Unable to scrounge together the $165 he needed to repay a loan to buy sheep, Nazir Ahmad made good on his debt by selling his 16-year-old daughter to marry the lender’s son… “He gave me nine sheep,” Ahmad said, describing his family’s woes since taking the loan. “Because of nine sheep, I gave away my daughter.”

Nick, you might as well say that we should use the same word for Republicans and for Democrats, because from the point of view of the rulers of Iran the two parties pretty much look the same. That’s not a useful standard.

Actually, that is a great example. We live in a great democratic republic. The Republicans and the Democrats heartily disagree with each other on a host of issues. Yet if either one obtains complete control of the government we would still be living in a democratic-republic. Neither group could realistically be labeled as anti.

However, if the group currently running Iran can be labeled as anti-. They would replace our current form of government with an Islamic republic. Women would be required to wear potato sacks. Laws would be passed allowing the stoning of women for adultery. A religious police would be established and we would all be required to pray five times a day.

If I called myself an MRA, but in all other ways opposed every policy and view of MRAs, would you agree I was an MRA? Do you really think “Men’s Right Activist” has no meaning other than “someone who calls himself one”?

This is a free country. You certainly would be able to call yourself a ‘MRA’ if you so chose. Would it have meaning? Probably so. You are after the second part of your definition.

2) Advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

means that when you find that men are at a disadvantage, to maintain your credentials as a feminist as based on your definition, you would be advocate a solution to that problem.

That your proposed solutions might be different or in opposite directions of where certain other MRA’s wish to head would not really be relevant.

Not everyone in the marriage movement is anti-marriage-equality, but a huge amount of the leadership of the anti-marriage-equality movement comes from the marriage movement. Pretty much anyone who isn’t overtly religious and is anti-SSM is going to be someone coming from a marriage movement perspective.

The marriage movement folks are more likely to be religious Christians than MRAs are, and less likely to be libertarian. They’re not as often anti-feminist, although a lot of them are. And they are very, very against the idea of “choice for men,” which MRAs of course generally favor. On the other hand, although many MRAs are homophobic bigots, the homophobia isn’t as central to the MRA movement as it is to much of the marriage movement.

If I called myself an MRA, but in all other ways opposed every policy and view of MRAs, would you agree I was an MRA? Do you really think “Men’s Right Activist” has no meaning other than “someone who calls himself one”?

Oh, wait. No. That’s bullshit.

That’s a very silly standard.

—Myca

Similarly, what you’re talking about is the phenomenon of parallax.

ROFLOL - an fellow astronomy buff. Quick, what galaxy are we in? Did you read the latest claim that we are not in the Milky Way? That we are actually in a Sag. Dwarf galaxy being eaten by the Milky Way…

I can see the differences between the two groups very clearly.

Anti can also mean “opposed to.”

Yes, but that doesn’t effectively describe y’alls relationship. To me, the word anti-feminist should be reserved say for the likes of the ayatollahs in Iran. Now they are died in the wool anti-feminists. If each of you were in their power, you would both be stoned.

Y’all are very close.

So perhaps you could call them neo-feminists or i-feminists or some other name, but anti- does not fit the bill because anti- means opposite.

Anti can also mean “opposed to.” For reasons I argued in the original post (waaaay at the top of this thread), I think it’s reasonable to call someone like Wendy McElroy opposed to feminism.

I do think there’s a tendency for lefties to lump all opposition together; it took me a long time to notice the idealogical differences between the marriage movement and the MRA movement — even though the marriage folks and the MRAs hate each other, for the most part.

I think Daran’s an atheist, and Robert certainly isn’t, so there are certainly some major differences going on between them, but I don’t much bother to differentiate between their politics. To me, they look the same.

FWIW, Daran’s political views seem to me to be a lot closer to yours than either of you let on. Certainly closer to yours than to Robert’s.

I guess you could take that as another illustration of your point, but I think your views are pretty close in an absolute sense. Other than the relative oppression levels of men and women, and you maybe being a bit further to the left on some issues, is there really that much that you disagree on?

We’re both opposed to the divine right of kings, I suppose. But then again, I’ve been known to make the argument for feudalism, so…

Similarly, what you’re talking about is the phenomenon of parallax. E.g. to you, there looks like a difference between MRAs and anti-feminists. From here? Not so much.

The fact that you can’t tell the difference between the feminist and anti-feminist viewpoints of, eh, me and Wendy McElroy doesn’t mean you aren’t totally wrong. It just means your parallax is sufficiently weird that we look like we’re in the same camp. Fair enough. I think Daran’s an atheist, and Robert certainly isn’t, so there are certainly some major differences going on between them, but I don’t much bother to differentiate between their politics. To me, they look the same.

However, I acknowledge that I have little if any role in trying to redefine the movements that they use to describe themselves.

Anti-feminist thinks feminists should redefine feminism to include anti-feminists.

Film at 11.

—Myca

Now that wasn’t called for. I am far closer to a MRA than an anti-feminist.

Lets use a religious analogy. I would be more akin to a Buddhist.

Looking over at the two groups, I would say that one of you would be Methodists and the other would be Baptists. You have almost identical beliefs except for one small part of the doctrine. Now that makes a big difference in your practices, but it makes neither of you anti-feminists. But to anyone on the outside looking in, y’all are both different sects of the same group.

So perhaps you could call them neo-feminists or i-feminists or some other name, but anti- does not fit the bill because anti- means opposite.

“Ensuring women’s freedom and equality of opportunity in all spheres of life is a crucial priority.”

I particularly like it because it assumes positive momentum for change, when it’s needed, and an opportunity to celebrate freedom and equality where it currently exists. Also, it’s open ended in self-defined gender-identity, race, class, ethnicity, rural or urban, and location on the planet.

And, if one is a self-defined man and one agrees with these ideas, one can consider oneself a feminist without any quibbling that I can come up with (at 11:30 at night when I’m generally in bed by 10pm)

With all due respect, I have addressed the first point of his thread directly. He posited two requirements to be a feminist, and his basis for excluding Wendy from being a feminist is based on the first point of his definition. I am addressing that specific point.

Well, sure, but you’re quibbling with the definition, rather than admitting that she doesn’t meet it.

Like Amp said, it’s fine to discuss whether or not the definition is a good one, but, according to the definition as it stands, she’s excluded, and I think that’s right.

in any case, I am not sure exactly how you should refine your definition so as to include them, however I think you should do so. They are a positive force for the feminist movement.

Anti-feminist thinks feminists should redefine feminism to include anti-feminists.

Film at 11.

—Myca

Additionally, Nick, it would be nice if you could keep an eye on this, since I think it’s pretty much what happened over in the “abortion is murder” thread too.

With all due respect, I have addressed the first point of his thread directly. He posited two requirements to be a feminist, and his basis for excluding Wendy from being a feminist is based on the first point of his definition. I am addressing that specific point.

Do you think I’m wrong to think that someone who sees no problems for women in our culture, and no need for feminist activism to oppose sexism against women, can’t legitimately be called a “feminist”?

I would agree with you there. However, in my opinion, I don’t think that description applies to what little I know about either Wendy or Cathy. I think that you are both actually substantially in agreement with the problems that women face in current society, but have different ideas on how to obtain those goals.

I believe that they see a number of problems for women in our culture.
I believe that they see the need for feminist activism to oppose those problems.
I see them writing and taking actions to fix the problems that they see for women in our culture.
Therefore, I conclude that they are indeed feminists.

Do you think I’m wrong in saying that there has to be some limit to what the word “feminist” means, or else the word is in effect meaningless? If you do think I’m wrong about that, why?

I would agree with you there absolutely. The Wikipedia has a nice article on feminists and it chose to include them as a branch.

I think you have already agreed that Wendy would meet your second definition of a feminist.

Perhaps you would also agree that they would meet the first definition if it was worded:

there are current, significant, society-wide inequality and sexism IN THE WORLD which on balance disadvantages women”

There are clearly a lot of disadvantages facing women in many foreign countries. My mother and step-dad lived in Saudi Arabia for seven years. So they had plenty of tales to tell. I had to reteach my mother how to drive when she got back.

Horrors such as honor killings, FGM, being required to wear potato sacks, not being allowed to drive or be out in public alone, being stoned to death for adultery, planned/forced marriages, etc.

and similarly if it was worded thus, it would include them:

there WERE significant, society-wide inequality and sexism IN THE US which on balance disadvantages women, AND SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS STILL ENDURE”

Many of the issues that have been recently resolved in this country are issues such as the right to vote, the right to work certain jobs, the right to equal pay for the same job, etc.

And a number of issues that are being resolved but are not yet resolved. Issues such as gender inequity in sports, in divorce, etc. Your entire blog essentially lists most of them, so it would be redundant for you to relist them.

I don’t often agree with Wendy’s opinions but she seems more liberated that most feminists. She is willing to tackle the new problems that are cropping up in society as a result of the changes our society has gone through. One example being your post on “Pedophilia Fears Contributed to Child’s Death”

in any case, I am not sure exactly how you should refine your definition so as to include them, however I think you should do so. They are a positive force for the feminist movement.