struggle for civil rights a reality.
12. It kept prisons safer for male inmates.
13. It enabled men to spend more time with their children.
14. It expanded the definition of hate crimes to include all identities.
15. It helped shatter stereotypes about HIV/AIDS patients.
16. It ensured that men get the vital reproductive health services.
17. It built a more inclusive world, one feminist celebrity at a time.
18. It protected men's precious marbles during sports.
19. It made men's lives better and happier.
20. It demanded that the media change its representation of men.
21. It fought for men's right to become nurses and teachers.
22. It encouraged men to rethink outdated masculinity standards.
23. It pushed for immigration reform to help countless American families.
https://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways- ... .bbCS5u8Pj

Even Conservatives see the value:

On the Importance of Feminism — For Everyone
Women’s rights and dignity should not be a partisan question.


Of course, the Incels and MGTOWs might not see these as better, but who cares about those ingrates?
Last edited by Godstud on 14 Aug 2018 13:47, edited 1 time in total.
#14939454
You talk like you hate women, so maybe that's why i get that impression.

:roll: Feminism isn't about hating men, and it's not destroying men. The weak-assed boys(it's hard to call them men) have always been around.

Both the far left and the far right are dangerous,[…]

September 18, Wednesday General Albert Sydney J[…]

https://www.fastcompany.com/90404556/this-personal[…]

90 Scientists: Global Warming Is a Total Hoax J[…]