Feminism described / defined / characterized

[Tahar Joblis]

A number of times, I've mentioned that simply defining feminist is problematic.

This is especially true on the internet, where all you have to go by are the simple things you say. And yet, in spite of these difficulties, it only takes a few simple sentences of discussion in order for people to immediately start labeling someone "feminist" or "not feminist." Even if feminism doesn't come up.

I firmly believe that if we reflect a bit - very self-consciously - about what people say and why it is taken as a feminist or not feminist thing to say, some of us will learn some things that are useful to know. Possibly even me. So, I'd like to start a little collaborative project here on NSG, to construct a description of what characterizes a position as a feminist position, and aid us in this bit of reflection.

Here are your instructions, should you wish to participate:

• Pick a poster on NSG that you deem feminist or not feminist.
• Choose a line they've said which you feel was a sentence that helped demonstrate they were feminist or not feminist.
• Quote this line.
• Discuss whether or not lines that have come up so far are indeed characteristically feminist or characteristically not feminist things to say. If you feel that a statement is worthless without a larger context, you are welcome to say so, but if the context is simply a question of sarcasm vs sincerity, you should be able to assign a judgement of some sort to both values.
• So we don't have to deal with the plainly obvious low-hanging fruit, stick to statements that don't refer to feminism or feminists directly. "I hate feminazis!!!" is an easy judgement call, as is "I am a feminist" [though this latter statement may readily be contested, and sometimes is - but always on the basis of other things said].

I will organize a selection of these lines up here in the OP in a format like this, for your convenience and mine. This is so that you may choose to evaluate sentences blindly - that is, without looking at who said them and who else has commented on them. You obviously can't be forced to evaluate blindly, but you might get more out of this exercise by doing so.

Said by [poster] in the context of thread.
Consider this statement characteristically feminist: Someone, someone else, and maybe another person.
Consider this statement characteristically not feminist: Yet another person, et cetera.
Think it doesn't indicate anything: Some indecisive person, some hair-splitter.

[Ovisterra]

A number of times, I've mentioned that simply defining feminist is problematic.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.... A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".

That didn't take long.

[Tahar Joblis]

A number of times, I've mentioned that simply defining feminist is problematic.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.... A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".

That didn't take long.

Those are two distinct prescriptive definitions.

They are not without problematic elements. For example, I support full equal rights for women. I advocate in favor of women having rights precisely equal to those granted men. Whether or not I am a feminist, however, is something that is not without controversy here on NSG.

Valerie Solanas was not arguing on behalf of equality for women. She was arguing for the extermination and/or subjugation of the male half of the species, and was pretty crazy. Yet, somehow, she is described as a feminist.

It is not difficult to find "No True Feminist" arguments on NSG, nor contentious debate over who is and is not feminist.

Oh, if only someone on NSG had linked to Wikipedia in the ten years of previous discussion!

Wait. It's happened before. And the OED, and Mirriam-Webster, and many other assorted authorities with subtly yet significant variations in definition... and none of them have ever quite matched the descriptive definition actually used in the real world. If you want to deny that simply defining feminism steps into problematic territory, then that very literal denial can be described with the same word in the psychoanalytic sense.

But this project is a little simpler. I'm aiming to characterize what makes someone on the internet be perceived as "feminist." Or not. Now, do you have any actual contributions to the project?

[Forsher]

A number of times, I've mentioned that simply defining feminist is problematic.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.... A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".

That didn't take long.

Finding definitions is easy. Finding people to agree with the definitions isn't so easy. Especially here on NSG.

3. For the clever poster who thinks feminism is defined by the dictionary, let's try the real Oxford English Dictionary:

"feminism, n.". OED Online. September 2012. Oxford University Press. 5 November 2012<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/69192?redirectedFrom=feminism>.

That's probably also me... TJ has been known to use the same definition (and by the way, defining words is sort of the whole point of dictionaries) and thanks for the compliment... it complements my massively inflated ego... which is why I've just assumed it is me. You may want to work on your linking.

That said, yours needs a subscription to see. Turns out that my library has got me covered. Good old super city (not really).

3. Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this.

After that poor linking I decided that I was fine with stuffing up the formatting. Especially as I now need to think which is an unmitigated disaster... I was hoping to avoid all thinking until my exams next week.

Let's compare the definitions, a good place to start... no?

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

Yeah, they have their similarities but on the whole there's some deviance (damn feminists) going on here.

Basically, the former agrees with what they (NSG feminists tend to say they do) whereas the latter does not. However, one can see that both have the same roots and reflect each other. Where they differ is the latter is more narrow and includes roughly half of what the former says. We also see from the note that first and second wave feminism are excluded from feminism by this former definition.

[Tubbsalot]

No, for the last time, I don't care about tax choice.

[Ovisterra]

That didn't take long.

Those are two distinct prescriptive definitions.

They are not without problematic elements. For example, I support full equal rights for women. I advocate in favor of women having rights precisely equal to those granted men. Whether or not I am a feminist, however, is something that is not without controversy here on NSG.

I would be inclined to say that you are.

Valerie Solanas was not arguing on behalf of equality for women. She was arguing for the extermination and/or subjugation of the male half of the species, and was pretty crazy. Yet, somehow, she is described as a feminist.

The people who described her as such were, to put it elegantly, twits.

It is not difficult to find "No True Feminist" arguments on NSG, nor contentious debate over who is and is not feminist.

I've yet to see a No True Scotsman used for feminism, but if you do find one, feel free to link me to it.

Oh, if only someone on NSG had linked to Wikipedia in the ten years of previous discussion!

Wait. It's happened before. And the OED, and Mirriam-Webster, and many other assorted authorities with subtly yet significant variations in definition... and none of them have ever quite matched the descriptive definition actually used in the real world. If you want to deny that simply defining feminism steps into problematic territory, then that very literal denial can be described with the same word in the psychoanalytic sense.

I'm not expecting people to agree with me. I'm not that naive, and I'm insulted that you think I am.

But this project is a little simpler. I'm aiming to characterize what makes someone on the internet be perceived as "feminist." Or not.

To what end?

Now, do you have any actual contributions to the project?

I believe I already have contributed.

[Forsakia]

A number of times, I've mentioned that simply defining feminist is problematic.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.... A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".

That didn't take long.

On a more historical note, that definition does mean you need to downgrade a lot of a lot of people who worked for things like female suffrage as not being 'real feminists'

[Ovisterra]

That didn't take long.

On a more historical note, that definition does mean you need to downgrade a lot of a lot of people who worked for things like female suffrage as not being 'real feminists'

How so?

[Forsakia]

On a more historical note, that definition does mean you need to downgrade a lot of a lot of people who worked for things like female suffrage as not being 'real feminists'

How so?

Because they didn't advocate equality (or rather full equality) between men and women. I suppose if you wanted to stick to the strict definition you'd have to re-classify them as proto-feminist or some other hedge. I think it works better to just have feminism as the broad 'advocating an increase in women's right/roles/etc' and then break off into different waves, political variations etc. But I suppose that's taste as much as anything.

[Ashmoria]

the problem with your contest is that *I* dont get to decide who is and who isnt a feminist.

i can look, for example, at sarah palin (chosen for her fame) and say "she is not a feminist"

but when you look at sarah palin objectively she fits any common definition--she is a strong working mother who has reached the top of her profession through her own hard work and determination. she wants no less for her own daughters.

so...first of all the person has to define themselves as feminist. ( i dont know if sarah palin does or not) THEN we have to look to see if that persons life and words match that definition, how well they do, and whether or not they are feminist enough to outweigh the spots where they fall short. because EVERYONE falls short of a perfect feminism. whatever that would be.

we might also be ready to claim a person as a feminist even if they DONT make that claim for themselves. even if sarah palin says she isnt a feminst (again, i dont know if she does or not) its obvious that she only gives lip service to any non-feminist crap she might say. she has no problem being #1 in any situation.

[Choronzon]

Oh look, another Hairballs thread where he denies the accuracy of common definitions because they don't suit his agenda and makes up entirely new ones because they better suit his agenda.

[Ostroeuropa]

the problem with your contest is that *I* dont get to decide who is and who isnt a feminist.

i can look, for example, at sarah palin (chosen for her fame) and say "she is not a feminist"

but when you look at sarah palin objectively she fits any common definition--she is a strong working mother who has reached the top of her profession through her own hard work and determination. she wants no less for her own daughters.

so...first of all the person has to define themselves as feminist. ( i dont know if sarah palin does or not) THEN we have to look to see if that persons life and words match that definition, how well they do, and whether or not they are feminist enough to outweigh the spots where they fall short. because EVERYONE falls short of a perfect feminism. whatever that would be.

we might also be ready to claim a person as a feminist even if the DONT make that claim for themselves. even if sarah palin says she isnt a feminst (again, i dont know if she does or not) its obvious that she only give lip service to any non-feminist crap she might say. she has no problem being #1 in any situation.

It's worse than that.
There are currently dozens of camps of feminism and each of them denounce the others.
"You are just a misandrist, not a feminist."
"You are just a misogynist, not a feminist." etc.
So i'll go by historical definition - More Rights For Women (As pointed out above, historically, equality didn't even enter into the discussion.)
And the popular definition - More Rights For Women.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh look, another Hairballs thread where he denies the accuracy of common definitions because they don't suit his agenda and makes up entirely new ones because they better suit his agenda.

I take issue with the underlined.
You will find that most people do not view feminism as an equal rights movement inherently, but as a rights for women movement. That they believe this results in equal rights eventually is neither here nor there. The UK In Exile is a perfect example of this. He is a feminist, and has in the past vehemently denied that any male rights issues exist. Just using our OWN threads as an example, you'll find just as many people who deny male rights issues exist as you do that acknowledge them and say feminism also addresses them.
AND YET
None of the feminists attack EACHOTHER on this point. So i'm inclined to say that Feminism most definately is a womens rights movement for most people.

[Choronzon]

You will find that most people do not view feminism as an equal rights movement inherently, but as a rights for women movement.

And those people are clueless. Their ignorance doesn't change the definition. Rush and Co don't get to rewrite the definition of feminism to suit their agenda anymore than Hairballs does.

None of the feminists attack EACHOTHER on this point. So i'm inclined to say that Feminism most definately is a womens rights movement for most people.

Spoken like someone who has not read even a paragraph of feminist literature.

[Ashmoria]

the problem with your contest is that *I* dont get to decide who is and who isnt a feminist.

i can look, for example, at sarah palin (chosen for her fame) and say "she is not a feminist"

but when you look at sarah palin objectively she fits any common definition--she is a strong working mother who has reached the top of her profession through her own hard work and determination. she wants no less for her own daughters.

so...first of all the person has to define themselves as feminist. ( i dont know if sarah palin does or not) THEN we have to look to see if that persons life and words match that definition, how well they do, and whether or not they are feminist enough to outweigh the spots where they fall short. because EVERYONE falls short of a perfect feminism. whatever that would be.

we might also be ready to claim a person as a feminist even if the DONT make that claim for themselves. even if sarah palin says she isnt a feminst (again, i dont know if she does or not) its obvious that she only give lip service to any non-feminist crap she might say. she has no problem being #1 in any situation.

It's worse than that.
There are currently dozens of camps of feminism and each of them denounce the others.
"You are just a misandrist, not a feminist."
"You are just a misogynist, not a feminist." etc.
So i'll go by historical definition - More Rights For Women (As pointed out above, historically, equality didn't even enter into the discussion.)
And the popular definition - More Rights For Women.

oh for sure.

its best to ignore those people unless you want to be active in a group like that. then good luck picking one that you can live with.

[Ostroeuropa]

You will find that most people do not view feminism as an equal rights movement inherently, but as a rights for women movement.

And those people are clueless. Their ignorance doesn't change the definition. Rush and Co don't get to rewrite the definition of feminism to suit their agenda anymore than Hairballs does.

By the same token, the ignorance of people who claim it is an equal rights movement does not change the historical definition.

How do you justify the definition you are using?
It isn't the historical definition, and it isn't the popular definition.

[Forsakia]

the problem with your contest is that *I* dont get to decide who is and who isnt a feminist.

i can look, for example, at sarah palin (chosen for her fame) and say "she is not a feminist"

but when you look at sarah palin objectively she fits any common definition--she is a strong working mother who has reached the top of her profession through her own hard work and determination. she wants no less for her own daughters.

How much of your characterisation of her as a feminist is based on her being a woman?

[Choronzon]

And those people are clueless. Their ignorance doesn't change the definition. Rush and Co don't get to rewrite the definition of feminism to suit their agenda anymore than Hairballs does.

By the same token, the ignorance of people who claim it is an equal rights movement does not change the historical definition.

Because definitions never, ever change to better suit their historical context. Nope. That would be absurd.

[Antiliberalbis]

Feminism.

Root word: Femina-Latin for woman. suffix:ism-means idea, doctrine, practice, or system.

Put them together and you get Feminism-The ideological system of women.

Much shorter and more to the point.

[Choronzon]

Feminism.

Root word: Femina-Latin for woman. suffix:ism-means idea, doctrine, practice, or system.

Put them together and you get Feminism-The ideological system of women.

Much shorter and more to the point.

Is the guy who doesn't even know what "liberal" means giving a lecture on definitions?

[Ostroeuropa]

By the same token, the ignorance of people who claim it is an equal rights movement does not change the historical definition.

Because definitions never, ever change to better suit their historical context. Nope. That would be absurd.

I also question your knowledge regarding the "historical" definition.

The original feminists didn't argue for equal rights, but rather for a certain set of important rights. You dodged the question. By what justification do you use your definition

[Xeng He]

Oh look, another Hairballs thread where he denies the accuracy of common definitions because they don't suit his agenda and makes up entirely new ones because they better suit his agenda.

As soon as it isn't automatically misogyny to hold a viewpoint on "women's issues" other than the standard feminist tenets, I'll agree with you.

[Choronzon]

By what justification do you use your definition

.....the fact that its the commonly used definition of the word in feminism, both within academia and without.

How confident people are around here discussing topics for which they clearly haven't read any of th literature is astounding.

[Ostroeuropa]

By what justification do you use your definition

.....the fact that its the commonly used definition of the word in feminism, both within academia and without.

How confident people are around here discussing topics for which they clearly haven't read any of th literature is astounding.

You already agreed it isn't the common definition.
It may well be the academic definition, but academia do not define political movements.

[Choronzon]

Oh look, another Hairballs thread where he denies the accuracy of common definitions because they don't suit his agenda and makes up entirely new ones because they better suit his agenda.

As soon as it isn't automatically misogyny to hold a viewpoint on "women's issues" other than the standard feminist tenets, I'll agree with you.

Chances are if you hold a view on women's issues other than the standard "feminist tenets" you are a misogynist.