Feminism & Egalitarianism

[Iulus Cofield]

^^Intentionally inflammatory topic name

^Shit I won't let you get away with. Edited.

- Az

I am against feminism, but not for a more usual reason.
I am against feminism, because I am an egalitarian.

I think calling yourself a feminist is ignoring or sidelining a lot of other problems best and hypocrisy or looking out for you and your own at worst. Why support only sex equality? Why not support equality for all?

Being a feminist does not entail anything beyond sex equality, you can be a racist, you can be a not-racist, aren't necessarily religiously intolerant. This is part of my point. Feminism is narrow, yet it is often held as a moral high ground and opposition is disregarded as sexist (though opposition often is based on sexism, which is bad). In recent conversations with this I have heard people say things like, "But I am for other kinds of equality too," and, "You're a feminist too!" My question is, why should you or I call ourselves triangles when we're dodecahedrons and marginalize the rest of our faces?

You may be asking yourself, what's the problem? Sure, it would probably be better to promote egalitarianism, but sex equality is something worth fighting for and supporting and surely there is no harm in it.
But the problem is we have over a century and a half old movement, departments in major universities (sorry gender studies, I'm rhetorically reducing you), and people who make careers working for only one kind of equality. What do we have for egalitarianism? The closest organization I can think of is the American Civil Liberties Union, an admirable institution which is nonetheless often vilified and criticized for promoting egalitarianism and particularly for defending freedom of expression by the unpopular and sometimes even straight up evil people (looking at you Westboro).

So feminism, I will support you the day that you are explicitly a subset of egalitarianism, the day that "civil liberty studies" is taught in our universities, and the day an egalitarian can make a career without being a lawyer.

Discuss.

[SlyReaper]

How does any of that imply that feminism is not a subset of egalitarianism? Albeit the subset that you think is getting the most attention? Feminists, generally, don't only support sex equality, it's just that that is the particular type of equality they are most involved with and that they have the most interest in. Most people who call themselves feminist (let's ignore the militant misandrists who have tried to subvert the word) also support equality in other areas, they're just a bit busy with their particular subset.

[Zamfir]

This argument would work against most specialization. We should have transportation engineers. We have been designing aircraft for over a century, we have major university departments aimed solely at aircraft, people make careers in one kind of transportation only.

EDIT: PErhaps feminists really are overly narrow-minded. And perhaps they have so much political and organizational clout that they can focus attention to their specific cause to the detriment of more worthy causes.

But if that's what you are arguing, you need to give evidence for it, and a lot too to make it stick. You can't just assert that the existence of feminism is in itself a sign of such problems.

[Iulus Cofield]

How does any of that imply that feminism is not a subset of egalitarianism? Albeit the subset that you think is getting the most attention? Feminists, generally, don't only support sex equality, it's just that that is the particular type of equality they are most involved with and that they have the most interest in. Most people who call themselves feminist (let's ignore the militant misandrists who have tried to subvert the word) also support equality in other areas, they're just a bit busy with their particular subset.

It doesn't. The problem is that focusing on only one type of inequality, you ignore the rest publicly and very likely in your own perceptions. Militant misandrists are actually a very good example of the dangers of this. You won't meet an egalitarian who becomes a...Feudalist? But feminism can easily lead to misandrism. Why make yourself permanently busy with sex equality by labeling yourself a feminist when you can be an egalitarian who supports all equality and can switch between issues without cognitive dissonance?

This argument would work against most specialization. We should have transportation engineers. We have been designing aircraft for over a century, we have major university departments aimed solely at aircraft, people make careers in one kind of transportation only.

This argument would work against most specialization. We should have transportation engineers. We have been designing aircraft for over a century, we have major university departments aimed solely at aircraft, people make careers in one kind of transportation only.

I've also heard the argument that "Calling yourself an egalitarian is like calling yourself a musician." The analogy is flawed because I can't realistically learn to play every instrument or specialize in every form of engineering. But it does not follow that we can't promote all forms of equality. It is just as easy to be an egalitarian as it is to be a feminist. For example, the ACLU has many hands in many campaigns for civil rights, although they occasionally focus on one particular issue for a while.

[Zamfir]

But "promoting all kinds of equality" is an abstract goal. It's like "making music".

If you actually want to achieve something, you'll have to focus on particular issues, study them, collect data, identify critical causes, think about possible approaches to improve the situation, convince others of the importance of the issue, convince people to take action or to change their views and ways. All of that requires specific knowledge and experience in a particular environment, and those things don't transfer one-on-one to other issues.

Are you actively involved in some equality issue? Do you feel your efforts are hindered by the existence of feminists pursueing other issues? Do you think feminists should drop theirown particular goals and start supporting your particular goals? Have you tried to convince them of that? What do they say?

[Kewangji]

How is this not a/the common way to criticize feminism? I've heard it dozens of times.

[HungryHobo]

it's a worthy cause but I know quite a lot of young women are alienated by feminism first because they see it as ignoring wider issues and second because of old school feminists.

At my university there was one lecturer who I can only hope was intentionally parodying feminism.
I remember one girl who was in her module being flabbergasted by how utterly insane she was: rockets were that shape because male engineers were obsessed with penises, if your father tended to eat more at the dinner table that was a sign he was oppressing your mother... rather than a sign he had physically more body mass than your mother and never mind the food left over at the end of the meal. everything bad in the universe was because of the patriarchy. etc etc.

that kind of nonsense actually puts young women off .

[Iulus Cofield]

But "promoting all kinds of equality" is an abstract goal. It's like "making music".

If you actually want to achieve something, you'll have to focus on particular issues, study them, collect data, identify critical causes, think about possible approaches to improve the situation, convince others of the importance of the issue, convince people to take action or to change their views and ways. All of that requires specific knowledge and experience in a particular environment, and those things don't transfer one-on-one to other issues.

Are you actively involved in some equality issue? Do you feel your efforts are hindered by the existence of feminists pursueing other issues? Do you think feminists should drop theirown particular goals and start supporting your particular goals? Have you tried to convince them of that? What do they say?

I am actually involved with an equality issue right now. My (Christian) university has refused to allow an LGBT group to become an official club and therefore they can not have events, invite speakers, hold meetings outside of public spaces (which is problematic because their primary goal is to create a safespace for discussion of sexuality), or even advertise their own existence. My small part in this has been to bring the attention to outside media (sign the petition at change.org!) in hopes that this will put pressure on the university to reconsider the stance they've held for 4 years.
I have also been doing what I can to maintain and generate interest in the struggles of the Egyptians, Algerians, Yemeni, Bahraini, Tunisians, and Jordanians struggling for political self-determination, although there is little I can do beyond that.
I will not pretend that I am an expert in either of those issues, but I am doing what little I can. I believe that equality, unlike music, engineering, or even cancer research, is primarily rooted in people's opinions and beliefs, and so awareness is very crucial. I attended a lecture yesterday on the events in Egypt and one of the speakers said how important the revolution is, not because Mubarak has left, but because it breaks the stereotype that the Arab people are not suited for democracy, that they prefer clan-style patriarchy, that they can not lead themselves from the bottom up.

Do feminists jeopardize this? Not directly, at least, not always. You are right, we can not personally engage every equality issue at once. But perhaps we should at least strive for the worst? Woman do not have full equality in today's America, but far more people would vote for a woman president than an atheist one. Straight women can get married and have all the rights therein, but most lesbian women and gay men can not in most of the country.

Even in the past, when things were very bad for women, say the 1840's, would it be right to be a feminist? How could I focus my energy on sex equality when my black, Chinese, and Native American compatriots were not even considered human (by law!) in Oregon?
Raising the least among us can also improve the lot of the less worse off. Consider the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which as a small corollary, considered by many to be a ploy to prevent the bill's passing, also outlawed sex discrimination.

How is this not a/the common way to criticize feminism? I've heard it dozens of times.

Really? People 'round where I live have been looking at me like I'm an alien.

[Azrael]

How is this not a/the common way to criticize feminism? I've heard it dozens of times.

Yeah, it's a variation of one of the most common themes regarding any kind of activism, some where between the "But this over here is more important!" line and "But that's only part of the problem!". It's also a convenient way to dismiss feminism without addressing the argument covered therein. In the end, it is readily dismissed by the same line of logic as those argument as well; since there are lots of people, and each person is capable of expending efforts in multiple places, the concept that there's a hierarchy of what should be addressed first can't be logically supported.

This is not an either-or situation. The dichotomy is utterly false.

The more salient point being that egalitarianism is a higher-order goal. Rejecting, for instance, women's suffrage because it did not also include universal suffrage is typically a short-sighted and unrealistic. History has repeatedly demonstrated that progress is a gradient.

[Iulus Cofield]

How is this not a/the common way to criticize feminism? I've heard it dozens of times.

Yeah, it's a variation of one of the most common themes regarding any kind of activism, some where between the "But this over here is more important!" line and "But that's only part of the problem!". It's also a convenient way to dismiss feminism without addressing the argument covered therein. In the end, it is readily dismissed by the same line of logic as those argument as well; since there are lots of people, and each person is capable of expending efforts in multiple places, the concept that there's a hierarchy of what should be addressed first can't be logically supported.

The more salient point being that egalitarianism is a higher-order goal. Rejecting, for instance, women's suffrage because it did not also include universal suffrage is typically a short-sighted and unrealistic. History has repeatedly demonstrated that progress is a gradient.

I'm not dismissing sex equality and I'm little butt-hurt that you're suggesting it. Campaigning for sex equality has it's time in place, post 14th Amendment America comes to mind. But so does racial equality, religious equality, etc. By labeling ourselves feminists, or Dalitists, or Asianists, I believe we are impairing our ability to most effectively campaign and persuade for wider equality.

[Kulantan]

How is this not a/the common way to criticize feminism? I've heard it dozens of times.

Really? People 'round where I live have been looking at me like I'm an alien.

Well it is common enough to have its own Derailing for Dummies section. Though, I'm having trouble picking.

By labeling ourselves feminists, or Dalitists, or Asianists, I believe we are impairing our ability to most effectively campaign and persuade for wider equality.

You might even be right, if we restricted ourselves to one topic. We can label ourselves as trombonists, violists, drummers and triangle dingers (returning to the musician metaphor) all at once and one at a time (as a matter of hats). The term feminist is useful as it can apply to blogs or other such things that are entirely/mostly feminist and don't deal with anything else. The same can be said for someone who mostly marches and so for feminist events, because that is how they have chosen to spend their activism time.

[Azrael]

Campaigning for sex equality has it's time in place, post 14th Amendment America comes to mind.

Because you can only support an equality ideal when it's most constitutionally relevant, newest or "largest"?

Anyhow, why is it you have a bone to pick with feminism, specifically, rather than all subset-isms?

But so does racial equality, religious equality, etc. By labeling ourselves feminists, or Dalitists, or Asianists, I believe we are impairing our ability to most effectively campaign and persuade for wider equality.

Besides the obvious problems with suggesting that only the "largest" problem should be addressed, your concept of efficiency is based on the presumption that all inequality can be addressed by the same resources using the same methods and arguments.

I'm unconvinced that assumption is true.

[HungryHobo]

I get your general idea: it's like watching people sinking resources into the donkey sanctuary when there's huge numbers of human beings starving to death and the time and money could be better spent.

but people have their own issues they care about more than others.
we're not perfect egalitarian machines.
for example: why are you spending your time on the LGBT issues in your local college when you could be putting that same time and effort into campaigning for food aid and medical aid to the third world?
It would save far more lives and do far more good overall.

[Jessica]

I'm sure that if I tried to write something original, it would be full of holes. I'm not the best writer.

I'm glad there are places out there that have discussed this very issue. Perhaps a feminism 101 blog?

*shrug* But, everyone's pretty much given you the reasons, so I shouldn't have to post again.

[podbaydoor]

I will not pretend that I am an expert in either of those issues, but I am doing what little I can.

...and that's why we have specialization. So people can be experts and can do more than just a little for an issue.

[Vaniver]

If you seek to promote egalitarianism (which I'd call individualism), you're probably better off pointing out the similarities between it and feminism, and then emphasizing what individualism does better, rather than simply seeking to knock down feminism. You need to convince feminists that you can address their concerns before you have a credible position to say "my approach encompasses yours and goes further."

[Mahou]

it's a worthy cause but I know quite a lot of young women are alienated by feminism first because they see it as ignoring wider issues and second because of old school feminists.

At my university there was one lecturer who I can only hope was intentionally parodying feminism.
I remember one girl who was in her module being flabbergasted by how utterly insane she was: rockets were that shape because male engineers were obsessed with penises, if your father tended to eat more at the dinner table that was a sign he was oppressing your mother... rather than a sign he had physically more body mass than your mother and never mind the food left over at the end of the meal. everything bad in the universe was because of the patriarchy. etc etc.

that kind of nonsense actually puts young women off .

This is the reason I have a slight problem with the term feminist. My observation is these days women are, for the most part, equal to men. Obviously there's still a lot of room for improvement, but legally they're equal and our culture now frowns upon sexism. The glass ceiling may be there, but the room beneath has plenty of hard, throwable objects.

Because of this, I'm a little put off by the word feminist because it stirs images of people like the one Hobo mentioned. I realize this is a false impression, but I think it's fairly common for people to view all feminists like this now precisely because women are legally equal. So in a way, the label feminist can be slightly detrimental because of the negative stigma attached and because the issue has been lessened in recent years.

[sje46]

I find the OP to be a bit...odd. I really don't understand what the problem is with saying you support gender equality...it certainly doesn't invalidate your support for other equalities. In fact, feminists tend to be much more informed about race/ethnic/etc equality.

This is the reason I have a slight problem with the term feminist. My observation is these days women are, for the most part, equal to men. Obviously there's still a lot of room for improvement, but legally they're equal and our culture now frowns upon sexism. The glass ceiling may be there, but the room beneath has plenty of hard, throwable objects.

Ehh...the thing is that our culture nominally frowns upon sexism, but sexist attitudes are still very much encouraged. I remember my mom saying that she didn't trust Obama because his name wasn't American. She denied that she was racist, and she gets along with different races, etc, but that doesn't mean that that belief wasn't racist. There are still pretty strong double standards between men and women, as well as stereotypes.

But because women are constantly being treated better, a lot of people feel like feminists have done their job. Many women have become major world leaders and CEOs, etc...how can feminism still be relevant? That's what a lot of people think. It seems superfluous and therefore asking for more after you got your fair share (in the eyes of people who don't understand feminism). Kinda like if after we stopped segregation in the 60s, the Civil Rights Movement didn't stop there, and kept going until whites were subservient to blacks. A lot of people feel the same way about feminists...that they're outright looking for MORE power than men. Which is patently ridiculous.

A lot of people may consider me a feminist because I recognize rape culture, support gender equality, etc, etc. I'm pretty extreme in the eyes of many. But I don't like the term feminist. I've never bought any reason why we should keep that word. Men face discrimination too on account of their sex...you can't even be friendly towards children without being thought of as a pedophile. And while the Men's Rights Movement seems to be 90% misogyny to me, about 10% seems to make good points. And yes, feminists disagree with labeling all men as pedophiles. The problem is that they get so much flak for supposedly only looking out for women. It just seems like it would benefit everyone if feminists became..."Gender Egalitarians" or whatever.

[Jessica]

Feminists get flak for being feminists, not for what they call themselves. If they were called anything else, they still would get flak for it. That's the point - they're doing something that's not accepted by the mainstream, and they're going to be given problems for it. It doesn't make the problem go away by choosing a new name. If the name was womanist (which is the name of a group of people, specifically a lot of disenfranchised feminists who aren't white and middle class), people would make fun of them, and paint them as men hating lesbians. Names like humanist, or equalist, or egalitarianism are just ways to hide the main issue that feminists deal with - the problem that there are some inequalities between women and men. It also won't stop the criticism of the movement.

Feminism keeps it's name for historic reasons mainly, and because changing the name won't actually stop people painting them as straw-women.

[Azrael]

Feminists get flak for being feminists, not for what they call themselves. If they were called anything else, they still would get flak for it.

I feel that a famous English dramatist penned a relevant analogy to this regarding the nomenclature of flowers some 400 years ago.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Read narrowly, yes, but the point of the broader passage is that Romeo is condemned for being a Montague, even though nothing about him would change if his last name were anything else. In other words, the situation that Juliet describes is the opposite of what Jess is suggesting (but, given the different contexts, that doesn't invalidate Jess's argument).

[Azrael]

... but the point of the broader passage is that [Feminists are] condemned for [their beliefs], [and] nothing about [them] would change if [the] name were anything else.

To make a long story even longer, I agree with Jessica's initial stance. The name of the movement is a trivial aspect.

[Vaniver]

they're doing something that's not accepted by the mainstream, and they're going to be given problems for it.

In many (most?) dimensions of American society, feminists are the mainstream, and misogynists are the minority. Something else has to be going on.

Names like humanist, or equalist, or egalitarianism are just ways to hide the main issue that feminists deal with - the problem that there are some inequalities between women and men.

This suggests there is a substantial, rather than superficial, difference between feminism and egalitarianism: that feminism (as you put it) is focused on the inequalities between women and men, whereas egalitarians are focused on the obstacles individuals face. Those differences lead to real differences in thought, opinion, and action- egalitarians and feminists will be bothered by different things for different reasons (though there's quite a bit of overlap).

[eugene]

You may be asking yourself, what's the problem? Sure, it would probably be better to promote egalitarianism, but sex equality is something worth fighting for and supporting and surely there is no harm in it.
But the problem is we have over a century and a half old movement, departments in major universities (sorry gender studies, I'm rhetorically reducing you), and people who make careers working for only one kind of equality. What do we have for egalitarianism? The closest organization I can think of is the American Civil Liberties Union, an admirable institution which is nonetheless often vilified and criticized for promoting egalitarianism and particularly for defending freedom of expression by the unpopular and sometimes even straight up evil people (looking at you Westboro).

Unless you think that it's the feminists' fault that egalitarians don't have much to show for their efforts, I'm not sure how this is a reason to be against feminism. It does look like reason enough to not support it, but not reason enough to be against it. As an analogy, physics is centuries-old science which has departments in major universities and billions of dollars in funding. Are you automatically against physics as well, just because many physicists become too focused on the science and forget about equality for all?

[sje46]

Feminists get flak for being feminists, not for what they call themselves. If they were called anything else, they still would get flak for it. That's the point - they're doing something that's not accepted by the mainstream, and they're going to be given problems for it. It doesn't make the problem go away by choosing a new name. If the name was womanist (which is the name of a group of people, specifically a lot of disenfranchised feminists who aren't white and middle class), people would make fun of them, and paint them as men hating lesbians. Names like humanist, or equalist, or egalitarianism are just ways to hide the main issue that feminists deal with - the problem that there are some inequalities between women and men. It also won't stop the criticism of the movement.

Right, it doesn't make the problem go away, and they, of course, continue to get flak for their beliefs alone. It's not a binary thing though...my point is that they may get less flak and more support if they change their name.

"Feminist" really does make people think "do they not care about men?". I've seen many, many people make that argument. And sure, they're not generally informed people, but I feel like if feminists were called "gender egalitarians" or whatever, that would stop a good portion of that hostility, the sense of division. If it's more clear that they oppose both anti-women things and anti-men things, then maybe a good portion of MRA's would join their ranks instead of being stuck in anti-feminist echochambers. Or even just regular people, because I honestly feel that the majority of males my age resent feminists and think they only want more power for women and don't care at all for men's problems. Instead I see a lot of feminists saying things like "Only men can be sexist", etc, which seem self-otherizing to me.

Feminism keeps it's name for historic reasons mainly, and because changing the name won't actually stop people painting them as straw-women.

So, basically for tradition, right? I generally am against using tradition as reason to keep policies; conservatives use that argument a lot. It wouldn't be a big deal if you were right though, but I just doubt that it wouldn't make a difference at all if the name were changed. If feminists say "We are Gender Egalitarians: we believe that there is vast discrimination against gender, which mostly affects females but also affects males, and we aim to fight for equality and equal opportunities for females and males." I can see a lot of men who normally oppose feminism getting behind that. And maybe learning a thing or two.

When I try to explain someone that language can be sexist, I ask them that if they had the ability to go back in time and change English to their liking, to get rid of any phonological inconsistencies, etc, would they change the gendered word to a non-gendered form? If they say yes, that indicates that they think there's something wrong with the word in question, but simply are reluctant to label it "sexist" for whatever reason. Using the same logic for feminism, I would say I would change it. Even though feminism (mostly--like 90%) has my support.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man. It's worth a shot.

[Jessica]

they're doing something that's not accepted by the mainstream, and they're going to be given problems for it.

In many (most?) dimensions of American society, feminists are the mainstream, and misogynists are the minority. Something else has to be going on.

Wait, they are? That's not been my impression of America. But, I'm not American, so I might be wrong about that.

In Canada, people who consider themselves feminist aren't mainstream. There are women who are mainstream, and there are liberal women, but most of them make the same "I don't like to call myself feminist" feminism arguments, because the mainstream does view it as negative.

There are also still many instances of misogyny that is mainstream in Canada. In 1989 we did have the Montreal Massacre. That was long after women got the vote, and was just over 20 years ago. We've had a female Prime minister, but only about a 1/5 of parliament is female. Overt and outright statements of misogyny may not happen regularly, but there are still major inequalities.

Names like humanist, or equalist, or egalitarianism are just ways to hide the main issue that feminists deal with - the problem that there are some inequalities between women and men.

This suggests there is a substantial, rather than superficial, difference between feminism and egalitarianism: that feminism (as you put it) is focused on the inequalities between women and men, whereas egalitarians are focused on the obstacles individuals face. Those differences lead to real differences in thought, opinion, and action- egalitarians and feminists will be bothered by different things for different reasons (though there's quite a bit of overlap).

The only difference I see between egalitarians (like what people are talking about in this thread) and feminists, is that egalitarians seem to dismiss issues that women are bringing up. The theory otherwise is the same, both seek equality for all, just one has "feminine" in it's name and the other does not. Essentially, in my view, the only difference is that egalitarians want to minimize female issues in the name of all issues for whatever reason.

SJE - I don't believe changing the name would have a significant beneficial impact on the equality movement, and would have a detriment of alienating women from that movement as men take dominant positions in the movement, like they do in most other things in our society.

But, maybe I'm wrong, and am a crazy woman.

[sje46]

SJE - I don't believe changing the name would have a significant beneficial impact on the equality movement, and would have a detriment of alienating women from that movement as men take dominant positions in the movement, like they do in most other things in our society.

Is that likely to happen in an organization that is most conscious of that danger? Besides, I think there would be much more women in that than men, seeing as there are much more feminists than MRA's.

[The Great Hippo]

I don't quite understand how one can't be an egalitarian and a feminist; the two perspectives don't seem to be inherently contradictory (although I can imagine approaches to both which would contradict).

It's also probably worth restating that feminism deals specifically with women's issues, and (as has already been mentioned) only a small sphere of particular women; feminism often isn't equipped to address the issues of transgender women or women of ethnicities other than Caucasian. I don't think this should be taken as a necessary failing of feminism, but rather, simply an attribute; the movement was created by white, middle-and-upper class (cisgendered, heterosexual?--not sure about that last one, I'd have to do more reading) women, and that's primarily who it exists for. If anything, I think one of the failings of modern feminism has been its inability to realize just who it's speaking for (and its ongoing assumption that it speaks for all women; it really doesn't).

It seems to me that one can describe feminism as a specialized version of egalitarianism, designed to deal with very specific egalitarian issues that a segment of the population may face. The inequalities one might face as a man in American culture are entirely different than the inequalities one might face as a woman, and it seems like a sensible move to address those differences. Feminism (and other specialized movements) can fill that gap.

[Jessica]

Hippo: It's getting better... kind of...

I still call myself a feminist even though the movement has fucked over people like me for years. I used to say I was a trans feminist, but right now feminist works fine for me. But, I guess I've gone pretty far into lefty territory now, so my views should be taken with the grain of salt that entails...

[eugene]

Wait, they are? That's not been my impression of America.

Yes; for example, about 75% of people rejected the idea that women should fulfill their "traditional roles" in society. This seems in agreement with feminist values. Note that you originally said not that "feminists are mainstream", but "what feminists do is not mainstream".

The theory otherwise is the same, both seek equality for all, just one has "feminine" in it's name and the other does not.

So you are saying that the goal of the feminist movement is to achieve equality for all regardless of their sex, race, age, social status etc? Are you sure?

and would have a detriment of alienating women from that movement as men take dominant positions in the movement, like they do in most other things in our society.

Why would that happen? Supposedly feminists are not really favoring women but rather gender equality. So why would they be alienated from a movement if some (or many) leaders of it would be male?

[Jessica]

The theory otherwise is the same, both seek equality for all, just one has "feminine" in it's name and the other does not.

So you are saying that the goal of the feminist movement is to achieve equality for all regardless of their sex, race, age, social status etc? Are you sure?

It's supposed to be. It fails at it often, but many believe (within feminist circles) that the point of feminism is to attain equality for all.

I will say that they fail at that cause a lot.

and would have a detriment of alienating women from that movement as men take dominant positions in the movement, like they do in most other things in our society.

Why would that happen? Supposedly feminists are not really favoring women but rather gender equality. So why would they be alienated from a movement if some (or many) leaders of it would be male?

I say that they would because they have in the past. Often in equality movements have men attempted to wrest control from female leaders, and left the women disenfranchised. Like how white women wrest control from black women and leave them disenfranchised.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but past experience has shown that it can have problems

[The Great Hippo]

Hippo: It's getting better... kind of...

I still call myself a feminist even though the movement has fucked over people like me for years. I used to say I was a trans feminist, but right now feminist works fine for me. But, I guess I've gone pretty far into lefty territory now, so my views should be taken with the grain of salt that entails...

That's fair, and I'll readily admit that I'm not familiar with the modern evolution of feminism, so I can't speak to what it's doing right now, or in what respects it's improved.

I suppose my point is that I wouldn't blame someone for feeling that feminism can't address their concerns, and that an ongoing problem I've noticed is that feminism responds to this assertion ("You aren't addressing my needs") with hostility ("We represent the concerns of all women, so get on board or get out"). I don't know if this hostility still exists, or to what extent; I do think that those who seek alternative representation--to 'make feminism their own', so to speak--should be wholly supported.

And really, isn't that the same mechanic we see in egalitarianism's evolution into feminism? Some women realized that the egalitarian movement was not addressing their concerns ("Women need rights, too" -- "Wait your turn--get on board or get out!"), and so they branched off and created a form of egalitarianism that addressed their concerns first. I'm sure I'm grossly oversimplifying, but you can kind of see how our individual desire for representation and equality becomes more narrow and more specialized, and how we should inevitably support these movements (but how we can simultaneously also express rapport with the movement we left--feminism's response to egalitarianism isn't "It's bad and wrong", but rather "It's not addressing our specific needs". It's still a positive idea, it's just not a positive idea that's particularly helpful to women right now).

[eugene]

It's supposed to be.

Again, are you sure? Wikipedia says, for example: "Feminism refers to movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. ... Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism". So it seems pretty focused on gender issues and not so much on other (race, social status, etc.) issues. I know wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, so I'd appreciate a reference which supports your understanding of what feminism is. And yes, I understand that feminism does not rule out egalitarianism (just like physics doesn't rule out egalitarianism), but that doesn't mean that feminism (or physics) is all about egalitarianism.

I say that they would because they have in the past.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you? It's as if they were saying "I support equal opportunity for genders, but only as long as a woman is in charge of this movement".

[The Great Hippo]

And yes, I understand that feminism does not rule out egalitarianism (just like physics doesn't rule out egalitarianism), but that doesn't mean that feminism (or physics) is all about egalitarianism.

Better analogy: Physics doesn't rule out math; physics is a specialized form of applied mathematics. Similarly, feminism is a specialized form of applied egalitarianism.

[eugene]

Better analogy: Physics doesn't rule out math; physics is a specialized form of applied mathematics. Similarly, feminism is a specialized form of applied egalitarianism.

I agree with this. It was just my impression that Jessica meant that feminism IS egalitarianism, just under a different name.

[podbaydoor]

I say that they would because they have in the past.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you? It's as if they were saying "I support equal opportunity for genders, but only as long as a woman is in charge of this movement".

No, she said, "I support equal opportunity for genders, but there is a really, really long tradition of even well-meaning men dominating and dismissing women in popular movements."

[Jessica]

I'm having a hard time finding the definitions you want. I would say this is a good start. The point being that third wave, or more current feminism attempts to look at other axises of oppression. There's also here where shakesville creator tries to explain the feminism humanism dichotomy.

I might be giving a false impression, or have been given a false impression. The more recent versions of feminism generally attempt to address some of the other issues that go beyond white middle-class straight cis women. I guess that's a better way to put it.

[eugene]

No, she said, "I support equal opportunity for genders, but there is a really, really long tradition of even well-meaning men dominating and dismissing women in popular movements."

That works if your concern is specifically protecting women's rights. But Jessica seems to claim that the concern of feminists is equality for all, at least in gender issues and possibly beyond. If that's the case, why put so much weight on the specific issue of men dominating women in the past in all kinds of other movements?

[sophyturtle]

Yes; for example, about 75% of people rejected the idea that women should fulfill their "traditional roles" in society. This seems in agreement with feminist values. Note that you originally said not that "feminists are mainstream", but "what feminists do is not mainstream".

I would like some version of citation for this. 75% of people don't think women should take their husband's last name when they marry? 75% of people don't see women as primary caregivers for children? or is it 75% of people think it is okay for women to have a career?

As a woman, I can safely say 75% of the people I have met is way off. And I hang out with liberals. I know, I know, n=me. but really? I need more than this to have any kind of faith. We cannot get that many people in this country to believe in evolution. You really think they are all for female run households and such?


On issues of race and things: Like many things it depends on what you think. Feminism is not some sort of badge you get after passing the tests and memorizing the priorities/principles. I was raised by feminists. They taught me that as a white woman I should care about what happens to black/hispanic/poor/old/young women because they are women. I should care about men because they come from and partner with women.
I am certainly a feminist. And I work to help all women, and children, and men. Because women are not alone, and they have fathers/brothers/sons making the problems faced by men way significant. I have been raised on feminism that is community based and about being a woman. Because through feminism I was shown I get to decide what that means.

If you don't like the word, don't use it. If you don't like how people see the word, when they see if as man hating pointing out their ignorance is an option. In many cases improving the lives of the women of a group improve the lives of the whole group.

[eugene]

I would like some version of citation for this. 75% of people don't think women should take their husband's last name when they marry? 75% of people don't see women as primary caregivers for children? or is it 75% of people think it is okay for women to have a career?

This was in one of the Pew surveys. The full report can be found here: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf. I think what they did was to make a statement "Women should return to their traditional roles in society." 75% of people disagreed with that statement. I interpret this as people supporting the idea that women can do whatever they choose to, even if that is not "traditionally" a female role. In particular, I interpret this as people saying that a woman who doesn't want to take her husband's last name should have an option to [not] do so. This is my interpretation, of course. Maybe some of these people think that they disagree with the statement, yet still think that women should stay at home with the children, and they do not see the contradiction between the two.

As a woman, I can safely say 75% of the people I have met is way off. And I hang out with liberals. I know, I know, n=me. but really? I need more than this to have any kind of faith. We cannot get that many people in this country to believe in evolution. You really think they are all for female run households and such?

I don't think they are all for female run households for themselves. But I do think they wouldn't mind the idea in general. I also think a lot of people would be very surprised if I said in public that I oppose female-run households. So the survey results seem pretty consistent with what I see. Although, of course, it's again just me.

If you don't like the word, don't use it. If you don't like how people see the word, when they see if as man hating pointing out their ignorance is an option.

It's not that I don't like the word. I just think it's much easier if people use words consistently. In this case, I looked at three encyclopaedias and web sites of two feminist organizations, and they all used the word "feminism" in the sense of protecting women's rights to achieve gender equality. They didn't even say "protect all people's rights to achieve gender equality", much less other kinds of equality. They talked specifically about women's rights. So I could point out the ignorance of Britannica's editors or the feminist leaders themselves, but before that I wanted to gauge just how sure you are that you actually have the right definition.