Yes, there is a war, boys versus girls

[vovat]

Your result for The Feminism Test...

Gender-Liberal

You scored 83% Gender-Abolitionist, 100% Sexually Liberal, and 20 % Socialist

You are the Gender-Liberal. This means that you share qualities with both Liberal Feminists and Gender Abolitionists. Like the Liberal Feminist, you feel political change needs to be done on a small-scale level through legislative change, not necessarily through a massive destruction of class society through the adoption of an extremist socialist stance. You are also very concerned with sexual liberation, and feel that women should be free to do what they please sexually without criticism, just as men should be free to do. However, you differ from the Liberal Feminist culturally, because you see gender as a social construction that needs to be destroyed. Like the Gender Abolitionist, you realize that gender is often perceived as one's identity, when it should only be perceived as a small, insignificant part of that person. We shouldn't be able to say "This person IS a woman". Rather one should say something more akin to "This person HAS the physical traits of a woman". This way, we wouldn't be assuming someone's physical traits are a part of their identity, and we couldn't use this difference to oppress them or categorize them. In short, you advocate extreme cultural change through the destruction of gender roles, but politically you are less extreme, instead focusing on individual or legislative change as opposed to a massive change of ideology.

The other feminist types:

The Housewife

The Marxist

The Liberal

The Liberal Extremist

The Gender Abolitionist

The Radical

The Gender-Liberal

The Revisionist

Take The Feminism Test at HelloQuizzy

Speaking of which, I came across this article on Iraqi war widows today. Here are a few choice excerpts from it:

Widows and their advocates say that to receive benefits they must either have political connections or agree to temporary marriages with the powerful men who control the distribution of government funds.

When asked why the money should not go directly to the women, Mr. Shihan laughed. "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting," he said. "But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her children for the rest of their lives. This is according to our tradition and our laws."

I'm all in favor of tolerating other cultures, but it's possible to take that too far, and I'm not down with patriarchal poppycock like that. Of course, it's not just Iraq that has this patronizing attitude toward women. Are women still supposed to walk behind men in Japan? (Equality issues aside, I personally wouldn't want to have to keep looking back to see if she was still there. :P) And even in this oh-so-enlightened nation, women often make less than men while working at the same jobs. While I don't think these attitudes are going to change overnight, I also feel that it doesn't make sense to pretend to champion liberty and democracy when some of your citizens are considered inferior because they lack Y chromosomes.

The "traditional role" of women seems kind of incongruous to me anyway. If women are naturally stupider and lazier, then why do men trust them to prepare food and raise children (whom many people, including Whitney Houston, regard as our future)? I don't think I'd be very good at child-rearing. Then again, I also wouldn't be particularly competent at hunting or gathering, so I suppose I fail both traditional gender roles.

And while on the subject of feminism, I've always thought the suggestion that women have to focus on either family or career is rather demeaning. I obviously think it's a matter of personal choice, but that's not my main point here. Rather, if a woman (or a man, for that matter, but you don't hear it as much about us) doesn't want to dedicate herself to children, she has to dedicate herself to an employer? What's so bad about living for yourself?

Comments

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

they will spend it unwisely because ... they don't know about budgeting

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you can tell I have personal feelings about that statement. Though, speaking of which, that reminds me that I have to go balance my stupid accounts over because the stupid cable bill didn't go through on time, instead of being on here doing fun things.

If women are naturally stupider and lazier, then why do men trust them to prepare food and raise children

Exactly the point of my Mommy-power entry the other month! Though you know that already.

I came out as a Gender Abolitionist on that quiz-- my best friend's transgendered S.O. would be so proud of me! Though funnily I DO think there are definite non-physical traits that are More Male and More Female, so I wouldn't call myself an ABOLITIONIST, but like the description says, I guess I feel individual differences are more important to focus on. Still, it cracks me up that Sammy has so quickly developed, with no prompting from anyone, such a boy-like obsession with cars. Then he also has obsessions with music and Muppets and those are much less gender-oriented and more individual quirks anyway, so who's to say cars aren't also his own individual quirk and not an Innate Boy Thing? Except that music and Muppets, um, DO owe some explanation to definite prompting from the people in his life....

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Though, speaking of which, that reminds me that I have to go balance my stupid accounts over because the stupid cable bill didn't go through on time, instead of being on here doing fun things.

Yeah, but I'm sure plenty of men do that as well. {g}

Though funnily I DO think there are definite non-physical traits that are More Male and More Female, so I wouldn't call myself an ABOLITIONIST, but like the description says, I guess I feel individual differences are more important to focus on.

That's pretty much how I feel. There are differences between men and women, certainly, but I don't think it's reasonable to base LEGAL rights and decisions on this.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but I'm sure plenty of men do that as well.

Oh, you misunderstand me. I laugh very hard because I am in charge of the budget BECAUSE someone else doesn't quite get the idea of budgets. "Hey," he says, "Let's buy something fun because we have some extra money right now!" "Are you forgetting that I will NOT BE BRINGING IN ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME ANYMORE in two months????" The cable bill wasn't actually my fault-- it was a glitch in the online bill payment system.

[vilajunkie.livejournal.com]

I know it's a little tiring to bring up Disney films in gender equality issues, but there you go: Even our so-called modern heroines have to choose between staying home with Daddy, finding a husband, or end up happy career-wise but unloved. Mulan is really the only exception to the Disney heroine pattern; she at least followed tradition and filial piety while at the same time doing a "man's job" and returning home without falling head over heels for some guy. In fact, in Mulan, it's the guy that chases after the girl. yes, Mulan has to dress as a man to join the war, but think of the time period and culture--it was the only way.

Even my favorite Disney heroine/princess, Belle (who I love for her fondness for fairy tale and fantasy books), has no choice: it's stay home with her poor father or marry the rich jailer/prince. Her one choice in the matter was turning down Gaston. Sure, eventually the Beast becomes a kind, gentle soul, but did Belle really have to go through Stockholm Syndrome to find that out?

Alice is also an exception to the Disney rule, but as an eleven-year-old (or thereabouts), there's really not much potential for a romance, is there?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, some of the Disney girls ARE princesses, and marriage among royalty is a political issue as well as a personal one. I haven't seen Mulan, but I know she isn't a princess by either birth or marriage (which doesn't stop Disney from putting her on Disney Princess merchandise).

Alice is seven in the book, but I don't think the movie ever specifies.

[vilajunkie.livejournal.com]

That what irks me about the Disney Princess line. Mulan is never a princess--in fact, she hates the idea of resembling a princess, as in the intro--but she's on the DP line and is always in a froofy, girly, elaborate gown when most of the movie she's in army clothes. Yet at the same time, Pocahontas, who is a princess, is nowhere to be found. Disney has some lame excuse why, but it comes down to her not being "white European royalty" enough. Which is a lame excuse for more than the obvious, as she did go to England and wear ballgowns in the sequel.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't that also exclude Mulan, though? I suppose Jasmine is Caucasian, but she's a Muslim, so I guess that must make her a terrorist or something. And I've actually seen Tinker Bell included with the princesses, which makes even less sense than Mulan. I mean, a soldier outranks a tinker, right?

Viva La Revolución

[chhinnamasta.livejournal.com]

Your result for The Feminism Test...

Revisionist

You scored 100% Gender-Abolitionist, 80% Sexually Liberal, and 60 % Socialist

You are the Revisionist Feminist! You are, by far, the most philosophical, the most sexually-liberated, and the most politically extreme variety of feminist. You are very, very freedom-oriented. You abhor oppression in all forms. For instance, your views on sexual liberation and reproductive control adequately reflect your devotion to personal freedom. Not only that, but you also feel gender needs to be destroyed to maximize equality and freedom, because accepting socially-constructed gender roles binds women into false categories and places upon them an unneeded identity. Gender should not be a part of one's identity, but rather an irrelevant aspect of their physical bodies, such as their hair length or nose shape. Not only that, but Revisionist Feminists are political extremists and feel very strongly that the oppression of class society is a big part of the cause of women's oppression. Basically, a Revisionist feels that cultural ideas of gender, political class, and repressive sexual morality all work together to oppress women, and the only way to truly escape this oppression is to challenge all of these problems directly and extremely. You are a Marxist, a Gender Abolitionist, and a Liberal Feminist all rolled into one.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Women are in charge, at least in this country; they just let us think otherwise. I don't have much respect for the extremist Muslim culture to begin with. On the brighter side, things are changing quite a bit for the better over in Japan.