Is feminism a dirty word?

hatrickpatrick · 05-12-2014 01:38AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Safe spaces more have to do with allowing a certain type of communication. Broadly, women and men speak differently when in different social settings: women amongst women, women and men, and men amongst men. Safe spaces are about allowing a certain form of communication (on average) between people. If you were to look at the men's right lobby it's why the many suicide services and things like Men's Sheds provide a broadly male only space, and why many women also like women's only spaces.

Historically men and women had traditional spaces where these forms of communication happened. Women amongst themselves in the care of family, and men at jobs, pubs and at clubs. It's interesting to note in modern socialisation that men typically had areas dedicated to solely respite activities: pubs, golf courses, at matches, while women's respite was normally seen as an extension of their social function: shopping, having their friends over while they were looking after the kids, etc. Agency is a good area to look into for this.

But why is it taboo for there to be male spaces? Why for instance to men's clubs at universities tend to get shut down, often with a significant amount of cheerleading from whatever feminist movements are around? Why is it ok to have women only gyms like curves, but not men only golf courses? Etc etc etc.

Generally speaking in terms of the internet, "safe spaces" as set up by feminists tend to be circlejerks for bashing men and not allowing criticism. Now I'm not one of the "all feminists hate men" proclaimants, but this is something that really bothers me. There's a subreddit called "Two X Chromosones" which was recently added to the front page of Reddit, and users have been complaining about the number of guys "derailing" it - but the reality of that sub has generally been absolutely appalling, on a par with The Red Pill in terms of people advising others to screw guys financially, that it's ok to cheat, whatever. If a "safe space" means that this kind of thing can be bandied around without criticism, I don't see how that's any different to the kind of vile crap that The Red Pill tends to come out with - and yet I think most who are familiar with Reddit will agree that there's absolutely zero chance of TRP ever becoming a "mainstream" forum, it's regularly attacked in the media while TXC is generally lauded as a "safe space".

IMO, there's so much wrong with that entire ideology I'm not even really sure where to start. The bottom line for me is that equality means equality and that's the end of it. Which means that it's either ok to have gender-only spaces or it isn't, it's either ok to attack both genders or neither, it's either ok to lampoon both genders or neither, it's either ok to discriminate against both genders or neither. The problem with the "privilege" argument which has crept in to so much discourse over the last few years is that if you strip it down to its core philosophy, it essentially states that since women are allegedly unprivileged, it's ok to discriminate against men in order to address that. As far as I'm concerned, that ideology fundamentally goes against the concept of gender equality.

I fully accept that not all feminists believe in any of this, but again that's not what matters, what matters is that feminists with power and feminists with a platform believe it and attempt to put it into practise. I've already given the example of Harriet Harmen actually attempting to implement the whole "don't jail women specifically" thing, and mainstream feminism's failure to condemn her for this is a significant failing for a movement which claims to be about gender equality, not just women's issues. For feminism to fail to attack her for this is akin to an anti-racism movement failing to attack a law saying that only black people should be sent to prison. I think most would agree that if an anti-racism movement remained silent on that issue and didn't vocally oppose it, it would be reasonable to confine it to the dustbin as an utterly useless movement. In feminism's case, one can apply Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - in other words that it's a genuine oversight or ignorance rather than a more insidious tacit support or indifference. But surely it's not hard to see why many men who see their gender as being under attack from various gender-specific laws and customs would be immediately suspicious that it falls into the latter category?

hatrickpatrick · 05-12-2014 01:42AM

dark crystal wrote: »

I think it's the most sensible option, tbh. You simply cannot debate an issue when one of the sides believes all feminists have one hive mind. There's no arguing against that mindset. It's an argument you'll never win.

When have I ever claimed that feminism is a hive mind?

I explained earlier in the thread how I personally view feminism and what it means to me, but then you get the "..But look at what this extreme feminist said on the internet...you must agree with her because you're part of her movement" type reply and it's like banging your head against the wall over and over again.

I'm objecting to the use of the word "extreme". The pro-censorship brigade has mainstream support and is succeeding in changing laws and rules, they are not mere extremists to be dismissed out of hand.

To give you an analogy, if in an anti-racism movement some radicals proposed banning white people from driving cars, it would be entirely fair to dismiss them as fringe loonies. If however they actually succeeded in getting car manufacturers, garages and even governments to start implementing this policy, they are no longer fringe loonies but dangerous loonies, and if the rest of the movement didn't try to stop them, they would, however unfairly, be lumped in with them.

I'm not part of any movement. I'm an individual. When this concept just won't register, you have to politely remove yourself from the 'debate' for your own sanity!

You're not part of any movement, but you're a feminist. If feminism isn't a movement, then what is it, exactly?

osarusan · 05-12-2014 03:55AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When have I ever claimed that feminism is a hive mind?

When you make the (dismal and empty) argument that their agreement or approval can be inferred from their lack of condemnation, you certainly move closer to that idea.

You're not part of any movement, but you're a feminist. If feminism isn't a movement, then what is it, exactly?

One can identify as a feminist, while not considering themselves an adherent of any particular movement, surely?

hatrickpatrick · 05-12-2014 08:11AM

osarusan wrote: »

When you make the (dismal and empty) argument that their agreement or approval can be inferred from their lack of condemnation, you certainly move closer to that idea.

I'm not suggesting that lack of condemnation definitely means approval, but it means at best indifference, which still amounts to feminism being a movement which will not defend freedom of speech from its own adherents attempts to restrict it.

The MRM isn't a hive mind any more than feminism is, but if prominent MRAs started calling for what they perceived as anti-male song lyrics for example to be censored, if they started actually achieving that objective in a wide variety of arenas, and if the mainstream MRM didn't campaign against such censorship, I for one would disassociate myself from the label entirely, because I wouldn't want to be associated with a movement that allowed pro-cenorship activists to operate under its banner.

I'm sure if a group calling itself a "feminist" group started campaigning for something feminists find truly objectionable, such as women not being allowed to drive cars, feminists in general would be up in arms about it - and rightly so. That they are not similarly up in arms about the increasing attempts to moderate offensiveness in public discourse says to me that it's not something they see as being all that objectionable.

One can identify as a feminist, while not considering themselves an adherent of any particular movement, surely?

Isn't feminism a movement? If not, what is it?

osarusan · 05-12-2014 08:19AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That they are not similarly up in arms about the increasing attempts to moderate offensiveness in public discourse says to me that it's not something they see as being all that objectionable.

but in your analogy you already mentioned that this interpretation of their lack of comment is 'unfair':

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If however they actually succeeded in getting car manufacturers, garages and even governments to start implementing this policy, they are no longer fringe loonies but dangerous loonies, and if the rest of the movement didn't try to stop them, they would, however unfairly, be lumped in with them.

If you know it's unfair, why do you keep saying it?

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 09:27AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Isn't feminism a movement? If not, what is it?

Hate group maybe?

Most that want equality have stopped using the word leaving a vocal extremist minority of misandrists in the group. Really any moderates still using the word feminism should change the word they use if they are for equality of the sexes.

steddyeddy · 05-12-2014 09:49AM

dark crystal wrote: »

I think it's the most sensible option, tbh. You simply cannot debate an issue when one of the sides believes all feminists have one hive mind. There's no arguing against that mindset. It's an argument you'll never win.

I explained earlier in the thread how I personally view feminism and what it means to me, but then you get the "..But look at what this extreme feminist said on the internet...you must agree with her because you're part of her movement" type reply and it's like banging your head against the wall over and over again.

I'm not part of any movement. I'm an individual. When this concept just won't register, you have to politely remove yourself from the 'debate' for your own sanity!

But then you can understand how one would have trouble giving a blanket support to feminism if there is no consensus to its goals.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 09:56AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

But then you can understand how one would have trouble giving a blanket support to feminism if there is no consensus to its goals.

But it seems that people have no difficulty with blanket opposition. It seems to be as simple as finding a feminist who says something you don't like and using that as a basis to oppose all feminism.

steddyeddy · 05-12-2014 10:16AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it seems that people have no difficulty with blanket opposition. It seems to be as simple as finding a feminist who says something you don't like and using that as a basis to oppose all feminism.

I don't oppose feminism I just don't think there's a unified movement. I support equal rights for men and women. That means I have some feminist ideals but there's some I don't agree with. I have a problem saying I am a feminist because there are nutters out there like the science journalist who criticised the scientist's dress sense.

Venus In Furs · 05-12-2014 12:48PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I support equal rights for men and women. That means I have some feminist ideals but there's some I don't agree with.

That describes me too, so that's why it bugs me when people condemn feminism in its entirety, and say stuff like it's a hate movement. Parts of it are, not feminism full stop.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 12:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't oppose feminism I just don't think there's a unified movement. I support equal rights for men and women. That means I have some feminist ideals but there's some I don't agree with. I have a problem saying I am a feminist because there are nutters out there like the science journalist who criticised the scientist's dress sense.

Venus In Furs wrote: »

That describes me too, so that's why it bugs me when people condemn feminism in its entirety, and say stuff like it's a hate movement. Parts of it are, not feminism full stop.

Then you sound like you are a egalitarian not a feminist.

Venus In Furs · 05-12-2014 12:56PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Then you sound like you are a egalitarian not a feminist.

Yeh but as steddyeddy said, with that there still comes agreement with some feminist views (and MRA views).

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 01:02PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Then you sound like you are a egalitarian not a feminist.

This is the game of non-feminists or anti-feminists seeking to impose their definitions on people who see themselves as feminists. It is possible to be both egalitarian and feminist.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 01:11PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is the game of non-feminists or anti-feminists seeking to impose their definitions on people who see themselves as feminists. It is possible to be both egalitarian and feminist.

For people that rightfully have a problem as they say calling themselves feminists egalitarian would seem like a better word. Just cause you don't use the word feminist anymore does not mean you are a bad person. The word feminist got co-opted in recent years by the vocal misandrists and they poisoned the well and unfortunately the ones more for equal rights did not try to remove them.

The word Feminist seems to be unrepairable now.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 02:48PM

anonyanony wrote: »

... The word feminist got co-opted in recent years by the vocal misandrists and they poisoned the well and unfortunately the ones more for equal rights did not try to remove them.

How can anybody "remove" the loopy extremists? There is no register of members of the feminist movement.

The word Feminist seems to be unrepairable now.

There are many who do not believe that it needs to be repaired. They recognise that it is an umbrella term, and that people who shelter under the umbrella are not all of the one mindset.

There are still issues in Irish society that can be labelled "women's issues". To subsume them under the term "egalitarianism" would blur the focus.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 02:53PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are many who do not believe that it needs to be repaired. They recognise that it is an umbrella term, and that people who shelter under the umbrella are not all of the one mindset.

Do you feel the same way about MRA's the way it is now to a lot of people

MRA = misogynists
Feminist = misandrists

Egalitarian strive to do the best for both men and women.

steddyeddy · 05-12-2014 03:02PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is the game of non-feminists or anti-feminists seeking to impose their definitions on people who see themselves as feminists. It is possible to be both egalitarian and feminist.

You keep saying the word feminist. I don't know what you refer to. You keep saying there is no feminist movement or consensus and then use the word feminist. That's the problem with the word there is no consensus.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 03:06PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Do you feel the same way about MRA's ...

I support MRAs, but not the extremists in the movement. In particular, I think the law and the courts have in many cases treated fathers badly.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 03:37PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You keep saying the word feminist. I don't know what you refer to. You keep saying there is no feminist movement or consensus and then use the word feminist. That's the problem with the word there is no consensus.

I don't say there is no feminist movement - quite the opposite: I say feminism is a movement.

Sand · 05-12-2014 03:58PM

I think the problem with word it is a very broad church that includes egalitarians and feminists, who tend to refer to themselves as feminists as if the terms are interchangeable when they are different things. Definitions and terms lose all value when people associate themselves with an ideology, but then deny that ideology represent them.

Feminism is an ideology which seek to define, establish, and defend political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. In the same way as MRA groups seek to define, establish and defend political, economic, cultural and social rights for men.

Egalitarianism is an ideology that favours equality for all people. Egalitarianism maintains that all humans are entitled to equal political, economic, cultural and social rights.

There have been statements from some feminists that men cannot be feminists - they're essentially right. A man can be an egalitarian, but he'd need to be a fool to be a feminist. The more extreme elements of feminism are actually being true to what feminism is: they are defining and championing rights for women. Where those rights conflict with the rights of men, feminists will push the rights of women in all cases. Thats what a feminist does.

Its not to say a feminist is a monolithic, non thinking person. No human person is an avatar of a political ideology. Many feminists also have egalitarian views or principles and can also be influenced by those when making decisions or statements.

But the "extreme" feminists actually are feminists - they cant be disavowed by egalitarians who like to describe themselves as feminists but actually don't think women's rights should be prioritised over mens.

The Corinthian · 05-12-2014 04:17PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it seems that people have no difficulty with blanket opposition. It seems to be as simple as finding a feminist who says something you don't like and using that as a basis to oppose all feminism.

Well, answer this; can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?

I don't mean some vague soundbite about how fathers should be better treated (which is not campaigning), or how men should have paternity leave (which costs women none of their near monopoly on control of offspring), but anything that would address the inequalities that currently favour women.

To illustrate this, take a look at this example from the early days of feminism. Interesting isn't it? Yet this willingness to sacrifice your own interests for the greater goal of equality hasn't been seen since second wave feminism. Seriously, can you find a single example?

This isn't a criticism that is simply citing some subset of feminism, but covers all of it. You can't play the "that's just the extremists" card on this one.

And that's why feminism has become a dirty word. It still claims to represent equality, when in reality it stopped doing so a long time ago in favour of just looking after the interests of one part of society, and you can't campaign for equality by just representing one side, you have to represent all - how balanced would the employment courts be if only employers were represented?

And people have naturally reacted to this hypocrisy.

hatrickpatrick · 05-12-2014 04:38PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Then you sound like you are a egalitarian not a feminist.

Agreed, but there are a lot of feminists who are extremely hostile to the word "egalitarian" and will say "if you believe in equality, you are a feminist".
I don't find it illegitimate to say "Actually I'm not, because I believe in equality but I most certain'y do not believe in <insert other mainstream feminist policies here>". My issue stems from the number of feminists who will throw that fallacy around and use it to try and bully people into adopting the feminist label even when they have extremely legitimate reservations about doing so, while at the same time being vehemently in favour of equality.

steddyeddy · 05-12-2014 04:42PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't say there is no feminist movement - quite the opposite: I say feminism is a movement.

A movement with no consensus?

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 05:07PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, answer this; can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?...

I wouldn't even try. Feminism is primarily concerned with inequalities that disadvantage women.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 05:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A movement with no consensus?

A movement has direction; it might not have full consensus.

steddyeddy · 05-12-2014 05:37PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wouldn't even try. Feminism is primarily concerned with inequalities that disadvantage women.

What disadvantages?

hatrickpatrick · 05-12-2014 05:51PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wouldn't even try. Feminism is primarily concerned with inequalities that disadvantage women.

In your opinion, but what do you say to the substantial body of feminists who claim that any mens' rights or egalitarian label is irrelevant because "feminism is concerned about equality for everyone and encompasses mens' issues"?

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 06:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

What disadvantages?

Promotion practices in NUIG; participation in politics.

P. Breathnach · 05-12-2014 06:22PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In your opinion, but what do you say to the substantial body of feminists who claim that any mens' rights or egalitarian label is irrelevant because "feminism is concerned about equality for everyone and encompasses mens' issues"?

Nothing.

Venus In Furs · 05-12-2014 07:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In your opinion, but what do you say to the substantial body of feminists who claim that any mens' rights or egalitarian label is irrelevant because "feminism is concerned about equality for everyone and encompasses mens' issues"?

I think it's a fallacy. Feminism is about women's rights, MRA is about men's rights, and that's fine.

Of course the ideal would be us all working together - and should be the case where possible, but sometimes it's not possible; sometimes if an issue is gendered, then it can only be about that gender, or predominantly that gender anyway. E.g. abortion does of course affect men also, but it is going to be more of a concern to women. Fathers' rights - can affect women, e.g. the mother or new partner of a man who doesn't get to see his children, but it's still naturally predominantly a men's issue.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments