If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I tried to get that link up but it doesn't seem to work.
Opportunities are largely equal (the armed forces and such like an exception, for obvious reasons), despite what some people claim. There's nothing stopping women from going into just about any field they want - whether it's business, science or whatever. That some women choose not go into certain professions, which remain dominated by men, does not equate to discrimination as feminists claim: the obvious explanation is that fewer women than men want to do so. Just in same way that certain fields that happen to be dominated by women (such as child psychology) does not equate to bias against men.
Well, revolution was what Marx wanted and believed would happen as a natural progression.
I don't think the analogy with rich and poor can really be applied. Society today isn't built so that women will come second place, the opportunities for them are there and are taken up by many. In terms of the historical situation, even then the anology is flawed: throughout much of history, the working environment for the common man was largely one of hard labour and relentless toil, not to mention war. To suggest that women were somehow hard done by, considering what men largely spent their life doing, is to overlook this fact. And when you take into account the necessity for a division of labour along the lines of sex, considering the high infant mortality rate and the need for large families to keep the nation running and able to defend its interests, the idea that there is a justification for feminists to hate men has, to me at least, no real basis.
Well...I don't think feminism is generally misrepresented. Yes, there are moderates and there are extremists (with some feminists themselves becoming disillusioned with the latter dominating the movement) so you need to find a definition which emcompasses both. A movement which seeks to promote female power as I said, or as a movement which promotes female rights as you said, would be far more accurate than the mantra of political, economic and social equality.
It certainly is fascinating. :thumb:
The analogy isn't exact, but it still stands. Just because you label yourself something doesn't automatically instate you as it, or equally require the definition to be changed to incorporate you.
It's not a mantra; it's a dictionary definition.
I think you're making a fundamental mistake in your interpretation of feminism. You can't use authoritarianism to enforce everyone with equal everything, but you can strive to offer everyone equal opportunity.
/edit: Well, didn't really dismiss a lot of stereotypes imho. As many 'good' feminists I know, as many sexists (calling themselves feminists; probably even more) do I know, who don't want equality, but the collapse of the manhood (for the lack of a better word). Hmm
But we've seen plenty of affirmative action brought about by the feminist movement (for better or worse) so it has at least to some degree compelled society to use 'force'. I was reading, I think it's Spain, where a company is illegal if 65% of the directors are male, but totally legal if 100% are female. This is in my belief "use[ing] authoritarianism to enforce everyone with equal everything".
I think everyone being offered equal opportunity can best be defined as equalitarianism as opposed to feminism which seeks to improve the standing of women often without regard for men (by this, I don't mean to the detriment of men, but that the feminist movement campaigns for women's issues rather than men's issues and logically so - that does not stop someone believing that men's issues are important as well as women's issues).
Skive: I've mirrored the content of the webpage on my google thing - Link
I think largely what's been argued here is semantics. The definition i pulled from Answers.com - about striving for equality - seemed to me a fitting description: equality between the sexes means just that. If you argue that negative consequences have manifested because of people's pushing their interpretation of feminism then your quarrel is with that interpretation and methodology, rather than the ideal itself.
Possibly, but the word 'feminism' in itself is loaded and that's part of the reason there's a lot of ambiguity, and hence in some situations inappropriate dislike of feminists. I think feminism should remain as feminism, as the campaign for women's rights and that the campaign for equality should be called equalitarianism. That's not to say at all they don't coincide, but it makes things clearer at least and the logic of the words makes a lot more sense.
But you ignore the point - someone who claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe that Christ is the son of God would not be accepted by Christians as a Christian; the same is not true with the aforementioned feminists who are accepted as feminists by feminists and revered by many. So, it's logical that if a movement accepts such people, the definition of a movement's aims must take into account their views when finding the lowest common denominator. The only way what I'm saying could be denied would be if you take issue with the need to define the aims of a movement by finding the lowest common denominator amongst its advocates.
It's a mantra which became a dictionary definition.
You're making the fundamental mistake of using circular reasoning - you're arguing against my claim that feminism needs to be redifined by referring to the definition I'm taking issue with. If you want to refute my argument, what you need to do is either disprove my claim that not all feminists believe in equality (which is not possible because some evidently don't) or, as I've said above, dismiss the need to find a common demoninator to define a movement's goals. But I doubt you will.
You're starting with a logical fallacy. Feminism is already defined. A person who purports to be a feminist - one who doesn't believe in equality of the sexes - accepting another self-proclaimed feminist who holds the same views doesn't require a change in definition of feminism - they just both mislabelled themselves.
Two black guys who label themselves as white, and agree that each other are white, doesn't require the definition of "white" to change to: "people who are white ... or black".
I'd be willing to accept that because it doesn't really detract from the point I'm making.
You've created a false dichotomy there. What i actually need to do is demonstrate how someone who doesn't believe in equality of the sexes, and who claims to be a feminist, can't be one. In order to do that i take the definition of feminism and show how what they are, isn't what a feminist is. Your argument appears to be that the definition of feminism needs to change because people are mislabelling themselves.
Errr...no. I'm not starting with a logical fallacy. I am arguing against that definition. You are arguing against the need to change that definition by referring to the definition I am arguing against - do you understand why that reasoning is circular?
And how many of those feminists you consider as 'real' have spoken out against those you consider as 'fake'? How can these 'fake' feminists have existed as accepted members of the sisterhood for so many years without the 'real' feminists trying to distance themselves and deny their status as feminists en masse?
Unless, of course, that they are feminists?
Where is the dichotomy?
Then the crux of the matter is this - whether or not such people are feminists or not. Without referring to the definition in question (to avoid any more circular reasoning), go ahead and explain why these feminists are not really feminists, despite their widespread acceptance and reverence within the movement? And why, when discussing such people in the past on this forum, none of the feminist posters themselves tried to deny that the likes of Solanas, Daly and Dworkin are feminists, instead describing them as extreme feminists?
A word may be defined by the dictionary but more often it's defined by what people take that word to mean, in which case the definition of the word feminist has become rather vague.
There are women that spout man hating crap and are famous feminists for it. Maybe the terms feminist and feminism has been hijacked by these misandrists, but if that's the case where are all the true feminist to denounce them?
Until they stop being mislabled, people will be reluctant to apply the label of feminist to themselves (even if they agree with the pricibles in your definition) and feminism will carry on being a rather vague and negative word.
Just the same as if you said "white power", you would get a different response to "black power".
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. The burden of proof is on you; you have to put forward why the currently accepted definition of feminism is no longer valid. Your argument, as far as i understand it, is that because people who don't believe in equality of the sexes are labelling themselves as feminists, and other self-proclaimed feminists are accepting it, - or at least not overtly rejecting it - hence then the case for changing the definition stands. I'm saying it doesn't. I'm arguing that the definition is fine, and that the reason it's fine is because your argument for it to be changed is based on people mislabelling themselves - not that feminism has evolved as a philosophy to include people who don't believe in equality. There's a perfectly good definition for people who don't believe in equality and hate men: misandrists.
I also don't accept the stipulations you're placing on how i can and can't argue against your desire to change the understanding of the words 'feminism' and 'feminist'. What you're asking me to do is analogous to 'prove this table isn't a table without referring to the definition of a table'. It's insane.
I'm not saying that the definition of words can't change. I'm saying that the case for it in this instance, as far i can see has be argued, doesn't stand - with me at least
I'm actually really enjoying this debate so if i come across like a knob please be assured that's it's the medium of message boards rather than an intention to be a dick!
You think the definition is correct whilst the mislabling of some that call themselves feminists that's wrong.
And Spliffies saying that he doesn't accept that definition because it doesn't include those you're saying are mislabled.
It's circluar argument and one in which neither of you is really wrong as such.
I think the meaning of feminism has delveloped into something far more complicated than that definition for the everage Joe (or even Joanne).
That definition may still stand in the dictionary but the way many people think of feminism has changed significantly, and surely a word is defined by what people take it to mean. Is the definition of feminism you gave out of date?
Just thought I'd add my 2p...
I've read these sorts of threads before and have always found myself nodding in agreement with shyboy. I am very reluctant to consider myself a feminist because in my mind (regardless of what the dictionary definition is) it means someone who wants to empower women at the expense of men, and I think this is also the meaning that many many people attach to the word feminism, despite what the word is 'supposed' to mean.
I hate the argument that it doesn't matter what happens to men when it comes to the empowering of women as women have suffered inequality up until now, as I don't believe that two wrongs make a right... or that men now should be 'blamed' for things which happened in history, just because they are men. That is a bit like the slavery debate... I am sorry that slavery happened, but I wouldn't personally apologise for it, because I wasn't responsible for the actions of English people centuries ago just because I happen to be English too.
I found the article that shyboy linked to very good and is a good representation of how I feel.
The only thing i find circular about the argument is that you and i are starting to repeat ourselves.
I'm not actively involved in feminist circles, so i couldn't tell you whether or not (what i would call) feminists are speaking out against some of the odious views held by people like Greer - not that i accept lack of criticism as a sufficient prerequisite for changing the definition. Neither do i accept, what i would call, people mislabelling themselves as adequate grounds for redefinition either.
I'll concede some of that point. You could be for equal rights for each sex and still hate men.
I think we're going to have to disagree on what we believe are suitable grounds for redefinition.
"Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes."
I think feminism is better defined by the definition I found:
"organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests, usually without regard for men?s rights and interests, but occasionally with regard for men?s rights and interests".
This does not mean feminism = misandry, it just means the feminism movement from it's first point to the present day has been about getting women the vote, the rights over their own bodies, equal rights in the workplace, and so on. It hasn't ignored mens issues because there are none, but because that's not what the feminism movement is about. That's not to say that feminists aren't interested in mens rights, or racial equality, or whatever either, just that pure feminism is about the rights of women vs. a neutral 'equality between the sexes'.
You're probably right, it's semantics, but then the meanings of words is incredibly important. Wouldn't it be peculiar if the movement for racial equality across the world for all races, was called 'the black civil rights movement'?
I hope that all makes sense? I put a list up earlier of what I believe to be very fair and unloaded definitions, that make very literal sense. If the definitions were more concise and people understood them better I doubt there would be this fear of feminists as some angry lesbians on a crusade to demasculate all men and tell them they're an inferior species.
Lyes:
Feminism is a geneder charged word in favour of the female sex. Of course that may have been important or useful at first but now as things do become more and more equal it seems out of date.
To be frank i'm not sure where we disagree. I think answer.com's definition is just a more terse version of yours. All i did was went to answers.com and pulled the definition of feminism. The definition was in accord with what i thought feminism to be.
I think that a number of high-profile, alleged feminists are muddying the water. I suspect if you did a straw-poll of people and asked them what they thought Feminism was, then you'd get variations on the theme of the definition i initially cited.
Yea I agree, my only point was your original definition was very neutral, whereas feminism is gender charged. That's my main point, which is why I picked up those other definitions that seem very fair and logical (feminism being the opposite of masculism and so on).
I think that people who believe in equality will say they're feminists, but then people who are much more extreme (seperatist feminism, sometimes inciting misandry) will also say they're feminists, so when people look at feminism, they see a bit of both (but normally the extreme ones shout loudest, I think that's the case with anything) and make their mind up based on that.
Certainly a few years ago when I first started looking at feminism the first current name was germaine greer, and looking into some of the stuff she's said she certainly has that victim complex where "all men are potential rapists" and so on. (That's kind of why my back gets up when people say we should teach men not to rape, but that's another argument)
Look deeper into it past the noise and screaming, you find a completely different side that just wants fairness and equality. Unfortunately, people who are not used to the feminist struggle (i.e. men) may never see that far, because when Greer labels you a (potential) rapist the first reaction is to tell her and everyone you believe to be like her (i.e. feminists) to get fucked.
I'm unclear - how as a feminist not involved in organised activity does this apply to me? How does it apply to the feminist I sit next to in the office?
Greer has never in her life said all men are rapists. She's said all men are potential rapists, which is a pretty difficult viewpoint to agree to - but shortening it to 'all men are rapists' ignores both the point she was actually making and tries to reinforce your argument with a misrepresentation that is untrue.
My bad, sorry Jim. As I said, that was my first encounter of the organised feminist movement (obviously aside from the limited education in school about suffragettes) and it seemed to me (as a male) that I was being accused of a crime I had not committed, which did not endear me to the movement initially, which was my point.
As for the definition, I just ripped that from a website, I think you could sum up a fair / balanced definition of a feminist as someone
"who believes in women's rights and interests"
Just logically to me the feminism movement was born from oppression of women, to seek rights for women, and continues to do so - so it probably is semantics but I was disagreeing with the neutral definition that it's a belief in equality. (As I've said numerous times before though, they are by no means at all exclusive)
Go on, it's cheap and it's not very long (and very well written if memory serves me well).
Too many people criticise social movements without researching them and it's sad. It gets annoying when people tell me what a feminist is, especially if they haven't sat down and read any polemics first, or done any research beyond Wikipedia or a Google search on 'anti-feminism'.
I have yet to meet an anti-male feminist and coming from where I do and where I hang out (some very feminist orientated places), that says a lot.
And am sure many other 'feminists' agree with that. Feminism is about equality of the sexes. How can anybody disagree with that?
What you'd be doing is considering a specific political application of an ideal, not the ideal itself.
I admit I'm not the most educated in the subject, I just find it completely fascinating
I haven't set out to criticise feminism, rather give my account / opinion to the OP's dilemma about why people misinterpret feminism. I believe it's because a lot of the feminist activists you will see may not 'sugarcoat' their words if you want to use metaphors
The reason I debate with the feminism definition is simply because feminism is about women. That's not to say ever that feminists are not interested in men race or whatever, in fact I'd argue they're far more likely to be interested in civil rights universally than those who are not feminists. But the 'belief in equality' definition is very neutral and just as a sticking point think it misrepresents what feminism actually is, what the aims and objectives of feminism are from my experience. It's not about trying to send men to prison or anything like that, but as others wiser than me have said 'the belief that women are people'.
Which is why you can potentially be a feminist and also not believe men should have equal rights with regards to childcare. Or a masculist and believe that women should have equal rights with regards to employment.
And Jim, I agree with what you're saying but I was speculating why people get angry at or prejudge feminists. Simply because it's those extreme (but often 'noisy') organised movements that people encounter. I think I've said it before in the thread, there are plenty of people who if someone says they're a socialist, will assume they're a communist hell bent on hanging all the land owners. Maybe it's some kind of mental association (I'm by no means a pyschologist) but that's my idea about why a lot of people see feminism as a man hating, angry, even militant idea and why there can potentially be fear / anger stoked up in response.
And Namaste, I suppose also it depends what you define as anti-man. There's plenty of times I've been the butt of a 'typical man' comment and I personally find that anti-man, and often by so called feminists.
Now, any good recommendations for some light and possibly non extreme reading?