There are two things I want to address quickly within this entry.
The first one is why I identify as a feminist. There have been a couple of people questioning my use of this label. Well basically (desire for gender equality aside) when I look at the feminist movement I see it as a fight for choice. Examples of this are as follows:
Women having voting rights, this is political choice
"My body, my choice" is self evident
I see choice as the way to achieve true equality in society. I worry less about the amount of female CEO's, although I admit this may be one way of examining if inequality in choice still exists, and more about if true choice for women (and men) exists.
As for the media display that "women can have it all" this is a flawed model that many people have drawn attention to as a flaw in feminism. Actually, feminism renounces this representation as harmful for women. Regardly of what people may have convinced themselves, feminism's job is not quite done.
Also before you ask, I support women staying at home with the children and cooking for their husband (anti-marriage aside for now) if that is their choice to do so and how they go about maximising their happiness. I don't see it as a betrayal of myself or feminism.
Furthering on from this theme the other point I wanted to address is the concept of labels. Ignore my feminist label for one moment, what if I had called myself "Egalitarian open to criticism"? Would the criticism to support ratio have inverted? In regards to the exact same views?
Just because feminism has a bad name doesn't make it a good reason to drop it as a label, in fact I feel it is even more of a reason to adopt it as a proud label and attempt to change public opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Women having voting rights, this is political choice"
ReplyDeleteOh my heavens! THE VOTE!!!
Will you guys EVER get tired of tooting THAT rusty old horn? I mean hey, it was almost a century ago. And not only that, but I think there is at least a case to be made that it was not such a wise idea to extend the franchise to women. (Of course, it's all water under the bridge at this point!)
Above all, I don't buy the idea that women were necessarily "oppressed" by not having the vote back then. I am willing to believe that the actual truth of the matter was a bit more. . . nuanced. Plus, I'm not a very big fan of back-projecting present-day polemics and politics onto the historical past, when different cultural worldviews were in effect.
""My body, my choice" is self evident."
Yes. . but the question is, self-evidently WHAT? To me, it is self-evidently a tired old cliché - almost as tedious as "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" or "can't handle a strong, powerful woman."
(Trent13, are you in the vicinity? ;)
"Regardly of what people may have convinced themselves, feminism's job is not quite done."
Feminism's job will NEVER be "quite done". Similar to a bureaucracy or entrenched institution of whatever sort, the femplex seeks to perpetuate itself indefinitely.
"I see choice as the way to achieve true equality in society."
I see equality, ('true' or otherwise) as an essentially contested and essentially flawed concept UNLESS its use is confined to:
1.Simple reflexive identity, or. .
2.Pure mathematics, or. .
3.Mathematically quantifiable comparisons.
I do not recommend using the term 'equality' AT ALL outside of the context encompassed in these three points. I believe it is no better than semantic snake-oil when such semantic "hygiene" is omitted.
". . feminism renounces this representation as harmful for women."
Does it? I suppose that depends on who, or what you call "feminism". At any rate, I commend the stance you appear to have taken here.
"I support women staying at home with the children and cooking for their husband . . if that is their choice. . . I don't see it as a betrayal of myself or feminism."
For what it's worth, Simone de Beauvoir would beg to differ.
". . . if I had called myself "Egalitarian open to criticism"? Would the criticism to support ratio have inverted? In regards to the exact same views?"
I can't speak for everybody, but my own critique would have been identical in either case, given that I would be attending to the substance of your words. And if you had not supplied the label "feminism", it is possible I would have supplied it myself, via the "duck test" or such. But see my earlier remarks about "equality", above.
"Just because feminism has a bad name doesn't make it a good reason to drop it as a label . ."
Actually, that could be as good a reason as any. But the question here, it seems to me, is not whether feminism has a bad name, but whether the "badness" in truth extends to a deeper level. Remember that "the word is not the thing', and the "thing" is what ultimately concerns us.
If feminism has a "bad name", it might be profitable to speculate on why it GOT such a name in the first place.
"Oh my heavens! THE VOTE!!!"
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying there is you can use the historical movement of feminism to argue against my points, but I can't use the historical movement to back up my claims? How hypocritical
"For what it's worth, Simone de Beauvoir would beg to differ."
I speak for myself.
"Actually, that could be as good a reason as any. But the question here, it seems to me, is not whether feminism has a bad name, but whether the "badness" in truth extends to a deeper level."
As you stated previously if I had not given myself the label of feminist you would have supplied that for me, so the point is moot either way.
"And not only that, but I think there is at least a case to be made that it was not such a wise idea to extend the franchise to women."
ReplyDeleteI have read some of the MRA arguments for that. They are laughably absurd.
"So what you are saying there is you can use the historical movement of feminism to argue against my points, but I can't use the historical movement to back up my claims? How hypocritical."
ReplyDeleteThis is deep; possibly because it has no bottom?
Terra firma, or foothold of any sort, would be very much in the warrant here.
I have read some of the MRA arguments for that. They are laughably absurd.
I have no idea which arguments those are. If they were laughably absurd, I wouldn't store them in memory anyway.
"As you stated previously if I had not given myself the label of feminist you would have supplied that for me. ."
Very clever, but you won't slip that past me.
The phrase "bad name" means bad reputation.
"Label" simply means "identifying word tag".
Those are completely different things.
Nice try with the ol' split-level switcheroo, but feminism by any other name tag is still feminism. ;)
"I speak for myself."
As does Simone - for herself. So the question is, who speaks for feminism?
"Very clever, but you won't slip that past me."
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to split hairs between a bad name or reputation, I'm not sure where you got that from.
"As does Simone - for herself. So the question is, who speaks for feminism?"
Well that is the true question isn't it?
Fidelbogen - ” For what it's worth, Simone de Beauvoir would beg to differ."
ReplyDeleteAFOTC - ”I speak for myself.”
Which brings it all back full circle to the question of why you label yourself a feminist if not to align yourself with the ideology that being a feminist has come to suggest one is aligning themselves with?
While I can agree that the term feminist has expanded to cover a wide spectrum of views (now Sarah Palin is calling herself a feminist), the unifying theme tends to be that, whatever the “brand” of feminism, they all are based on a female-centric POV (sometimes termed gyno-centric).
There’s nothing particularly wrong about women taking a female-centric view (IMHO, anyway) – I’d just prefer that women stop pretending that they are truly seeking ”equality” and just admit their seeking to make things better for women, even if it means that men are put in an inequitable position. It’s basically the same thing that women who are critical of MRA’s are contending – “MRA men just want what’s good for men, and women be damned”, is it not?
In any given case, on any particular issue, it may true that neither side is aiming for true equity (equity being a better term to use than equality, as it relates to the opportunities being equal rather than the outcomes). Many of the “rights” women now have come directly at eh expense of men (one need only look at the Anti-Family Courts to see some prime examples), yet few women (and, almost no feminist) ever complain about the gross inequities. Why! Because it’s a matter of women gaining benefits, irrespective of the cost to men.
It’s interesting that you introduced yourself to us by commenting on the False Rape Society Blog site. The issue of FRA’s is another instance of women gaining at the expense of men (needlessly, I would add), as a certain hysteria has been created over the crime of rape which has effectively lead to the suspension of men’s most basic legal rights in an effort to make the process of charging and punishing rape more “friendly” to women. While women should be able to seek and receive justice for crimes committed against them (without being humiliated or endangered in the process), it is painfully obvious that the legal provisions now in place serve as an invitation to women to abuse the system, and use a rape allegation for what ever selfish purpose it serves them – even when the men who are targeted are entirely innocent.
It’s the old matter of the swinging pendulum. As of now, it’s swung way too far in the direction of the benefit to women at the expense of men. Those who purport themselves to be feminists seem to be unanimously opposed to letting the pendulum swing back in a corrective pattern. Many even seem to wish to push it further towards inequity and injustice. Inevitably, this will simply lead to it swinging back harder, and travelling further into the opposite inequity/injustice (Hey, how about some Sharia Law should men become so disadvantaged that we all stop working to protect the rights of women in the Western World?).
Given that you say your open to criticism, how about looking for ways to achieve a more equitable correction that will also serve to avoid an over-correction that will be harmful to women – even if doing so will take back some of the advantages women now enjoy?
Protections for men accused, until such time as evidence supports that they have committed as crime such as rape? Punishments for false accusers that will serve as an effective deterrent? More equitable Family Law? Mandatory paternity testing of newborns to protect the interests of men and children? Any of these sound like they might “work” for you?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFirstly sorry that I had to remove Scarecrow's post. I have asked people to try to frame their responses in an intellectual way, so I consider I gave fair warning. His comment added nothing to the topic, and threatened to push it in an unhelpful direction.
ReplyDelete@slwerner
"I’d just prefer that women stop pretending that they are truly seeking ”equality” and just admit their seeking to make things better for women"
Again I state I desire equality. Where have I pushed women's issues at the expense of men?
"how about looking for ways to achieve a more equitable correction that will also serve to avoid an over-correction that will be harmful to women – even if doing so will take back some of the advantages women now enjoy?"
Firstly I need to remind you I am Australian, these laws (VAWA) don't exist in my country, consequently the issue of FRA doesn't really either. It is still very hard to report rape and to actually ever hope for a conviction or a fitting sentence.
Secondly, I definitely support punishments for false accusers (although I would want to make sure the intention to falsely accuse was there and it wasn't just a mistake).
Phrasing this as criticism of me is a quite an assumption on your part I would like to point out, please respond in ways that apply to what I have actually said and not in ways that assume what I think.
"Women having voting rights, this is political choice"
ReplyDeleteI think most people missed my point in regards to this point, I was not trying to trumpet feminisms success*which is unnecessary). Rather I was using it to demonstrate how in my opinion feminism is about choice, for that purpose choosing widely known and accepted areas was the most apt way of demonstrating this choice.
@ fidelbogen (again)
ReplyDelete"So yes, once again, feminism IS a choice."
"And if you had not supplied the label "feminism", it is possible I would have supplied it myself, via the "duck test" or such. But see my earlier remarks about "equality", above."
Can you explain how these two statements are not contradictions? If you can supply the name of feminism to me, it seems like less a choice and more an infliction of labels.
A feminist open to criticism ... deleting comments that ask questions hitting a little too close to home.
ReplyDeleteYep ... sums up the whole movement.
@ Snark, there was no question in that comment, just a lot of obnoxious capslocks
ReplyDelete"deleting comments that ask questions hitting a little too close to home.
Yep ... sums up the whole movement."
Seems to me it sums up the MRA movement quite well.
I call shenanigans on both of you. If we start to defend our stances to the exclusion of simply hearing other pov's, then the blog (and others like it) might as well shut down now.
ReplyDeleteThe point IS to hear each other out. This doesn't mean hurling accusation and invective; e.g. "YOUR kind is only interested in ..."
I support much (not all) of the FRA movement and many (not all) feminist principles. I have argued on various blogs that these ideas are not only NOT exclusive, but share much common ground for equity (I like that word as well) for all people.
However, emotion and personal trauma being what they are, often get in the way of seeing this point. I see an awful lot of fear in these blogs that "if I give any ground at all, it will invalidate my beliefs and therefore the personal experience or trauma I have suffered." Seriously consider that.
Not to get too therapy-y, but a mark of moving past our personal pain is to be able to consider points of view that may be hard for us to hear, without diminishing the other person or their view.
That being said, YOUR right and the other person is wrong.
I'll let you all figure out who is who.
Regarding choices and labels:
ReplyDeleteMeta-labels are almost always useless in trying to identify an individual, but very useful in describing an overarching philosophy or state.
To say I am a feminist liberal gives you some vague notions of some things I believe, but tell you almost nothing about who I am in my daily life and the kinds of decisions I am likely to make. It also doesn't tell you where in the continuum of feminism I might stand. I could throw out terms like "second wave" or "post" but, again, it gives you some general stomping ground. At the end of the day, to know ME, you'd have to spend time with me and my views on various topics. Catch me on some days and you might think me a masculinist conservative.
In other words, we will all find out who each other is and how we think when we start discussing particular topics.
In more other words, feminism is way too broad (yes, intended) and diverse to try to fit into one person...or maybe that's the other way 'round.
Fidelbogen:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, I do not make statements classifiable as misogynistic." (posted on another thread)
"And not only that, but I think there is at least a case to be made that it was not such a wise idea to extend the franchise to women."
Seriously? You don't think that insinuating that over half the human race should not have a say in how they are governed is misogynistic??
"Not to get too therapy-y, but a mark of moving past our personal pain is to be able to consider points of view that may be hard for us to hear, without diminishing the other person or their view."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and that is what the conception of this blog marks for me.
"Seriously? You don't think that insinuating that over half the human race should not have a say in how they are governed is misogynistic??"
ReplyDeleteThat's one way of interpreting it CaroJ.
Another way - and, knowing his work, I think the way that Fidelbogen meant it - is that the franchise isn't all that great anyway, for men or for women.
And that extending something which is bad will make it worse.
Though, I am making assumptions, since I have been more critical of democracy in the past than Fidelbogen has.