Discussion thread for eeffinjay vs. Responsiblefreeagent

[Gnug215]

This is the discussion thread for the "Criticism of feminism, not feminsts" debate between eeffinjay Responsiblefreeagent, found here.


As usual, we suggest that the two debate participants do not join this thread, at least until the debate is over.

They are free to make new threads, though, if they, for instance, want to address issues raised in this thread. (It's a bit fuzzy, I know, but it's just a good measure to have. Trust me! )

 

[Inferno]

Well, this started off well... No sources used, extremely short posts...

The definition shouldn't be too difficult:

Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

For the record, feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

WomensHistory[/url]"]In other words, feminism describes a culture in which women, because they are women, are treated differently than men, and that, in that difference of treatment, women are at a disadvantage; feminism assumes that such treatment is cultural and thus possible to change and not simply "the way the world is and must be"; feminism looks to a different culture as possible, and values moving towards that culture; and feminism consists of activism, individually and in groups, to make personal and social change towards that more desirable culture.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt[/url]"]What that (Note: Feminist) means to me is that you don’t let your gender define who you are—you can be who you want to be, whether you’re a man, a woman, a boy, a girl, whatever. However you want to define yourself, you can do that and should be able to do that, and no category ever really describes a person because every person is unique. That, to me, is what “feminism” means. So yes, I’d absolutely call myself a feminist. And if you look at history, women are an oppressed category of people. There’s a long, long history of women suffering abuse, injustice, and not having the same opportunities as men, and I think that’s been very detrimental to the human race as a whole. I’m a believer that if everyone has a fair chance to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, it’s better for everyone. It benefits society as a whole.

Even if you take the idea of "radical feminism", it seems quite mild to what Responsiblefreeagent says:

SociologyAbout[/url]"]Radical feminists believe that gender inequality is a result of the collective efforts of men to dominate, control, and exploit women. Violence against women, compulsory heterosexuality, and the organization of the traditional family are all viewed as ways to ensure male dominance through female subordination to and dependence upon men.

For the record, I believe "collective" is wrong, it should be "institutionalized".
There's a difference between "collective" and "all". I believe it is absolutely true that women as a whole (with exceptions) are dominated by men (with exceptions), but absolutely all? Nonsense. I also believe that the exceptions now far outnumber the rule, so I should revise that statement:
I believe it is absolutely true that women as a whole (with exceptions) are regarded as equals by men (with exceptions), but not absolutely all. I believe there's still a long way to go.




Now, some may question my use of quotes in this post. First, this is the contemporary use of feminism by most people. Second, my (German) handbook of sociology didn't deviate from the definitions given, the only difference is that it's spelt out less clearly in over a page, so I didn't bother translating it. And yes, I said "less clearly".

 

[SpecialFrog]

We live in the west, where EVERYONE believes in equality for everyone (EGALitarianism), including female (and male) anti-feminists.

Responsiblefreeagent, you might want to look at We Hunted the Mammoth. It should quickly disabuse you of the notion that everyone in the West believes in equality.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I can't argue at all using that definition of feminism. If that were feminism, there would be nothing to argue about. We live in the privileged west. No one here is against any kind of equality for women, certainly not anti-feminists.

:lol:

Oh, I think the Republican Party (if you live in the U.S.) would say otherwise.

Definition of FEMinism (not egalitarianism): Men and women belong to different classes. ALL women as a class are oppressed by ALL men as a class. (See Shulamith Firestone for clearest elaboration of this.)

I believe you are making to mistakes here. Your first is equivocating radical feminism (for lack of a better term) with feminism. Your second mistake is the belief that because the prefix FEM is in feminism that it automatically leads to your definition. I believe this is a type of equivocation fallacy, wherein you are equating radical feminist ideals with feminism.

I also have to say there can be more than one word for a definition. I see that you believe a better word would be egalitarian and not feminism. Why can they not both exist, wherein feminism is a part of egalitarianism that mainly focuses on trying to get women to be equal with men? You do realize that fighting for equality for all humanity is not only fought between the genders? Essentially what I am saying, why get hung up on labels if you truly want to fight for equality?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Responsiblefreeagent, if you need any help in the debate the rates here seem quite reasonable.

http://thewomansplainer.com/?og=1

 

[Prolescum]

I don't think Responsiblefreeagent really has much of a position here. Some straight white men (and I don't mean to cast aspersions here) feel put upon and emasculated, but their anger is misdirected (see: the man) and use any other as a scapegoat for their frustrations.

 

[Steelmage99]

Well, I will say that the decision to adopt the moniker "Feminism" by a group of people concerned with the socio-political impact of gender-specific language does seem.....odd....to me.