That’s the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that’s feminism. It’s simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
“Feminism” is just a sloppy term. It’s “egalitarianism”: people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn’t decrease your rights. Those who you’re referring to when you use the term “feminists” will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
“Feminism”, as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren’t allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the “feminism” label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don’t need to fight for themselves.
It’s easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it’s simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that’s taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it’s easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just “wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny”, to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There’s a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, “playful” sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it’s cheered on and praised as a form of “girl power”. If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I’m very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I’d like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
That’s the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that’s feminism. It’s simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
“Feminism” is just a sloppy term. It’s “egalitarianism”: people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn’t decrease your rights. Those who you’re referring to when you use the term “feminists” will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
“Feminism”, as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren’t allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the “feminism” label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don’t need to fight for themselves.
Except that that is the theoretical definition of feminism. Modern radical feminism (what we see around us) is hardly that
It’s easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it’s simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that’s taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it’s easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just “wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny”, to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There’s a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, “playful” sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it’s cheered on and praised as a form of “girl power”. If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I’m very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I’d like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.