Understanding Feminism (Women: Your opinions)

Post Reply New Topic

I can see your point. Feminism is such a broad term. If the majority of feminists believe in gender equality as the fundamental cause of feminism--then how can the term feminism be extended to include the radical few who believe in female superiority (gender inequality)?

I suppose that in this day in age it's important to identify the particular type of feminism one believes in, since the term is such an umbrella. Though it seems that the existence of "feminists" who do not believe in gender equality contradicts the dictionary definition that I cited earlier. So, I suppose that by that definition anti-men feminists would not be defined as feminists at all...

...but weirdly, the Marriam Webster does have the word "feminazi" listed--but that doesn't explicitly state gender inequality...maybe there is another term to describe the anti-male feminists in the dictionary. Or maybe I should give up on that dictionary.

Edit: and I agree that it's sad if the movement as a whole refuses to address damaging male gender roles--but I have known lots of feminists who are concerned with that. I know of some local organizations that are clearly full of feminists, and primarily populated by women too, that address issues that tend to concern men (such as violent death in combat). Code Pink, Mothers for Peace, and Women in Black are the ones that float to the surface of my mind. And no--men are not excluded from any of them--and their work addresses either issues that endanger men, or both genders equally. Edit again: I take that back about men not being excluded. I don't know about all the factions of these groups--I just know we're pretty laid back around here and men would be welcome...(the Wikipedia picture for codepink actually has men in it--but women in black was founded by Israeli and Palestinian women working together--and there are much more rigid gender roles in some parts of the middle east).

She's making a definition to distinguish between 2 groups: 'actual feminists' and 'straw-feminists'. It isn't really saying that 'straw feminists' aren't really feminists, it's creating names to distinguish 2 different groups. That is a useful thing to do.


Are you using 'feminist' to mean LKL's 'actual feminist' or LKL's 'straw feminist'?

I would never want to be called a feminist, although I would fit LKL's 'actual feminist' definition.

My problem with feminism is they trivialize, or even deny the existence of problems that are unique to men. I recognize and dislike gender oppression as much as the next person, but I don't see it as being something that happens exclusively or even primarily to females.

I'm a feminist and I'm not going to stop being one or hide it just because of a few extremists any more than someone would quit their religion because of a few extremists.

If she's using straw-feminists in the sense that I think she is, which is as a variation on the term strawman (as in strawman argument), then she is claiming that they do not exist.

She said "this is what feminism is about, to actual feminists." i took her meaning as "there are no feminists who disagree" based on her use of the term straw-feminist right after.

but I recognize that there is another possible interpretation, she could also have meant "those who think feminism is about something else are not real feminists." in which case she is setting herself up as the arbiter of who is and is not feminist, which is, like I said, arrogant.

Edit: there's also the possibility that she meant something else, but used poor wording. If that's the case, then I sympathize because I do that all the time. But my reaction to her statement won't change unless she clarifies it.

Edit again: there's also the possibility that she meant something else and worded it perfectly, but I didn't get it because I'm a moron (this happens far more than I care to admit). But all I have to go on, unless she clarifies, are the two possible interpretations I listed.

Last edited by mds_02 on 20 Jul 2012, 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

It didn't occur to me that she might have meant this.


I don't see what's so arrogant about that.

After all, whenever we say that something is true, we are setting ourselves up as arbiters of truth.

Men used to tell women what they should think and how they should act.
Now we have certain feminists who want to do the same thing. That is not empowering, that is bullying.

Women are oppressed as women. Men cannot be oppressed as men. They can be oppressed for other reasons (disabled, racial minority, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), but not because they are men.

And that right there is exactly the kind of attitude I've been talking about.

What attitude? I am using oppression to refer to a social system in which one population occupies higher social statuses than others. By definition, men are wealthier and have higher prestige jobs, globally, than women. That is oppression.

I am using "feminist" to mean the definition by MW dictionary:

"Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes "

I don't know what LKL's "straw feminist" means. I believe that one's beliefs are personal, and would hesitate to label people 'straw feminists' because their beliefs were somewhat different from mine, but were still focused on gender equality, unless they were lying about their beliefs.

I have no problem being called a feminist. I am glad I can wear pants to school and that I am allowed to go to college. I don't see anything nasty about the movement that I owe those rights to.

I agree with you that there are a lot of ways that men still seem to hold privileged over women. However, there are also some ways in which gender roles disadvantage men.

One example is that men tend to be expected to act more aggressive and risky, and that is probably why men tend to die of violent deaths more frequently than women.

All right, how about a social system which in which one population is vastly more likely to be the victims of violent crime. Or one in which one population makes up an overwhelming majority of the homeless population. Or one in which one population consistently receives harsher sentences for the same crimes. Or one in which one population is far more likely to have custody of their children taken away. Or one in which one population are the only ones who can be forced into military service. Or one in which one population has far less public money spent on their medical issues. Do these not count as forms of oppression? Or does it only count as oppression if it happens to women?

And even when discussing the employment issue, a part of the reason men hold these "higher prestige" positions is because their value is judged based on their income-earning ability, they feel far more pressure to sacrifice other aspects of their lives in order to attain those positions.

He says it better than I can.



One cannot have a discussion about whether or not one gender is oppressed more than the other without taking both genders opinions of their circumstances into account. To do otherwise is, by definition, biased. There are very many men who share this opinion of the "higher prestige" jobs that they feel such immense social pressure to acquire.

Edit: and now I feel compelled to point out that I am not denying the issues that affect primarily women. Every single time I point out men's issues to someone who doesn't seem to realize that they exist at all, it seems that whole bunch of people pop up to remind me of the issues that women face. I know. Women face discrimination. Women's issues matter. I'm just trying to point out that they are not the only issues, as some people seem to believe.

I disagree with some of what you are saying. Working class women have long had just as much pressure to make good wages as men. The pressure being from homelessness, and the burden of raising children and finding childcare as a single mother on women's wages are different than the pressure some men might feel about being high earners, though. And I don't know what you mean by women having more public money spent on women's medical issues than men.

But I do agree that there are SOME examples of how gender roles hurt men.

+1

And this is why people like me do not consider themselves a feminist. To trivalise, deny or invalidate the issues that men face in society is something I see over and over again when it comes to feminists. They scream bloody murder when someone does it to their gender, but they're more than happy to do it to the opposite. All it does is drive the divide deeper. People pick one side (feminism) or the other (mens rights movement) and fail to see that all it does is polarise people - they could choose the third option, and see this as a human rights issue and then we wouldn't have this constant polarisation of who has it "worse" or "more" or whatever.

Although you are correct in stating most feminists aren't extremists and that feminism gets a bad repuation from extremists (much like anything else, anarchism - those of us who are good citizens would have it ruined by extremists, etc), most of the women involved in feminism give very little time, attention, or recongition to the issues that men face also. Those that do are such a small percentage, that those of us who are interested in true gender equailty on both sides are probably loath to join the movement or label or consider ourselves as feminists for that reason.

Last edited by Kjas on 20 Jul 2012, 8:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Men are not more likely to be the victims of violent crime and homeless than women. The factors which predict those events are not gender related. They are the results of age (young people and the elderly) and race (racial minorities).



Men receive harsher sentences because they are more likely to use guns than women.



That is true. However, social status (oppression) is not influenced by that factor.



Again, you might want to argue that societies which draft only men are unfair, but that is not an issue related to oppression. It is also not universal. Some societies draft both women and men.



No, it is not oppression. Women have more health-care money spent on them because of maternity.



I am referring to oppression as an empirical category. One can justify it for various reasons. I have my own opinions, but I am not going to judge the legitimacy of any of those factors.

Last edited by nominalist on 20 Jul 2012, 8:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.