The question should be What is feminism? If so many people believe that feminism is the answer to all the worlds problems and will bring peace and prosperity to mankind, then I would like to know what exactly is feminism? Then if we knew that we could answer the question : Why feminism?

Let’s look at the evidence. Discussion forums dominated by and moderated by men tend to degenerate into chronic flamewars. Discussion forums limited to women, or moderated by women, tend not to. Young males age 14 to 25 are overwhelmingly responsible for violent crime; 93% of all serial killers are male. The available evidence suggests that males have a great propensity toward violence than women, and logically this suggests that the more women we can put in charge, the better.

Now let’s look at history. When I was a kid, divorced women couldn’t write checks in the supermarkets. SIngle women couldn’t get a bank account without a co-signer. Single mothers couldn’t get mortgages. Women were almost uniformly turned down whenever they applied for jobs dominated by men — in cases as seemingly inexplicable as symphony orchestra members. When I was a kid 90% of high-paying high-status high-value-added jobs, like lawyers or doctors or engineers, were men. When I was a kid, 90% of students in law school were men.

Suddenly, after blind auditions were instituted and anti-discrimination laws got passed, a lot more women started getting hired to play in symphony orchestras. Turns out the (mostly male) concertmasters had been unconsciously discriminating against women. Ditto for many other professions like medicine, physics, engineering, etc. Now, 50% of the students in law school are women, single women can open checking accounts and bank accounts and get mortgages as long as they have the income, and thanks to aggressive anti-domestic violence laws, violence against women in marriages or long-term relationships has dropped as well. Instead of just giving the guy a warning, police now routinely arrest bullies who beat their wives with baseball bats. That didn’t happen when I was a kid.

Lastly, let’s look at economics. America finds itself facing a world full of smart hard-working people with access to all the same knowledge (courtesy of the internet) we in the developed world have access to. We’re in for the economic fight of our life in the next few decades. Does it make sense for America to tie one hand behind its back by discriminating against the female 50% of our workforce and discouraging them through dscimrination from entering high-paying high-value-added professions that make us economically competitive with the rest of the world?

Why feminism? Look at the evidence. Study recent history. Examine basic economics. Draw your own conclusions.

i’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he might be the way i was ten years ago, as an undergrad majoring in philosophy

Actually you’re spot on in this. He is an undergrad working towards a philosophy degree. He also has been a collasal asshole to me in the past, but if someone is reaching out of their assholery in search of a little light, far be it from me to deny that. Instead I figured I’d put the question to all of you and perhaps ignite a bit of conversation about it from a perspective that isn’t often seen here. It’s good practice for us, and if he’s open minded about what he reads, good learning tool for him.

and robert, yeah, there are herbs and other methods of contraception and abortion, but it is often very difficult to obtain these herbs and they are very very hard on the body. herbs- the way they’re used in the u.s., anyway, with the info we have- maybe have a 50% chance of working, at most, and i actually think that’s extremely generous. when it doesn’t work, or doesn’t completely work, the woman’s situation becomes increasingly desperate. even when they do work, they can be temporarily debilitating or worse (and by temporarily, i mean up to 2 months). i think women should educate themselves about herbs- they can be useful- but they should not be depended on.

Why feminism?
Because anything less would be slavery of half of the population. And pragmatically, it needs to be said that eventually free and more equal societies do gain an edge economically, technologically etc. despite the initial boost that slavery gives.

It wasn’t just your post I was looking at… it seemed to run through quite a few of the threads in the beginning. I do think that people were trying to make a “pragmatic” vs. “moral” argument because they perceived it as more palatable to the guy; but I also think that a lot of people honestly take the “for the sake of society” argument as the best reason for feminism.

To me, that creates a frame for what the goals of feminism are: to allow women (implicitly, middle-class or affluent white women) to enter into the white-collar labor market on the same terms as men. The way society is structured is removed from the list of things that we can consider changing; instead, it’s about allowing women access to everything guys have. An argument more along the lines of Rawl shifts the focus straight back to changing the way we set up society in the first place. It demands that we consider that the way men have it now isn’t really the goal for women, but rather we might want to change the way both men and women perform both paid and unpaid labor, interact with each other, and so forth.

The “pragmatic” argument is easier, I think, both to try to convince men of the value of feminism (after all, it’s not asking them to change, only asking them to share their toys) and to follow in your own life (if you are on that white-collar career track). Hiring another women and paying her a salary too low to really live on is easier than negotiating with your husband about equal childcare responsibilities. And you might feel a little guilty for a bit, but it’s OK because it’s feminist for you to not give up your career!

It’s interesting how the way we choose to present things can really have implications for our actions that are far more broad-reaching than we realize, that’s all.

So the answer to “why feminism” is obvious: for the men. Imagine how soul-destroying it is for a man to go through his entire life never being sure whether he earned any of his achievements or whether they were just the result of his not being held to the same standards as a majority of the population. Just think what it does to his self-esteem to know that, in effect, the door has been held open for him his entire life.

Where did you get this? John Norman?

Because when the inevitable conflict over a limited resource breaks out, those societies win.

Assuming that “more aggressive” = “better at warfare,” and forgetting that “more” is a qualifier. A very aggressive, technologically and strategically poor society is going to fare rather badly against somewhat less aggressive, but clever and better-armed neighbors.

If there is a woman who suffers, why should she suffer?

If there is a woman who could contribute, wherefore should she not contribute?

It is a fascinating game to play at sexism or racism or any other bigotry and construct reasons why we gain from them. But if you neglect a woman’s suffering because she is a woman then you are a trader in human suffering. If you neglect a woman’s capacities because she is a woman then you are not honest with yourself.

Why feminism?

Because it is easier.

Listen.

Your brain is a human brain, so it is going to pattern match and wind up with ideas about what women are like and what women should do and how women should be. In some situations those ideas will be right. In some situations those ideas will be wrong.

Here is why it is easier to be feminist.

Instead of figuring out how to justify those ideas, and how to make sure that women fit into the place that those ideas would suggest for them, just… don’t.

Take those five minutes and have a soda or something.

If that’s hard to do, then maybe the problem isn’t feminism but whatever it is that makes that hard to do.

Rebecca

My point being, society has evolved in many ways over time, and to expect that because for a few thousand years many societies have taken up patriarchal structures based on superior muscle power doesn’t really relate to today’s more modern capabilities. If in fact ‘might makes right’ were a better structure, then we’d forego equalizing laws against murder and violence. So clearly men value egalitarian systems as well when it comes to ‘the great equalizer’.

Robert said:
I suspect that historically we find male dominance nearly universally because female empowerment leads directly to lower birth rates which makes a society, tribe or culture less able to compete for resources with its neighbors. Male empowerment leads to higher birth rates, which makes a society, tribe or culture more able to compete.

You may be correct, but for simpler reasons than birth rate. Male-dominated societies are likely to have more powerful and aggressive males, and those males are better able to compete with neighbors.

Another reason operates at the level of individuals, not societies. Males who were more socially dominant and aggressive than females were likely to be selected for by females. When females select mates with higher status than them (or have such mates selected for them by parents or kin), the male will usually become the dominant one in the relationship. A society full of male-dominated family-units becomes a male-dominated society.

Sweaty_Monk said:
There are a lot of notes here referencing primitive or tribal societies, and it is clear that people have a poor conception of these. I would suggest Riane Eisler’s international bestseller “The Chalice and the Blade” along with Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmael” to deal with this ignorance and, especially the first, to deal with the question of why should there be no male domination.

It is strange that you speak with so much confidence of work that is itself very sketchy:

link one

link two

link three

Admin Edit: Aegis, your links were creating a page scroll on IE that was breaking the continuity of the webpage. I’ve edited your links to be labled as links for now. If you wish to repost them, please do so in html with tags, rather than single line code. Thanks, Kim.

Regarding AB’s comment on the two kinds of argument, I noticed it too, but was looking at it as pragmatic vs. moral (or something). It reminded me, at least in form, of Donald Johnson’s article on the cases against torture.

Because I do not want to have a fool like you tell me what to do.

I’ll rephrase it:
When women are oppressed then humanity is like a bird with a broken wing. Not only is the wing in pain, but then humanity cannot “fly”.

Probably the way I phrased it originally, it sounded more like I care about helping women for the sake of the common good rather than simple fairness. But after considering that point, I decided that I really do care about both things - common good and fairness. In that sense, I would like to “fix the broken wing” even if it doesn’t help the bird to fly. I just happen to think that both might be accomplished.

** Finally, I apologize to whoever deserves and apology (the universe, perhaps?) for not having a clue about a) the wording of the orignal phrase and b) the person(s) who said it.

Enough to say, that you’re antifeminist, or antiwoman…which is unfair and ignorant because one of my friends is involved in increasing medical screening for breast and cervical cancer in her community, which saves women’s lives.

Online, I’ve seen self-identified feminists who call themselves pro-life(against abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war, etc.) who have been made to feel unwelcome in feminist discussions online, or have been called antifeminist or nonfeminist because of this. Even though they are not advocating the ban of abortion, they just don’t like it. OTOH, they are not activists protecting the right of women to have abortions so maybe that’s what causes some flak. They are not good enough soldiers. But maybe it’s just not their way of fighting for women, but some other arena is, i.e. if they are advocating for better working conditions for women, better prison conditions or safer neighborhoods.

Then, there’s times when you have a prochoice person who calls themselves antifeminist. So the two aren’t always connected together as neatly as they might appear.

——————————————————

“I know many women who are antiabortion, who still respect another woman’s right to have one. So why not in that situation, return the favor and support those women’s choices?

How is my being pro-choice”“hell, how is my adamant desire to not have children”“being unsupportive of someone’s choice to have them? ”

————————————————-
It’s not. Maybe you support them, but not all feminists do. And I’ve read enough arguments about whether or not to have children elsewhere and whether or not that’s a feminist act, to know that’s an issue of contention and conflict for many feminists as well.

I just wrote something that seemed to make sense to me about “returning the favor”. I didn’t realize it would be so offensive.

“A natural response is to change the word feminist to a word with fewer stigmas attached. But inevitably the same thing will happen to that magical word. Part of the radical connotation of feminism is not due to the word, but to the action. The act of a woman standing up for herself is radical, whether she calls herself a feminist or not.”
Paula Kamen