Livredor and feminism
May. 2nd, 2008 01:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackUnsurprisingly, I think a lot of it comes down to definition of terms. Identifying as a feminist feels like a big deal, because it's often used in a heated way. But saying you made two related decisions:
1. "I have decided that some problems that affect women are important to me, and something I will do things about"
2. "I have decided that attitude is described by the word feminist"
Are two decisions that are hard to criticise.
And I applaud your decisions, your commitment to being able to change your mind, and your helpfully complete descriptions of the situation :)
On the other hand, you feel apologetic/defensive about identifying as feminist, and joke about the stereotypes of feminists, and I'm sure you don't need to.
The concept of "what constitutes feminist" is something that's come up before, and isn't really relevant here, but possibly is a useful way of conceptualising. Say there are circles of feminism.
1. Thinking that women should have equal rights and opportunities[1].
2. Thinking that women don't yet.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
I think that when women couldn't vote, and there were many other awful injustices, that was an incredibly important issue, and many people heroically embraced one through five.
Now, I think an awful lot has been achieved, and this is not the overriding issue in society: certainly I think it's important, but I think people who say this is the problem are over-the-top[3]. I think either they have been carried away by the momentum of it previously being most important, or cannot manage the dissonance to think that because it's important, and very central to them, that it's not the most important thing.
Thus, to me, belief (5) is off the table, and so we are faced with a sticky issue of terminology. Does "feminist" apply to people who believe (5), and by implication I think are overreacting? Or does it apply to people who think (1-4) or (1-3) or (1-2) or even just (1)?
I think this doubt colours an awful lot of debate. I think there's a stereotype that anyone to whom activism for women's rights is important also thinks (5), and so it's hard to draw a line.
And also that terminology cries out to have meaning. Supposing in a distant future equal rights was a long-won issue. I'd be happy to say everyone was a feminist because they all believed (1). But words evolve, and "feminist" would mean someone who seized on little arbitrary sex differences and proclaimed women were horribly oppressed.[2]
Many of my friends are happy to call anyone who believes (1) a feminist. I have often described myself as a feminist in this sense, to stretch the minds of people who can't conceive that a man might be feminist, or that feminism might mean anything other than loony. And partly out of notional solidarity for people who did and do do valiant feminist things; it seems disrespectful to reapply a laudable word to things you disagree with.
Now I feel embarrassed, because in some sense that holds, but really, it's much more properly applied to people who actually do something about it (3).
It sounds to me like you are moving from (2) into a bit of (3). But will probably never go to (4) -- like other worthy causes, this needs some people to devote themselves to it. But I happen to think other things are your calling, and this will be important to you, but not most important.
The good news is, I think you have lots of company. I think most of the men and women I know are (1) and probably (2), and many of them unabashedly seize the word "feminist", and we definitely counted you in our cozy (1-2) community already, whether or not it could be described as feminist.
And I know some people who do (3), either a little or a lot.
The question is, what communities do you envisage? Obviously you can do a lot of (3) without ever belonging to a specific community -- eg. funding a charity which gives start up small-business loans to women in a third-world country, or teaching your female bat mitzvah students that they being female is not a bar to aspects of Judaism. It's not specifically feminist, it's just a right thing to do. But I think it's included in what the feminist thing to do would be.
Conversely, you are likely to meet communities of (3), and any community of (3) is likely to contain (4) simply because of course some people are going to be most committed, and will no doubt also contain (5).
But I think you need to be clear on whose opinion about you you care about having. Probably people will correctly point out things you do that maybe are counter-productive. But on the other hand, they may not be very big things.
Conversely, in any group, some people will take things out of proportion. For instance, my gut reaction is that campaigning for changing spellings is useless. But I admit that some things I thought were stupid turned out to be a good idea when I examined them. But either way, I don't think it's that important: I think there are visible examples of gender inequality that can be effectively fought, whereas changing spellings of common words is (a) very difficult and (b) unlikely to provide much benefit.[4]
And you ought to be able to do some feminist things, and cautiously accept the label "feminist", without necessarily having to bow to everything people who call themselves "feminist" think. Obviously.
That went on a long time. I'm not sure how relevant it was to you, but I think it had some interesting ideas in. I may repost it to my journal.
Footnotes
[1] Interestingly, this sentence means the same thing as "men should have equal rights", it just correctly implies that women are more short-changed. I think someone saying "women should have equal rights" is probably -- or at least ought to also think that men should have equal rights.
[2] Here I'm tying back into my thoughts on "atheism" and "darwinist". Because everyone sane is a darwinist, "Darwinist" comes to mean "people who believe loony stuff that in some way could be seen as an extension of darwinism"
[3] That is, in this society. In many countries, I think (1-5) would be completely valid beliefs, and anyone who goes to fight for them would be one of the most laudable and epitomeic examples of feminism.
[4] Changing the meaning may be useful, eg. not using a generic "him" is a good thing. And it might be useful as a way of drawing attention to things.
1. "I have decided that some problems that affect women are important to me, and something I will do things about"
2. "I have decided that attitude is described by the word feminist"
Are two decisions that are hard to criticise.
And I applaud your decisions, your commitment to being able to change your mind, and your helpfully complete descriptions of the situation :)
On the other hand, you feel apologetic/defensive about identifying as feminist, and joke about the stereotypes of feminists, and I'm sure you don't need to.
The concept of "what constitutes feminist" is something that's come up before, and isn't really relevant here, but possibly is a useful way of conceptualising. Say there are circles of feminism.
1. Thinking that women should have equal rights and opportunities[1].
2. Thinking that women don't yet.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
I think that when women couldn't vote, and there were many other awful injustices, that was an incredibly important issue, and many people heroically embraced one through five.
Now, I think an awful lot has been achieved, and this is not the overriding issue in society: certainly I think it's important, but I think people who say this is the problem are over-the-top[3]. I think either they have been carried away by the momentum of it previously being most important, or cannot manage the dissonance to think that because it's important, and very central to them, that it's not the most important thing.
Thus, to me, belief (5) is off the table, and so we are faced with a sticky issue of terminology. Does "feminist" apply to people who believe (5), and by implication I think are overreacting? Or does it apply to people who think (1-4) or (1-3) or (1-2) or even just (1)?
I think this doubt colours an awful lot of debate. I think there's a stereotype that anyone to whom activism for women's rights is important also thinks (5), and so it's hard to draw a line.
And also that terminology cries out to have meaning. Supposing in a distant future equal rights was a long-won issue. I'd be happy to say everyone was a feminist because they all believed (1). But words evolve, and "feminist" would mean someone who seized on little arbitrary sex differences and proclaimed women were horribly oppressed.[2]
Many of my friends are happy to call anyone who believes (1) a feminist. I have often described myself as a feminist in this sense, to stretch the minds of people who can't conceive that a man might be feminist, or that feminism might mean anything other than loony. And partly out of notional solidarity for people who did and do do valiant feminist things; it seems disrespectful to reapply a laudable word to things you disagree with.
Now I feel embarrassed, because in some sense that holds, but really, it's much more properly applied to people who actually do something about it (3).
It sounds to me like you are moving from (2) into a bit of (3). But will probably never go to (4) -- like other worthy causes, this needs some people to devote themselves to it. But I happen to think other things are your calling, and this will be important to you, but not most important.
The good news is, I think you have lots of company. I think most of the men and women I know are (1) and probably (2), and many of them unabashedly seize the word "feminist", and we definitely counted you in our cozy (1-2) community already, whether or not it could be described as feminist.
And I know some people who do (3), either a little or a lot.
The question is, what communities do you envisage? Obviously you can do a lot of (3) without ever belonging to a specific community -- eg. funding a charity which gives start up small-business loans to women in a third-world country, or teaching your female bat mitzvah students that they being female is not a bar to aspects of Judaism. It's not specifically feminist, it's just a right thing to do. But I think it's included in what the feminist thing to do would be.
Conversely, you are likely to meet communities of (3), and any community of (3) is likely to contain (4) simply because of course some people are going to be most committed, and will no doubt also contain (5).
But I think you need to be clear on whose opinion about you you care about having. Probably people will correctly point out things you do that maybe are counter-productive. But on the other hand, they may not be very big things.
Conversely, in any group, some people will take things out of proportion. For instance, my gut reaction is that campaigning for changing spellings is useless. But I admit that some things I thought were stupid turned out to be a good idea when I examined them. But either way, I don't think it's that important: I think there are visible examples of gender inequality that can be effectively fought, whereas changing spellings of common words is (a) very difficult and (b) unlikely to provide much benefit.[4]
And you ought to be able to do some feminist things, and cautiously accept the label "feminist", without necessarily having to bow to everything people who call themselves "feminist" think. Obviously.
That went on a long time. I'm not sure how relevant it was to you, but I think it had some interesting ideas in. I may repost it to my journal.
Footnotes
[1] Interestingly, this sentence means the same thing as "men should have equal rights", it just correctly implies that women are more short-changed. I think someone saying "women should have equal rights" is probably -- or at least ought to also think that men should have equal rights.
[2] Here I'm tying back into my thoughts on "atheism" and "darwinist". Because everyone sane is a darwinist, "Darwinist" comes to mean "people who believe loony stuff that in some way could be seen as an extension of darwinism"
[3] That is, in this society. In many countries, I think (1-5) would be completely valid beliefs, and anyone who goes to fight for them would be one of the most laudable and epitomeic examples of feminism.
[4] Changing the meaning may be useful, eg. not using a generic "him" is a good thing. And it might be useful as a way of drawing attention to things.