Why I Don’t Call Myself An Equalist
| August 18th, 2006Feminism is a word that - to me - stands for the proposition that sexism sucks; that what’s between our legs doesn’t dictate who we are or what we can do; that women are unfairly disadvantaged in our society; and that we should be actively working to change all that. I’m not gonna back away from a word that means all that.
The reason that people object to “feminist” but not “equalist” isn’t that “equalist” is a better word. It’s that no one knows what equalism stands for.
But what would happen if all feminists decided that “feminist” was a bad word, and switched to “equalist”? Within a month, all the right-wingers who have worked so hard at making feminism a swear word would re-aim their guns at “equalist.” Whatever the word is that means “our status quo sucks, it hurts all of us but women especially, and it’s gotta change,” that word will be reviled.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:07 am
I agree. i think directly challenging the stigma behind the word is a big part of the battle itself. explaining what feminist/feminism means in reality and how it’s been negatively stereotyped over the decades tackles a lot of issues right there from the get go.
This comment was written by Luke.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 3:22 am
Equality does not “equal” Equity. Hence I would doubt if equalism is a helpful word at all here. All depends on what you value, indeed.
This comment was written by Jurate.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 6:52 am
I would add that I think “equalist” evades the key point of distinction between (most) feminists and (some) traditionalists. Feminists generally argue that men and women are both equal and approximately identical; traditionalists often argue that women and men are equal, but complementary. (Within the Christian world, think of the difference between Christian for Biblical Equality and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 7:59 am
We do? Can you point to supporting theory for this?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 8:43 am
worked so hard at making feminism a swear word would re-aim their guns at “equalist.” Whatever the word is that means “our status quo sucks, it hurts all of us but women especially, and it’s gotta change,” that word will be reviled. posted 3:13 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 8:53 am
QGrrl,
Maybe I put what I was saying inaccurately.
Most feminists (I think) would disagree with this statement:
Men and women are equally valuable, but have different abilities and thus should fill different roles.
Many conservatives would agree with that statement.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 8:55 am
From the way feminism has been expressed to me by feminist is that Feminism means man and woman are identical save for their reproductive systems and all other physical bodily functions affected by it. I would say this is the main reason why I have never been able to accept feminism because I honestly believe otherwise. I wasn’t introduced to “Feminism” until college and it put me off immediately because it seemed radical and even supremecist. Also because I have no negative ideas about gender I couldn’t wrap my head around some of the concepts. I’ve been able to find versions of “Feminism” that make more sense to me, but my mind doesn’t equate the word feminism with versions, more like ‘logic’ or common sense. I’m not sure Equalist would mean anything to me unless it meant a certain type of equalism.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Hmm. I absolutely disagree. Most feminists would say that despite any and all differences, women should have equal legal and economic parity with men. It’s not the difference that matters, it’s what that difference means when used to socially reduce women’s status. For example, like Z says above, there are differences in reproductive function, more so for women then for men. Women are socially and legally punished because of these differences. The differences are seen as a weakness because they are valued only in connection to and in contrast with male biology.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 9:57 am
A lot of people I know in and around the UK student movement have advocated something along the lines of “equalist” as a replacement for “feminist”. It’s a symptom of the bourgeois feminism that rules here - what happened to liberation rather than the not-very-politically-inspiring “legal equality now!”?
This comment was written by Sofie B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Most of the feminists I know of don’t necessarily disagree that there are general differences between most men and most women beyond the obvious physical ones–we disagree that individual men and women who happen not to match all general gender trends in temperament, interest, and ability should be punished for it.
All nature/nurture issues aside for a moment, you don’t have to disagree with “men are less likely to express sadness” to disagree with “real men don’t cry,” or to disagree with “women are less likely to be competitive” to disagree with “women shouldn’t compete.”
This comment was written by dragonsmilk.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am
To me, “equalist” and words like it have their own set of unpalatable baggage — “I assert a belief in equality in the abstract, but I’m not interested in any sort of deeper analysis of how inequality manifests and is sustained in our society, and I want to distance myself from all the people who have been fighting for equality all along.”
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Equalism also loses the gender component. It sounds like you want to make everyone the same– conjured up in my mind vague images of egalitarian masses walking the street in blue and grey Mao suits. That’s definitely not feminism, LOL!
Anyways the point is less that “we want men and women to be equal” but why and how we want men and women to be equal. It’s that being a man or a woman doesn’t degrade one’s innate humanity or personal worth, and that if you really accept that idea, then you ultimately can’t accept sexism justified on the grounds of tradition, or religion, or biological determinism.
This comment was written by Beet.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 11:39 am
To me the only reason to use equalist is if you are trying to find a term that goes beyond the issues of gender. The danger of that term goes back to ideas such as “separate but equal” which lets people say, “We treated you equally, but by lagging behind in a variety of areas you’ve proven that you are inherently inferior.”
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Perhaps we should all just be buddhists.
:)
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I’ve considered myself a feminist my whole life. I always felt that it would be absurd and masochistic not to- never thought twice about it. However- I’m a sex-positive feminist, and might actually be best described as a “femme”-inist- as I wear make-up, shave my legs, date men, am friends with men, and believe men can be feminists. There are those, however, that would say that, because of these things, and various I can’t “qualify” to be a feminist- which I think is pretty crappy- and it hurts quite a bit. Also, we know that in the past the feminist movement has sidelined poor and minority women (of course, in the third wave we’re supposed to be changing that). So, I can understand why some might gravitate towards another term. I don’t think I will, because I don’t like the idea of the term being entirely co-opted by one type of feminist, or of feminism being an exclusive affair.
This comment was written by Miss Robyn.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I agree with Abyss2hope, but I’m a person who obsesses with gender issues almost on a daily basis. Gender related impulses, not necessarily traditionally defined, do move us to do what we do and the confusion we sometimes feel may be rooted in our very DNA. To try to find a term that implies equality is just so complex. Why do we strive for equality? The answer to that question is something that I really struggle with.
This comment was written by Silent Spring.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Hmm. In Sweden we have “särartsfeminister” - feminists who believe that men and women are essentially different and “likhetsfeminister” - feminists who believe that men and women are essentially the same. This is seen as the main ideological divide between feminists. I also believe that french feminism generally belong to the former variant while anglican feminism is more like the latter.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Miss Robyn
I actually believe the problem is that there really is not such thing as feminism in its essence. There is no reason for a man to be a feminist. A man should not be sexist. From my perspective one of the main reasons Feminism and feminist ( and the terms) get a bad rap is because they are seen as anti-male or anti-man. Many woman feel and are made to feel they can’t meet the demands of feminism because they don’t harbor the required ill notions of male/man/masculine or in the totally equality of man/woman male/female. I feel like I am one of those women. I would never feel comfortable calling myself a feminist because I don’t feel I am or that it is even necessary to lable myself a such. My main beef is that I feel that men and women are no tgenerally equally in physical terms, emotional and physical needs, our need within our community structures and our natural roles. However I do believe that these difference are not absolutes and one side should not be able to dictate how the other side can or should want to function. I don’t believe that is compatible with feminism as it seems to be presented. So Feminism doesn’t work for me and Equalism doesn’t work for me. Anti-sexism seems more compatible to my ideals.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Miss Robyn-
Your comment highlights an issue within feminism that really makes me sad: that we feminists always seem to be in competition with each other. Or at least, there’s the undercurrent of competition. Feminist A says “I think the cultural imperative to shave is sexist”, and a certain number of feminists will feel as though they are being called sexist or bad feminists. Feminist B says “Being hairy is not a requirement for being a feminist” and a certain number of feminists will feel as though they are being marginalized as scary radical Others.
It reminds me of the way women are pitted against each other outside of feminism, too. We have to be the prettiest, the thinnest, the nicest, in order to win the most desirable guy, which is, of course, the whole purpose of our lives. We’re encouraged to sneer at the fashion mistakes of others and constantly compare ourselves to models and actresses.
Am I being a conspiracy theorist if I think that this all functions to keep women from actually organizing and focusing on IMPORTANT stuff? Who cares if anybody shaves or not, wears makeup or not? What’s important is dismantling the patriarchy and the system of oppression that keeps us down. Not shaving and not wearing make up are some of my little forms of protest, and I do think it is instructive to point out all the little ways the patriarchy is ingrained in our lives, but my personal appearance doesn’t make me a better feminist than anyone else.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Isn’t ‘equalist’ just a position used to bash feminism? In my experience it’s used rhetorically to imply that feminists don’t really care about gender equality, so much as getting preferential treatment for women. Equalist is supported as good, in contrast to feminist which is bad.
I do think there are some (mainly historic) strands of feminist where this was the case, and where rights for women were sought which didn’t apply to men. But this isn’t a mainstream position in current feminism, and using the word ‘equalist’ to imply that is just spreading stuff which isn’t true. That’s why I wouldn’t use the word ‘equalist’, it seems largely to be thrown around in order to misrepresent people.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Denise-
I agree with a lot of what you said. I really feel that, as feminists, or womanists, or whatever we want to call ourselves- we should be encouraging and embracing differences between women instead of trying to change them. The fact that I like to wear make-up has nothing to do with me being a woman- if I were a man, I’d be a drag queen! I wouldn’t change myself to fit into the patriarchy’s mold of what a woman should be, and I also wouldn’t change to fit what another feminists mold of a woman should be. I’m the only person that can decide that. While I think debate is important, I really hate the idea of inter-woman put-downs… because you’re right, women are always going up against eachother in whatever social venue. It’s why a lot of women won’t even be friends with other women, which is sad.
Z- I just want to say, that not only do I believe it’s possible for a man to be feminist- I think it’s an imperative if we’re ever going to get anywhere. If the definition of a feminist is someone who believes that men and women deserve equal rights and treatment- then I think that if one is not a feminist, then they are a misogynist. I care about civil rights and I’m white. Why? Because it’s about people, not about socially determined groupings of people.
This comment was written by Miss Robyn.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
In my experience, “equalist” is a word that gets co-opted by MRAs and their ilk in a way that “feminist” doesn’t, which is why I’m always wary of those calling themselves “equalists.”
This comment was written by Elizabeth McDonald.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Robyn,
I’m just saying a man doesn’t need to be a feminist. He just needs not to be sexist. A man that is not sexist will by definition not adhere to sexist notions men hold women to and affect women with. But then I don’t associate feminism as a fight for anything regarding men, only women. I associate feminism with alieviating oppression of women, not making sure both men and woman at treating equally. There are feminist components that don’t and cannot treat men on an equal basis as women because its focus is on the needs of women. Such as reproductive rights and options, childcare, work issues regarding child rearing, the want NOT to have a child, issues that affect girls, etc. The very word seems to be gender biased to me. Which in itself is perfectly okay. However a man can be a feminist. I just don’t think a man has to be a feminist to be considered a good man.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
An Equalist? Isn’t that the opposite of a Splendist? The Saccharists, of course, have largely died out.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Not to mention the fact that “Ekwilist” was Nabokov’s name for the fascist totalitarian state in Bend Sinister.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Hmmm… a friend of mine once noted the inherent sexism on packages of fake sugar… “Equal” in blue (for the boys) and in pink, for the ladies “Sweet and Low.” Splenda is clearly the only choice for gender neutral fake sugar. Also, I think it tastes less like death.
This comment was written by Miss Robyn.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I’m a little skeptical of “neither sexist nor feminist.” The heart of feminism is anti-sexism. When you take anti-sexism out of feminism you’re left with nothing worth defending.
I do think feminism can benefit men, when feminists take down stereotypes of how all men are supposed to be, not showing their feelings, behaving in mindless, animalistic styles. I think, when you look beyond Playboy centerfolds and porn stars and towards girlfriends and wives, men benefit from–and want– partners who are independent, assertive, and valuing their own minds as well as bodies.
Men can support feminism and still look after their own interests because feminists appeal to justice– they might appeal to justice mostly for women, but it’s still justice, which means it’s not incompatible with justice for men; being a man and feminist doesn’t mean I can’t support justice for men in other areas which feminists might not talk about as much.
Finally, I don’t think that political views are a prerequisite for a man being a “good person” and no one said that, but that doesn’t mean you can’t think that they should change their mind.
This comment was written by Beet.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Abyss2hope wrote:
To me the only reason to use equalist is if you are trying to find a term that goes beyond the issues of gender.
I think the the push to replace “feminist” with “equalist” is a little more sinister than that. It removes a key aspect of feminism, which you mentioned in your post, from the political agenda; that is, the understanding that sexism against women is prevalent and is something that must be fought against. The call for “equalism” seems to suggest that women don’t really have it that bad (affirmative action programmes have made it so easy for us, right? ), and we should focus on, well.. “equality.” But, like you said abyss, it’s such an empty word. Equality on what grounds? And for whom?
I’ve really enjoyed going through the comments here and reading about people’s personal struggles with feminism. I think the problem largely comes when we try to find a monolithic definition, even if it’s just within one nation. There are some who believe you can’t wear make-up, but there are many who believe that’s ridiculous (I’m in the latter - I’m a strong feminist who loves her dresses and big stompy boots and fun make-up and hair accessories). I think that’s just the way it goes. I disagree that it’s about pitting women against each other; rather, I think recognising difference within feminism is recognising differences amongst women in general. Women all come from different classes, abilities, sexualities, ethnicities, regions, upbringings.. And our feminisms reflect that.
This comment was written by sleepflower.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 6:21 am
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out in response to Sam that there are indeed opposite schools of Second Wave feminist thought: equality feminism, which holds that men and women are basically biologically the same (with a few “minor” differences in physiology, like a uterus) and thus have basically identical capabilities. From the comments, I would posit that most of us responding to this post are basically modified equality feminists. There is, however, another school of thought, known as difference feminism, which holds that men and women are essentially different: men are aggressive and dominating, while women are nurturing and caring; this nurturing and caring nature is better than men’s aggressive and dominating nature, so the world would be a better, more peaceful place if women were in charge of things. This is of course a very rough summary and misses some nuances. However, it is important to remember that there is not one “feminism” that is at essence anything. There are many difference strains of feminist thought, which is why many feminist theorists actually talk about “feminisms”. Personally, I consider myself a feminist and would reject the “equalist” label. The point isn’t for men and women to be exactly equal (such a claim is easy to factually deconstruct) but for the ways in which women are different from men not to be devalued and a basis for discrimination (I think Q Grrl says it nicely). Note that the way that equality feminism has often played out assumes that the “male” is the norm to which the female should strive to be like.
This comment was written by Mrs. Coulter.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Beet
Again, this is hard for concept me to grasp because as a woman I don’t equate the word Feminist or Feminism with anti-sexism by definition as you do. I see it as an anti-sexism movement for women meant to change men for the benefit of women. I don’t believe in sexism period. You are correct in saying that there are issues for men that feminism can benefit, but its more of a by-product to me.
I’ve run into too many “Feminist” and presentations of “Feminism” or things embraced by “Feminist” that seem extremely sexist. Men have perpetuated the bulk of sexism against women and have institutionalized it. However its appears that feminist women and feminism can and have prepetuated sexism against men, mainly heterosexual men because by default it seems okay for the victim to victimize what is perceived to be the general victimizer.
I don’t believe either gender should be subjected to such things.
There are too many presentations of feminism that contradict or are not compatible with my own beliefs and Equalism seems illogical to me, so I can accept neither those terms.
I don’t feel there is anything one with a woman wearing make-up and dressing themselves up to attract a man if they choose to. Men in my eyes do that same. I enjoy the fact men are attracted to me. This has not been received well. Porn doesn’t bother me from a sexism point of view, it bothers me from a moral point of view. This has not been received well. I belive in Choice for Men. This is not received well. The idea of gender does not offend me and the denial of gender seems bizarre to me. Wrong. I’d rather stay at home and take care of home and family(be a house wife), than sit in my office cubicle like I do now. Definately got reemed for that(apparently such thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years). House husbands seem okay to me. But I don’t fit in with the feminism that considers them to be oppressing women by living off of them. I don’t think any standards should be lowered for me because I’m a woman (or a so called miniority), but don’t tell me what I can’t do unless I proved I can’t do it. Again, not received well.
I find no evil in heterosexuality. On another thread that Heterosexual family units might do more harm to children than good. Absurd to me.
That is why for the sake of this discussion I lean toward anti-sexism. But again remember while you may believe Anti-Sexism= Feminism, I think they are two seperate terms with two seperate purposes. Feminism may have a core component of Anti-sexism and some might think that by defination a person who is a anti-sexist is a feminist, but that is the same as saying anyone that believes in Jesus is by definition Catholic.
again just my perceptions
This comment was written by z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 11:09 am
z-
I don’t know any feminists who think all of those things you have attributed to them. Some of them have ideas that may superficially match what you said, but I think you are not giving us enough credit. There is such a vast history of fucked-up-ness with regards to how society has treated women, the poor, and minorities that we can’t really have a good discussion about affirmative action or staying at home without taking into consideration a great deal of theory and history. So no, most feminists aren’t really saying that stay at home mothers are ruining the women’s rights movement. They’re saying that, considering our cultural history, the choice to be a stay at home mom is not as free as we think it is. And it’s not even as simple as that. I could write paragraphs about the nuances behind this issue, and affirmative action, and “Choice for Men”.
I don’t know the feminism that hates heterosexuals. I know some gays and lesbians (and hell, straight people, too) who think hets can be really ignorant and offensive. I don’t know the feminism that hates straight men. I know some feminists and women who think men can be real fucked up jerks sometimes. I know seperatists who think the best way to stop male rapists and abusers is to remove their favorite targets (women). I don’t know the feminism who hates house husbands. I do know feminists and women who don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn’t adequately contribute to the family.
I certainly don’t know the feminism that seeks to victimize men.
Anything can be made absurd by reducing it to a soundbite, especially something that involves such a depth of thought as feminist theory.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Abyss2hope wrote:
This comment was written by girls in the corner.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Z,
Sometimes people get lost in labels and don’t discuss issues. Most of the issues you discuss aren’t so simple. I agree with Denise in that the vast majority of feminists wouldn’t judge your choices or what you want to do, but they would critically analyze what makes it so that such a disproportionate number of women choose X thing and not men, if it’s such a desirable thing? If porn is morally wrong as you say, isn’t that because it objectifies women and isn’t it mostly used by men? Can you admit there’s a difference between the genders but also think that maybe some of it is artifical in our culture and not natural?
There are all kinds of people who would call themselves “feminist.” There are equality and difference feminists, radical and liberal, Christian and atheist, libertarian, conservative, Democrat, Republican, pro-Life, pro-Choice… I’ll even go so far to guess that not all of them would fit on this blog. But if you can take the words of a few people who said some things that most feminists wouldn’t agree with, like finding evil in heterosexuality, then you can paint any group of people with any brush you like. Just like you can paint all Christians with what Fred Phelps says or Pat Robertson says, but that wouldn’t be accurate. Feminists have HUGE arguments with eachother, which Ive seen reading these blogs. So I really think that being a feminist doesn’t require you to hold any of those views it just requires you to live up to what you say you believe if you say you believe in anti-sexism. Because if you look up “Feminism” in http://www.Dictionary.com it means belief in equality of men and women, which in my mind is anti-sexism.
Feminists would take this belief in anti-sexism, and look at the world around us… is there sexism in this world? Of course. Do people who aren’t consciously sexist sometimes inadvertently contribute to sexism? I think so. Is it dominated by men? Yes. Do men sometimes see women only for their bodies and not their minds, and do some women see themselves like that? Yes. In the end it’s not just about saying you’re anti-sexist, like Bush says he’s for compassion but then doesn’t do much about it, it’s about thinking about what that means for you and society. I hope that helps.
This comment was written by Beet.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
This has not been received well.
By whom? Who, exactly, is telling you that it’s a bad thing if you like men being attracted to you?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Mythago - That post is in regards to my personal interaction with those calling themselves feminist and also women(co-workers, friends, and even my best friend) not directly calling themselves feminist. This is face to face and those I have interacted with online.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Z,
I’ve never met any of those feminists. And I’ve been a feminist most of my life.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
B
of course you havent, and I’ve never met you until right now
…?
Are you implying I’m lying, or such doesn’t exist, or there is an invalidity to what I’m saying.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
That post is in regards to my personal interaction with those calling themselves feminist and also women(co-workers, friends, and even my best friend) not directly calling themselves feminist.
Okay, so both feminists and non-feminists are telling you these things, and you therefore attribute those things to feminism?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
mythago - okay let me rephrase that
those who don’t advertise , “I’m a feminist” but are feminist.
does that make sense?
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
How do you know they are feminist? Because they disapprove of your choices?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 5:43 am
In Defense of Bitterness Objectified != Idealized The Feminist Theory Website Think women have achieved equality? Think again. What About Actual Feminists? What is Feminism? Where does the male gaze end? Why I Don’t Call Myself An Equalist Yes, You Are Geeky Feminists Modern Feminist Netwoman New Game Plus SeeLight other blog One Hundred Little Dolls Feminist SF - The Blog! Guilded Lilies Acid for Blood Pretty, Fizzy Paradise Written World
This comment was written by Official Shrub.com Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Well I just asked one yesterday, upon telling her about this discussion and your questions, would she consider herself a feminist. And she said “of course, I don’t see how a woman couldn’t”.
Does this settle it then?
This comment was written by z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Lots of feminists agree with you about this.
Lots of feminists would agree with you that women (and men) should have the choice of being stay at home parents, and that there’s nothing wrong with a feminist making that choice. For example, look up the book The Invisible Heart, by Nancy Folbre.
Some feminists are nasty about stay-at-home moms - Linda Hirshman is the most famous example. But in my experience, feminists who’ll be that mean about women choosing to take care of their kids full-time are one in a thousand. And when you look at the feminist reactions to someone like Hirshman, you don’t see unanimous approval and agreement; what’s really there is a huge variety of views , all of which are more nuanced then your description of feminism seems to admit.
I have never met or read a single feminist who disapproves of house husbands this way. Not even one. Whatever feminist you met who said this is a freakish exception to the norm.
Again, lots of feminists would agree with you. Frankly, “don’t tell me what I can’t do unless proved I can’t do it” could be the motto for all of liberal feminism.
The problem with anecdotal evidence like yours is that it doesn’t really help to facilitate debate and discussion between people who disagree. You’re coming here, to a room full of feminists, and you’re telling us that what’s wrong with our movement is that women who say they’d like to stay home with their kids are “reemed” for it and told that their “thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years,” and that we hate househusbands, and so on.
Clearly some feminists here - me included - are looking at aspects of your portrait of feminism and saying “that’s not what I think, and that’s not what most feminists I know think, either.” That’s really the only possible response to anecdotal evidence like what you’ve brought up here. But where dowe go from here?
What are you hoping to happen with your posts on “Alas”? Do you want to have a polite debate or discussion? I’m definitely willing to do that, but I don’t see how we can do that based on anecdotes. Did you come here just to let us know (politely) that you think feminists are hateful, awful people? That’s probably not your intention, but that’s in effect what you’ve communicated so far.
If you want to have a real discussion, we could stop discussing anecdotes, and instead limit our discussion to things that feminists have said that we can link to, so that all of us could read the same thing and discuss what it means, without getting stuck in the “are you saying my personal observations aren’t valid?” quagmire.
But if you don’t want to limit the discussion that way, then with all due respect, I’m not sure what the point of continuing this discussion is.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Yes Amp, that is what I meant to say. Feminist are awful, hateful people. I have such people in my life because because lordy knows I love to suround myself with hatefullness. I should have just said it from the get go because obviously that is what I meant to say. Lukily I’ve done it politely.
I’m sorry I don’t have a study, or web link, or an flow chart to describe my personal experience with feminist or how feminism has been potrayed to me. So only the only evidence I have is anectodal. Unless you want to move to New York and go back in time 10 years and tie yourself to me so you experience everything I have, then I don’t know what else to tell you. I guess i doesn’t matter I repeatidly stated this is my own perceptions. And I guess I made a claim somewhere to know all feminist in the world and I’ve had the same experiences with all them. I’ll have to run through my post and check that out.
There IS no point in continuing the discussion, atleast to me. So lets end it, eh?
This comment was written by z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Z, as I already said, I don’t think it’s your intention to say such things. But I think that’s the effect you’re having.
It’s clear that you found my post hurtful, and I’m really sorry that happened. That wasn’t my intention. But that I didn’t intend to be hurtful doesn’t make it okay that you feel hurt.
If you’re willing, I’d like to continue trying to have a dialog.
You did say you were reporting your own perceptions. I think we understand that. But what I don’t understand is, what point are you trying to make by reporting your perceptions to us? I’m not saying that to be snarky; I genuinely don’t understand, and I’m hoping you’ll explain.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Miss Robyn:
Wow ! Me, too. I like sex. Oxygen is nice, too. Fresh water is great, also. Oh, and chocolate. Well, most foodstuffs, really. Definitely, definitely pro-food.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I always thought a lot of the criticism of house husbands came with people who criticized them for not adopting traditionally “masculine” roles in the home. I think what works best and is agreed upon by members of a family unit is what should be done and this works for lots of families.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 20th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Wow ! Me, too. I like sex. Oxygen is nice, too. Fresh water is great, also. Oh, and chocolate. Well, most foodstuffs, really. Definitely, definitely pro-food.
Given that the suggested alternatives are, “pro-industry,” “pro-porn,” “pro-prostitution,” and “not feminist,” you can hardly blame sex-positive feminists for sticking with the original moniker.
I don’t see why sex-positive is so offensive. It’s not like other feminists complain when “radical feminists” use that term to distinguish themselves from other schools of feminist thought. It’s understood that the term doesn’t imply that non-radical feminists are complacent.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 5:31 am
Amp
I said this to give to the point why I have not been able find it acceptable to call myself a feminist and chose rather anti-sexist. Even if some consider the core of feminism is anti-sexism, I have not been able digest or fit into what I see as the outer crust because my thoughts on certain things vary immensly. There are too many varying opinions that will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with my own line of thinking that I choose not the label or the identification of such. Frankly I don’t know what feminism as a movement is anymore, is it gender equality, gender social equality, pro porn, anti porn, pro getting dressed up to attract a man, the patriachy causes women to do that, pro-life, pro-choice, can I be a feminist and believe we should make sexual responsibilty (for men and women, boys and girls) priority over the abortion debate? Can I be a feminist and believe whole heartidly that there is a need for a male figure/father figure and female figure/mother figure in a childs life, and its best? Can I be a feminist and believe there are jobs that can be physically suited for men better than women? Do I have to be liberal or can I be moderate?
All of the above?
Again, this is the say I can only go by what I know as of 2006. Who knows what the future holds.
This comment was written by z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 8:18 am
“You’re [z is] coming here, to a room full of feminists, and you’re telling us that what’s wrong with our movement is that women who say they’d like to stay home with their kids are “reemed” for it and told that their “thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years,” and that we hate househusbands, and so on.”
I interpreted her to be explaining why she doesn’t identify as feminist, not as an attack on feminism, or any of the Alas posters. I know many people who have similar problems with feminism, both male and female. Just because their evidence is anecdotal, does not mean it is not a pervasive element in our culture.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 10:19 am
piny:
Offensive might be too strong. How about annoying ? Anyway, I’m not going to drift any further. Not without coffee, anyway. Did I mention that I’m pro-coffee ?
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Just because their evidence is anecdotal, does not mean it is not a pervasive element in our culture.
It certainly means that they perceive feminists in a particular way. Please note Z saying that ‘feminists and non-feminists’ were giving her grief - yet she attributed this behavior to feminists.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 11:02 am
And then I said
“those who don’t advertise , “I’m a feminist” but are feminist.”
“Well I just asked one yesterday, upon telling her about this discussion and your questions, would she consider herself a feminist. And she said “of course, I don’t see how a woman couldn’t”.”
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am
So your earlier statement was inaccurate–it’s not ‘feminists and non-feminists’ at all, just feminists with varying degrees of announcement of their political views?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
It seems that many people have a problem wrapping their heads around the idea that Feminism is not a monolithic entity. Therefore, “Feminists castigate SAHMs, feminists castigate SAHDs,” and so on. Do some feminists do this? Sure. Are their conflicting viewpoints within feminism? Sure. But if people are set in their beliefs that all feminists are X, their minds cannot be changed any more than somebody who believes solidly that all {fill in your favorite stereotyped group here} are {such and which} can ever be convinced otherwise.
Anecdotal data is fine when saying that, IME X are always Y. But if you can’t accept that your own anecdotal data is not necessarily reflected in the big, wide world then you are not really capable of having productive dialogue on the issue. I mean, we all use anecdotal evidence. But, for my part, when conflicting anecdotal evidence or non-anecdotal data is presented I try to incorporate that into my view of the world and I try to accept that my experience is not necessarily reflective of the way things really are.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I corrected myself, re stated what I meant because i realized it didn’t make sense. But whatever.
I’m sorry I said anything. This thread isn’t about me and lets not keep it going that way. I said my piece and I don’t have any other way of defending the nuances of my post or my anectodal evidence, which as put is not valid in this discussion.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
I’ve refrained from joining this discussion while it had productive momentum. But while Z is taking a break, permit me to offer the obligatory “no labels!” remarks.
What’s wrong with labels?
1. They obscure as much as they convey. As Jake Squid remarks, feminism is not monolithic. So if I care whether people understand my views clearly, I need to use more words than merely “feminism.” Whether or not everyone on this list could arrive at a uniform definition, clearly people beyond this list will not.
2. Labels convey a sense of power: Who has authority to declare who qualifies as a Feminist or not?
These two dynamics often conflict. While Jake Squid starts by noting that the label Feminist reflects a range of views, he concludes by dismissing Z’s experience as “not necessarily reflective of the way things really are.” I can’t tell whether Jake means to challenge Z’s account of his experience, or to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Amp:
So if I believe that SAHDs are oppressing women, does Amp mean to exclude me from the definition of feminism? Or does Amp mean that my views can fit within the multifaceted, “nuanced” nature of feminism? And if so, is Amp marginalize minority points of view by characterizing them as “freakish exceptions”?
Sure you can! You can simply say, “I don’t agree with that. Those views do not reflect my views.” It’s easy!
What other discussion do you think you can have? Do you presume to speak for all of feminism? By what authority? And, ultimately, what value would your pronouncement have?
If Z says that feminists believe X, and can actually find a quote of Catharine MacKinnon saying X, would your loyalty to MacKinnon require you to conclude that this is the (or a) feminist view, regardless of what X consisted of?
It sure seems burdensome, speaking for the collective. Especially when, as far as I know, you only speak for yourself. Which I do not mean to disparage in the least. To be sure, you are one of the most articulate and widely-read people I know. Among a certain circle of internet friends, when I say, “Amp said…,” people take note. But they take the same note whether I say “Amp said that….” or I say “Amp says that feminists say that….” Your credibility, whether you regard it to be great or small, does not change whether or not you claim to speak for all of feminism.
As far as I can tell, all Z wants is confirmation that he’s not sexist for thinking that it’s ok to be a SAHD, etc. Why not give it to him?
Z, for what it’s worth, SAHDs are a-ok w/ me. (Unless the SAHD is Robert. But that has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a SAHD.)
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Nobody.really,
I am pretty sure that Z identifies as a woman:
Given the topic discussed, that seems rather relevant.
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Whoops. Good catch, thanks.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 am
My point wasn’t to accuse Z of lying. That said, when she claims that feminists stand for a whole lot of weird opinions that I have never heard or seen any feminist hold (and we are a diverse bunch) I have to wonder where she got this view of feminism. Especially as she put her sources to be people who renounce feminism. It just reads as the big mean feminist strawman - whether of her own or others making.
Since there, in my opinion, really are no good arguments against feminism we get to fight with these evil feminist strawmen instead. Strawfeminists who hate men, motherhood and pretty women.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 am
B
to Clarify, I said Feminist and non-feminst
then I realized didn’t make sense so I said people that have not directly labeled themselves feminist. But that wasn’t understood so I said Feminist that don’t announce their feminist label but are feminist. Then I went to one of the those people after doubting myself and when asked she said yes.
When did I EVER say my sources were people that RENOUNCED feminism? Talking about strawmen. Its easier when you flip someones words and refuse to read them as they were written but turn then around to mean what you want, and refuse to budge from it.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I can’t tell whether Jake means to challenge Z’s account of his experience, or to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.
The answer is neither. I am not challenging Z’s accounting of her experience - I have no reason to disbelieve it. Neither am I in any way (and I can’t honestly see how you got there) trying “to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.”
What I was trying to do in that last paragraph was to explain what anecdotal data is useful for and what it is not useful for. It may be that in my experience (my anecdotal data) that every dog that I have ever seen has short hair. However true that may be, it does not mean that all dogs have short hair. If I insist that my experience (anecdotal) proves what dogs (and, by some extension, the real world) are, not only am I quite possibly incorrect but I will not be able to participate in a meaningful discussion or debate about dog hair. One’s anecdotal data is undoubtedly, and unavoidably, a starting point for understanding the world, but if one insists that one’s anecdotal data is the end-all and be-all of evidence about the world then one is deluded, mostly wrong and incapable of participating in productive dialogue about the world.
The reason that I was trying to make that point is that it seemed to me that A)Z was feeling insulted when her anecdotal data was not accepted as proof that feminists believe X or are like Y and B)that unless Z was willing to accept the possibility that her personal experience was not reflective of feminists as a whole that no productive discussion with her would be possible.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Good. I understand Jake Squid to say that he’s not challenging Z’s account of her own experience with feminists, but rather suggesting that she lacks a basis for generalizing from her experience to all feminists. Moreover, while I might quibble with wording, I find his reasoning as sound as ever.
But what’s the point of this discussion? Neither Z nor Jake Squid support the view that, for example, SAHDs are wrongfully taking advantage of their partners. So there really is no policy discussion happening here. The only question remaining is whether to attribute this view to some feminists or to all feminists - where feminist is apparently defined to mean “any person who claims to be a feminist.” Even by the standards of the internet, that’s a pretty vacuous discussion.
I humbly suggest that, in the absence of the use of the label “feminist,” there would be no dispute here. The label arguably mislead Z into concluding that there was a greater similarity among self-identified people than there is, and the label arguably complicated this resolution. I therefore reassert my thesis that labels obscure more than they convey.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
But what’s the point of this discussion?
I had thought the point of this discussion was over labels (feminist or equalist) and why or why not? Z doesn’t want to be a feminist because her experience with feminsts leads her to believe that the movement is anti-several things that she is not against. Self identified feminists here have responded that the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated. It is now up to Z to decide whether, perhaps, her personal experiences of feminism are an anomaly and, therefore, she might be more willing to re-examine her definition of feminism or to decide that her personal experience really does reflect the real world and she still doesn’t like the term/movement “feminist.”
Personally, I agree w/ Amp’s post.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:51 am
Ok, let’s go one more round on this.
While I have sought to avoid quibbling over wording, I suspect that wording is central to the issues, such as they are. Here’s Jake Squid’s statement, modified to reflect the best of my understanding to this point:
Here’s my understanding of three terms: “feminist,” “movement” and “reflect the real world.”
Feminist: Since Jake Squid denies that he’s asserting authority to say who is in or out of the Feminist box, then I surmise he uses the term to refer to anyone who labels her- or himself as a feminist. This certainly seems to be the way he first uses the term in the quoted paragraph.
Movement: If we define feminist to mean anyone who self-identifies as a feminist, and if we accept Jake’s acceptance of Z’s assertion that some people who self-identify as feminists are “anti- those things that Z enumerated,” what conclusions can we draw about the “movement”? If we regard the feminist movement to reflect the sum of all beliefs advocated by people who label themselves as feminist, then I don’t know how Jake Squid can reach the conclusion that “the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated.” The movement would be anti-, pro- and indifferent to a whole range of issues - as contradictory as its members. But if we define the movement otherwise, then we have taken the problem of asserting authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box and transformed it into asserting authority to declare what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box.
Reflect the real world: Once Jake Squid concedes that he’s not challenging Z’s account of her personal experiences, I don’t see how Jake Squid can ask Z to question whether “her personal experience really does reflect the real world.” This phrasing appears to marginalize Z’s experience. I suspect Jake intends merely to ask Z to consider that her experience reflects only a part of the real world, and it is Z’s generalization, not Z’s experience, that Jake challenges. But the phrasing obscures this meaning.
ULTIMATELY, it’s hard to see how any of this matters. If Congress was considering a law to penalize SAHDs, Jake might say that we should oppose the law because it’s anti-feminst, whereas Z could say she opposed the law because it reeked of oppressive feminism. WHO CARES? They’d both oppose the law. It’s the policy, not the characterization of the policy, that should matter.
In my humble opinion, anyway.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
Well, nobody, we were discussing labels and why one would choose to label oneself as either “feminist” or “anti-feminist” or “equalist.” Who cares? I would say that a lot of feminists care whether or not the word “feminist” will come to carry the same baggage as the word “socialist” or, more recently, the word “liberal.”
It’s the policy, not the characterization of the policy, that should matter.
I couldn’t agree more as to what should matter. However, in practice, the characterization (or labeling) of the policy greatly impacts its likelihood of being implemented.
I don’t see how Jake Squid can ask Z to question whether “her personal experience really does reflect the real world.”
See my dog hair example. My personal experiences don’t necessary coincide with the reality/conclusion reached by examining a wider range of data.
If we regard the feminist movement to reflect the sum of all beliefs advocated by people who label themselves as feminist, then I don’t know how Jake Squid can reach the conclusion that “the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated.”
My guess would be that, although some feminists might hold opposing views, that you can take the position held by the vast majority of feminists to be the position of feminism in general. So, although you can’t really say that feminism is anti-porn or pro-porn (given the debate that I have seen), I think that it is safe to say that feminism is pro-choice (even though there are feminists who are not).
… then we have taken the problem of asserting authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box and transformed it into asserting authority to declare what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box.
It seems to me that declaring what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box is done pretty much by consensus. If there is no consensus on a particular issue then it is open for debate as to whether is fits into the box or not.
Since Jake Squid denies that he’s asserting authority to say who is in or out of the Feminist box, then I surmise he uses the term to refer to anyone who labels her- or himself as a feminist.
That’s accurate in terms of this discussion and my input.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 am
C.S. Lewis is perhaps the most popular Christian commentator published today. The last book of Lewis’ Narnia series features a soldier who has, all his life, prayed to the god of faithfulness and courage and compassion, who he called Taz. Taz was also the name used for the god of evil. In the final analysis, the symbol of goodness Aslan embraces the soldier. What mattered to Aslan was that the soldier valued faithfulness and courage and compassion, not what name he used for it. In contrast, Taz claimed the many who had engaged in evil, even though they claimed to be acting in the name of Aslan.
During his wife’s brief remission from cancer, Lewis and she visited Greece. In the 1950s, everyone knew that it was only a matter of time until the cancer would take her life. Lewis wrote a letter telling of his happiness in sharing this vacation with his wife, and how they nearly danced before the temple of Apollo, god of healing, knowing that any god of healing was simply Christ in another name.
To this day, fundamentalists complain bitterly about Lewis’ blasphemy.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:07 am
Tash, you heathen, not Taz.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
It’s not about the labels, Robert.
(…gotta cut back on Loony Tunes. ‘Course, people have been telling me that for years….)
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
It’s okay. Sincere prayers of good people addressed to Taz are forwarded on to Tash and from there forwarded on to Aslan.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Tash will smite you, impious mocker.
(All hail Tash!)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Sincere prayers of good people will only be forwarded by Taz and Tash if those prayers adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2007 at 2:06 am
[...] women should be valued equally, even though they are not the same biologically. However, this is distinct from “equalism” because it recognizes that given the historical, systematic oppression of women, equality can only [...]
This comment was written by I'm Not a Manhater; I Just Dream a Lot « Objectify This.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Any movement that claims to be everything to everybody ends up meaning nothing to anybody. Either there is something called ‘Feminism’ with some overall meaning like ‘Communism’ or ‘Christianity’ or there is ‘Feminism’ like there is ‘Politics’ or ‘Religion’ which are types, not defined instances.
To me, Feminism mostly amounts to telling women that unless they join in a world designed largely for economic exploitation of men, they are missing out or even inferior. I see that as spitting in the face of women who believe that things they have done that men have not are equal or even superior to what men have done, and eliminating the threat their alternate values pose to conservative valuation - in effect, feminism is ‘male chauvinism for girls’: it will change women to fit ’society’ - a society with no allowance for the fact that women experience pregnancy and rear children - instead of changing society to value what women have traditionally done and to liberate men to do it too.
It is not about equality: it is about women having choices of lifestyle and even manner of dress while men do not. Until there is nothing weirder about a man wearing a dress than a woman wearing pants, there is no equality, only the long tradition that girls are entitled to whatever they want while boys are not and whatever is ‘masculine’ is superior to ‘feminine’
I could sum Feminism up as getting women out of the home and into the workplace with an eye on the boardroom. I want a ‘feminised Socialism’ that gets men out of the workplace and into the home and demolishes the boardroom.
This comment was written by Jan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Hi Jan,
Thanks for being wiling to move your comments to this thread from the “Feminism is not your expectation” one.
Effectively, however, you’re incorrect: feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles, and thus is as supportive of stay at home dads as women in the board room.
Other regular commenters here may have different angles to take in replying to you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2007 at 10:10 am
feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles
Except for the people for whom it seems to be about the reinforcing of gender roles (or more generously, their redefinition and adjustment) - cf. Heart.
But certainly many feminists do say that they want to see gender roles removed. Which leads to the question:
What will replace them?
Nothing with social function exists in a vacuum. Gender roles are providing social functionality - functionality that leads to bad outcomes, in the views of many people, but functionality nonetheless. What’s going to provide that functionality in the absence of the roles?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Until there is nothing weirder about a man wearing a dress than a woman wearing pants, there is no equality
Only men are holding men back from wearing dresses. Robert, you missed the previous comment:
feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles, and thus is as supportive of stay at home dads as women in the board room.
This comment was written by donna darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think there’s a simpler answer to most of this. It i