Feminism described / defined / characterized

[Tahar Joblis]

....

most

a man reaching the top of his field isnt a feminist accomplishment. a man being head of his household isnt a feminist accomplishment.

If a hypothetically misogynist woman reaches the top of her field is that a feminist accomplishment?

Or in a different example, if you read of a politician's career with no knowledge of whether they were male and female, is whether they're feminist or not defined by what's between they're legs?

This is a fairly basic descriptive / prescriptive dissonance coming up here.

When I ask someone to define feminist explicitly, the odds are relatively low that there will be no mention of woman in the definition. There are a few people who do think it's inappropriate to refer to men as feminist, but they are largely in the minority, which is why few definitions proffered explicitly refer to the gender of feminists as part of the definition.

However, being female or not female has a very large affect on whether or not people - including feminists - will consider you feminist. As Ashmoria has just demonstrated w.r.t. Sarah Palin.

[Ashmoria]

If a hypothetically misogynist woman reaches the top of her field is that a feminist accomplishment?

Or in a different example, if you read of a politician's career with no knowledge of whether they were male and female, is whether they're feminist or not defined by what's between they're legs?

This is a fairly basic descriptive / prescriptive dissonance coming up here.

When I ask someone to define feminist explicitly, the odds are relatively low that there will be no mention of woman in the definition. There are a few people who do think it's inappropriate to refer to men as feminist, but they are largely in the minority, which is why few definitions proffered explicitly refer to the gender of feminists as part of the definition.

However, being female or not female has a very large affect on whether or not people - including feminists - will consider you feminist. As Ashmoria has just demonstrated w.r.t. Sarah Palin.

it is harder to judge a man as a feminst in this way.

can we say that hugh hefner is a feminist? he made a fortune on the objectification of women but he had no problem turning over his business to his daughter. one act is not feminist; one very much is feminist. you have to decide for yourself how it balances out.

[Forsakia]

If a hypothetically misogynist woman reaches the top of her field is that a feminist accomplishment?

Or in a different example, if you read of a politician's career with no knowledge of whether they were male and female, is whether they're feminist or not defined by what's between they're legs?

to some extent YES

the act of reaching high public office is, for a woman, a feminst act.

using that office to deny other women the same career path that she took detracts from that accomplishment but cant erase it.

Does someone achieving a feminist accomplishment inherently make them a feminist?

If feminism is an ideology then how can someone who opposes that ideology be feminist? After all, most definitions of feminism use the plural "women". If this hypothetical person does not support improved roles for women, but rather just one woman (i.e. themselves) then that doesn't seem to fit the definition.

[Ostroeuropa]

to some extent YES

the act of reaching high public office is, for a woman, a feminst act.

using that office to deny other women the same career path that she took detracts from that accomplishment but cant erase it.

Does someone achieving a feminist accomplishment inherently make them a feminist?

If feminism is an ideology then how can someone who opposes that ideology be feminist? After all, most definitions of feminism use the plural "women". If this hypothetical person does not support improved roles for women, but rather just one woman (i.e. themselves) then that doesn't seem to fit the definition.

So which is it, is feminism about women or is it about equal rights.

[Ashmoria]

to some extent YES

the act of reaching high public office is, for a woman, a feminst act.

using that office to deny other women the same career path that she took detracts from that accomplishment but cant erase it.

Does someone achieving a feminist accomplishment inherently make them a feminist?

If feminism is an ideology then how can someone who opposes that ideology be feminist? After all, most definitions of feminism use the plural "women". If this hypothetical person does not support improved roles for women, but rather just one woman (i.e. themselves) then that doesn't seem to fit the definition.

i think it does to some extent.

a woman like phillys schaffley who worked tirelessly to defeat the equal rights ammendment had no problem with taking the lead, being a strong woman doing what needed to be done to get what she believed is right.

im sure she has been an inspiration to generations of conservative women who found their proto-feminist voice in following her example.

yes you have to subtract out that she was working against women's rights and women's equality. thats a big subtraction. but her position at the top of her movement put the lie to what she was working for. her life demonstrates that women can and should be free to work hard as they want to achieve whatever aim means the most to them.

the real non-feminist woman would have stayed home where she felt she belonged and have maybe encouraged the men around her to take up the cause of defeating the ERA.

[Ashmoria]

Does someone achieving a feminist accomplishment inherently make them a feminist?

If feminism is an ideology then how can someone who opposes that ideology be feminist? After all, most definitions of feminism use the plural "women". If this hypothetical person does not support improved roles for women, but rather just one woman (i.e. themselves) then that doesn't seem to fit the definition.

So which is it, is feminism about women or is it about equal rights.

feminism is about achieving equal rights through advancing women's rights.

[Ostroeuropa]

So which is it, is feminism about women or is it about equal rights.

feminism is about achieving equal rights through advancing women's rights.

Then it's a nonsensical ideology, and sexist.

[Ashmoria]

feminism is about achieving equal rights through advancing women's rights.

Then it's a nonsensical ideology, and sexist.

*shrug*

[Galloism]

So which is it, is feminism about women or is it about equal rights.

feminism is about achieving equal rights through advancing women's rights.

Honestly, that's like "achieving safe highways through advancing vehicle safety features".

Sure, vehicle safety features are important to improving highway safety, but "achieving safe highways" can never be accomplished through that route alone. The issues are more complex and require a multifaceted approach.

In short, if your definition is the global definition, feminism, as a movement, is doomed to perpetual and eternal failure, unless some other group stands up and picks up the slack.

[Ashmoria]

feminism is about achieving equal rights through advancing women's rights.

Honestly, that's like "achieving safe highways through advancing vehicle safety features".

Sure, vehicle safety features are important to improving highway safety, but "achieving safe highways" can never be accomplished through that route alone. The issues are more complex and require a multifaceted approach.

In short, if your definition is the global definition, feminism, as a movement, is doomed to perpetual and eternal failure, unless some other group stands up and picks up the slack.

*shrug* maybe it might work out that way on paper

in real life it has been splendidly successful for both women and men.

after all safer cars have made for safer driving. not being the total solution doesnt make it a solution not worth pursuing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Honestly, that's like "achieving safe highways through advancing vehicle safety features".

Sure, vehicle safety features are important to improving highway safety, but "achieving safe highways" can never be accomplished through that route alone. The issues are more complex and require a multifaceted approach.

In short, if your definition is the global definition, feminism, as a movement, is doomed to perpetual and eternal failure, unless some other group stands up and picks up the slack.

*shrug* maybe it might work out that way on paper

in real life it has been splendidly successful for both women and men.

after all safer cars have made for safer driving. not being the total solution doesnt make it a solution not worth pursuing.

The issue is, it also demonizes, or assists in the demonization, of male rights issues.
If the safer car lobby regularly made virulent attacks and furiously denounced other highway safety measures, i'd say they are a net loss to the cause.
Just like feminism.

[Harkonna]

Rapant 'Rape Hysteria' and absurd, fearful, mutually degrading concepts such as Rape Culture and The Patriarchy is not 'working out splendidly.' It's labeling women as perpetual victims, and males as constant oppressors. It's dehumanizing, nonsensical, and hateful.

[Galloism]

Honestly, that's like "achieving safe highways through advancing vehicle safety features".

Sure, vehicle safety features are important to improving highway safety, but "achieving safe highways" can never be accomplished through that route alone. The issues are more complex and require a multifaceted approach.

In short, if your definition is the global definition, feminism, as a movement, is doomed to perpetual and eternal failure, unless some other group stands up and picks up the slack.

*shrug* maybe it might work out that way on paper

in real life it has been splendidly successful for both women and men.

after all safer cars have made for safer driving. not being the total solution doesnt make it a solution not worth pursuing.

Oh I'm not saying it isn't. The results for men have been an improvement in some areas, although, as explained to you before, male teachers are at an all time low and the stay-at-home dad is a century behind the working mom in acceptance.

However, if such a group's members tried to shut out and shout down the group that tried to improve road engineering practices, and call them enemies of highway safety, etc, we would find that problematic.

Anyone who even suggests that men might be disadvantaged in some way in current society, however, is instantly labeled a misogynist, at least on this forum.

When the solution is incomplete and you take steps to destroy any other solutions that work on the gap, it's a problem.

[Galloism]

*shrug* maybe it might work out that way on paper

in real life it has been splendidly successful for both women and men.

after all safer cars have made for safer driving. not being the total solution doesnt make it a solution not worth pursuing.

The issue is, it also demonizes, or assists in the demonization, of male rights issues.
If the safer car lobby regularly made virulent attacks and furiously denounced other highway safety measures, i'd say they are a net loss to the cause.
Just like feminism.

Let's be fair here, and it's actually germane to the thread.

Feminism is so broad, vast, and poorly defined, that you can accuse feminists of saying or doing almost anything, good or bad, and still be speaking the truth.

Men's rights groups, depending on your perspective and definition could be seen as feminist.

[Ostroeuropa]

The issue is, it also demonizes, or assists in the demonization, of male rights issues.
If the safer car lobby regularly made virulent attacks and furiously denounced other highway safety measures, i'd say they are a net loss to the cause.
Just like feminism.

Let's be fair here, and it's actually germane to the thread.

Feminism is so broad, vast, and poorly defined, that you can accuse feminists of saying or doing almost anything, good or bad, and still be speaking the truth.

Men's rights groups, depending on your perspective and definition could be seen as feminist.

I regard men's rights groups to be flawed for precisely the same reason.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

*snip*
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.

This is misleading at best. Equality has been the express goal of feminism (in the U.S.) for at least 150 years.

Of course, in addition to this thread's ostensible topic about the difficulty in defining those terms, statements about feminism or feminists must be considered in historical and cultural context. Feminists in the U.S. have usually fought primarily for "more rights for women" because women in the U.S. have had less rights than men. Feminists have fought for rights for men at various times -- particiularly in the context of civil rights for minorities -- and even fought against so-called "privileges" for women that were denied men. Also, as more formal equality has been acheived between men and women, feminists increasingly focused on other inequities in society. (Again, this glosses over the wide variety of viewpoints of individual feminists or divisions within feminism.)

Going back more than 150 years to the putative start of "first wave feminism" and tracking forward belies your jaundiced "definition" (whether it is popular or not):

1848 "Seneca Falls" Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions:

Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.
. . .
Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.
. . .
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States, July 4, 1876 (excerpts):

It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended, were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its own downfall. . . .

And now, at the close of a hundred years, as the hour hand of the great clock that marks the centuries points to 1876, we declare our faith in the principles of self-government; our full equality with man in natural rights; that woman was made first for her own happiness, with the absolute right to herself—to all the opportunities and advantages life affords, for her complete development; and we deny that dogma of the centuries, incorporated in the codes of all nations—that woman was made for man—her best interests, in all cases, to be sacrificed to his will.

We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation. We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.

National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose (excerpts):

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.
. . .
NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.
. . .
WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.
. . .
WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.
. . .
WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity - - not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes - - but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

Gloria Steinem, "'Women's Liberation' Aims to Free Men, Too," Washington Post, June 7, 1970 (excerpts):

It is a movement that some call "feminist" but should more accurately be called humanist . . .

As Margaret Mead has noted, the only women allowed to be dominant and respectable at the same time are widows. You have to do what society wants you to do, have a husband who dies, and then have power thrust upon you through no fault of your own. The whole thing seems very hard on the men.

Before we go on to other reasons why Women's Liberation Is Men's Liberation, too - - and why this incarnation of the women's movement is inseparable from the larger revolution -- perhaps we should clear the air of a few more myths: the myth that women are biologically inferior, for instance. In fact, an equally good case could be made for the reverse.
. . .
I don't want to prove the superiority of one sex to another: that would only be repeating a male mistake. The truth is that we're just not sure how many of our differences are biological and how many are societal. What we do know is that the differences between the two sexes, like the differences between races, are much less great than the differences to be found within each group.
. . .
Inhumanity to Man

I DON'T WANT to give the impression, though, that we want to join society exactly as it is. I don't think most women want to pick up briefcases and march off to meaningless, depersonalized jobs. Nor do we want to be drafted -- and women certainly should be drafted; even the readers of Seventeen magazine were recently polled as being overwhelmingly in favor of women in national service -- to serve in a war like the one in Indochina.

We want to liberate men from those inhuman roles as well. We want to share the work and responsibility, and to have men share equal responsibility for the children. Probably the ultimate myth is that children must have fulltime mothers, and that liberated women make bad ones. The truth is that most American children seem to be suffering from too much mother and too little father.

Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children.

No more alimony. Fewer boring wives. Fewer childlike wives. No more so-called "Jewish mothers," who are simply normally ambitious human beings with all their ambitiousness confined to the house. No more wives who fall apart with the first wrinkle because they've been taught that their total identity depends on their outsides No more responsibility for another adult human being who has never been told she is responsible for her own life, and who sooner or later says some version of, "If I hadn't married you, I could have been a star." Women's Liberation really is Men's Liberation, too.

The family system that will emerge is a great subject of anxiety. Probably there will be a variety of choices. Colleague marriages, such as young people have now, with both partners going to law-school or the Peace Corps together, is one alternative. At least they share more than the kitchen and the bedroom. Communes; marriages that are valid for the child-rearing years only -- there are many possibilities.

The point is that Women's Liberation is not destroying the American family. It is trying to build a human compassionate alternative out of its ruins.

Simply Incorruptible

ONE FINAL myth that women are more moral than men. We are not more moral; we are only uncorrupted by power. . . .

The challenge to all of us is to live a revolution, not to die for one. There has been too much killing, and the weapons are now far too terrible. This revolution has to change consciousness, to upset the injustice of our current hierarchy by refusing to honor it. And it must be a life that enforces a new social justice

Because the truth is that none of us can be liberated if other groups are not. Women's Liberation is a bridge between black and white women, but also between the construction workers and the suburbanites, between Mr. Nixon's Silent Majority and the young people it fears. Indeed, there's much more injustice and rage among working-class women than among the much publicized white radicals.

Women are sisters; they have many of the same problems, and they can communicate with each other. "You only get radicalized," as black activists always told us, "on your own thing." Then we make the connection to other injustices in society. The women's movement is an important revolutionary bridge, and we are building It.

Jo Freeman, The Women's Liberation Movement: Its Origin, Structures and Ideas, 1971 (excerpt):

The eradication of sexism and the practices it supports, like those above, is obviously one of the major goals of the women's liberation movement. But it is not enough to destroy a set of values and leave a normative vacuum. They have to be replaced with something. A movement can only begin by declaring its opposition to the status quo. Eventually if it is to succeed, it has to propose an alternative.

I cannot pretend to be even partially definitive about the possible alternatives contemplated by the numerous participants in the women's liberation movement. Yet from the plethora of ideas and visions feminists have thought, discussed and written about, I think there are two basic ideas emerging which express the bulk of their concerns. I call these the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic, but they are not independent of each other and together they mesh into what can only be described as a feminist humanism.

The Egalitarian Ethic means exactly what it says. The sexes are equal; therefore sex roles must go. Our history has proven that institutionalized difference inevitably means inequity and sex role stereotypes have long since become anachronistic. Strongly differentiated sex roles were rooted in the ancient division of labor; their basis has been torn apart by modern technology. Their justification was rooted in the subjection of women to the reproductive cycle. That has already been destroyed by modern pharmacology. The cramped little categories of personality and social function to which we assign people from birth must be broken open so that all people can develop independently, as individuals. This means that there will be an integration of social functions and life styles of men and women as groups until, ideally, one cannot tell anything of relevance about a person's social role by knowing their sex. But this increased similarity of the two groups also means increased options for individuals and increased diversity in the human race. No longer will there be men's work and women's work. No longer will humanity suffer a schizophrenic personality desperately trying to reconcile its "masculine" and "feminine" parts. No longer will marriage be the institution where two half-people come together in hopes of making a whole.

The Liberation Ethic says this is not enough. Not only must the limits of the roles be changed, but their content as well. The Liberation Ethic looks at the kinds of lives currently being led by men as well as women and concludes that both are deplorable and neither are necessary. The social institutions which oppress women as women, also oppress people as people and can be altered to make a more humane existence for all. So much of our society is hung upon the framework of sex role stereotypes and their reciprocal functions that the dismantling of this structure will provide the opportunity for making a more viable life for everyone.

It is important to stress that these two Ethics must work together in tandem. If the first is emphasized over the second, then we have a women's rights movement, not one of women's liberation. To seek only equality, given the current male bias of the social values, is to assume that women want to be like men or that men are worth emulating. It is to demand that women be allowed to participate in society as we know it, to get their piece of the pie, without questioning the extent to which that society is worth participating in. This view is held by some, but most feminists today find it inadequate. Those women who are more personally compatible in what is considered the male role must realize that that role is made possible only by the existence of the female sex role; in other words, only by the subjection of women. Therefore women cannot become equal to men without the destruction of those two interdependent mutually parasitic roles. The failure to realize that the integration of the sex roles and the equality of the sexes will inevitably lead to basic structural change is to fail to seize the opportunity to decide the direction of those changes.

It is just as dangerous to fall into the trap of seeking liberation without due concern for equality. This is the mistake made by many of the left radicals. They find the general human condition to be wretched that they feel everyone should devote their energies to the Millennial Revolution in belief that the liberation of women will follow naturally the liberation of people.

However women have yet to be defined as people, even among the radicals, and it is erroneous to assume their interests are identical to those of men. For women to subsume their concerns once again is to insure that the promise of liberation will be a spurious one. There has yet to be created or conceived by any political or social theorist a revolutionary society in which women were equal to men and their needs duly considered. The sex role structure has never been comprehensively challenged by any male philosopher and the systems they have proposed have all presumed the existence of a sex-role structure to some degree.

Such undue emphasis on the Liberation Ethic has also often led to a sort of Radical Paradox. This is a situation the politicos frequently found themselves in during the early days of the movement. They found repugnant the possibility of pursuing "reformist" issues which might be achieved without altering the basic nature of the system, and thus, they felt, only strengthen the system. However, their search for a sufficiently radical action and/or issue came to naught and they found themselves unable to do anything out of fear that it might be counterrevolutionary. Inactive revolutionaries are a good deal more innocuous than active "reformists."

But even among those who are not rendered impotent, the unilateral pursuit of Liberation can take its toll. Some radical women have been so appalled at the condition of most men, and the possibility of becoming even partially what they are, that they have clung to the security of the role that they know, to wait complacently for the Revolution to liberate everyone. Some men, fearing that role reversal was a goal of the women's liberation movement, have taken a similar position. Both have failed to realize that the abolition of sex roles must be continually incorporated into any radical restructuring of society and thus have failed to explore the possible consequences of such role integration. The goal they advocate may be one of liberation, but it dose not involve women's liberation.

Separated from each other, the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic can be crippling, but together they can be a very powerful force. Separately they speak to limited interests; together they speak to all humanity. Separately, they are but superficial solutions; together they recognize that while sexism oppresses women, it also limits the potentiality of men. Separately, neither will be achieved because their scope does not range far enough; together they provide a vision worthy of our devotion. Separately, these two Ethics do not lead to the liberation of women; together, they also lead to the liberation of men.

Obviously these are not the views of all feminists at all times in history (of even just the U.S.). I think they make clear, however, that equality (or liberation of both men and women) has been a primary goal of feminism in general in the U.S.

Further, feminist organizations in the U.S. have pushed for an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution since 1923 (although not all feminist organizations have always supported the idea or supported the same wording). A version of the Equal Rights Amendment in every Congressional session between 1923 and 1970. With the exception of the brief attempt to pervert the ERA by addition of the Hayden Rider in the early 1950s (which was opposed by feminist groups supporting the ERA), the ERA has always been a strict call for formal equality between men and women.

The original was written by Alice Paul in 1923 and introduced in Congress that same year:

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Alice Paul revised this in 1943:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

After NOW was formed, endorsed the ERA, and began a major campaign for its passage, this version of the ERA was passed by Congress for ratification by the states:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

To become the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the ERA had to be ratified by 38 states by March 22, 1979. The history gets a bit complicated because there was an attempt (of dubious constitutionality) to extend the deadline for ratification and some states attempted to rescind ratifications they had passed (which was also dubious constitionally). By March 22, 1979, 35 states had raftified the ERA (of which 4 states putatively rescinded). At various times prior to the deadline, at least 1 chamber of the legislature approved the ERA in 9 of the 15 non-ratifying states.

The ERA has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982.

--
Again, exceptions can be found, but do not deny the general "thrust" of the feminist movement has been towards equality.

[Xeng He]

This is misleading at best. Equality has been the express goal of feminism (in the U.S.) for at least 150 years.

While I agree with this, there is more to it than that. To defend with a bit of a hypothetical...

Let's say person X is pro-life, because he (actually, you know what--let's say it's a she) values life above bodily integrity (yes, I know this sounds like me, bear with me) and in general supports similar "life-over-integrity" measures for men (supporting...I don't know, let's say mandatory blood donations).

She's all for gender equality, women in the workplace sounds fine, birth control seems fine, rape is bad, etc. But pro-life. Is that feminist to you, or not feminist?

[Forsher]

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.

That was the issue with one of the definitions in that post I quoted earlier.

One can argue that feminism as a definition has evolved somewhat. For example, if it had feathers it was a bird but now the definition of a bird is more complex than that.

[Tahar Joblis]

Does someone achieving a feminist accomplishment inherently make them a feminist?

If feminism is an ideology then how can someone who opposes that ideology be feminist? After all, most definitions of feminism use the plural "women". If this hypothetical person does not support improved roles for women, but rather just one woman (i.e. themselves) then that doesn't seem to fit the definition.

i think it does to some extent.

a woman like phillys schaffley who worked tirelessly to defeat the equal rights ammendment had no problem with taking the lead, being a strong woman doing what needed to be done to get what she believed is right.

im sure she has been an inspiration to generations of conservative women who found their proto-feminist voice in following her example.

yes you have to subtract out that she was working against women's rights and women's equality. thats a big subtraction. but her position at the top of her movement put the lie to what she was working for. her life demonstrates that women can and should be free to work hard as they want to achieve whatever aim means the most to them.

the real non-feminist woman would have stayed home where she felt she belonged and have maybe encouraged the men around her to take up the cause of defeating the ERA.

Let me draw the common thread, then, between the cases you've mentioned. If I have your opinion correct, you are stating that:

• Hugh Hefner assigning his daughter control over the magazine is a feminist act.
• Sarah Palin's political career, election as governor, nomination for vp, etc are feminist acts.
• Phyllis Schlafly assuming leadership roles in activism against the ERA is a feminist act.

And these feminist acts must then be balanced against:

• Self-identification as a feminist.
• Other acts that may not be feminist.

In determining whether or not they are feminists.

What is the common thread there? Placing a woman in a position of power/leadership, if I am not greatly mistaken. So; one act which you use to characterize someone as feminist is placing a woman in a position of power/leadership; and the corresponding statements, i.e., endorsing particular women or women in general for positions of power/leadership, should therefore be characteristically feminist statements, as you see them.

Is that a fair expression of your opinion?

[Forsher]

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.

One does not become a feminist because one lives what feminists want any more than one is a soccer star because one does what a soccer star says people should do.

When a movement is about doing stuff taking advantage of what that movement has done is simply good living. Trying to get more stuff done is being part of that movement.

Do we say that an African-American born yesterday is part of the Black Civil Rights Movement of the past because he or she lives what that Movement accomplished? No, we don't and the priniciple is the same.

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.

Oh yes, you, Mr I Don't Need Sources and Ditches Threads When Challenged For Them. I'm quite clearly annoyed by that, I wasted a fair amount of time with your posts. (Apologies if Mr is an inaccurate title.)

He, as I demonstrated, has a point

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.

Nor do you with your agenda.

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.

It is spoken like someone who wanders into NSG's feminist threads (which come in a wide variety) and encounters "Feminism is for equality" and "men don't have problems" and the people saying those things are arguing not with each other but with people like TJ who say "there are problems today facing men."

Feminist Literature is an interesting point. What makes it? I think you'll find you've just walked into you argument.

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.

Source. Let's see what you do this time.

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.

And what are they? Solidify your position into something concrete, something that can be brought up later if needed by yourself or others, Choronzon.

You already agreed it isn't the common definition.

No I didn't. Laymen and the uninformed's conception of feminism does not determine the common definition anymore than laymen and the uninformed's conception of a scientific "theory" determines the common definition of a scientific theory.

It may well be the academic definition, but academia do not define political movements.

Many feminist political movements use the same definitions.

Common is the usual definition. The reason why a scientific definition of theory exists is because it is different to the common definition.

To reject the validity of the usual definition is ridiculous because, shock horror, it is pretty standard to have one word with multiple meanings... "fly" is a good example.

Context is what determines which definition of any given word is used.

You think
1. (Sociology) a form of social organization in which a male is the head of the family and descent, kinship, and title are traced through the male line
2. (Sociology) any society governed by such a system
still exists? (I'm talking about the west here.)

These two definitely exist.

Believe it or not I actually know what the words Im using mean (unlike many NSGers). You didn't have to define it for me. I knew what it was when I made my original claim.

As a general rule, when arguing about one's use of words it is a good idea to avoid errors like "Im".

One exists, it just isn't the usage that one tends to find in NSG for patriarchy. However, the very idea of family itself is changing, undergoing an evolution... family as it applies above is certainly a changing thing.

Two, is more iffy. Certainly not when it comes to governing democracies unless you are telling me that Helen Clark and John Key have some weird familial relationship going on (yes, Clark is a woman, yes she was PM for nine years).

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

....

most

a man reaching the top of his field isnt a feminist accomplishment. a man being head of his household isnt a feminist accomplishment.

I'm telling you, a woman doing the same is not a feminist accomplishment either. It is indicative of wider success for feminism but in of itself it is no more feminist than a man doing the same thing.

Because you don't take into account the persons gender.
All it is in a gender equalist perspective is
"A sexist becomes a CEO."
that isn't an accomplishment, it's a hinderence.
By never taking gender into account you'd be suprised how often that ends up being on the side of equality.
Or not suprised, seeing as it's bloody obvious.

but if all the CEOs are of one gender, isnt that an equalist problem?

The line trotted out is "equality of opportunity" not "equality of outcome". Statements like the above show why "equality of opportunity" is nothing more than a convenient dream as all measuring of "opportunity" is by looking at the "outcome". There aren't enough surveys on what people want.

BEST qualified.

best qualified is a subjective measure.

Depends.

You need to have a BA and a teaching diploma to teach or a degree that combines them. (Plus a police check, of course.)

John who has a BA is less qualified than Susan with a MA. Both are less qualified than Sarah with twenty years teaching experience and a MA. Were to John to get the job it'd be ridiculous as his qualifications are at a lower level. Susan could get the job ahead of Sarah because they like her interview more or because Sarah is perhaps over-qualified, they may offer Sarah a better job given her experience.

[Freelanderness]

Rapant 'Rape Hysteria' and absurd, fearful, mutually degrading concepts such as Rape Culture and The Patriarchy is not 'working out splendidly.' It's labeling women as perpetual victims, and males as constant oppressors. It's dehumanizing, nonsensical, and hateful.

I don't think you understand what Rape Culture is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

Read up. It's not spectacularly gender specific. In fact, a major part of it is concerning male victims specifically of prison rape.

Patriarchy? You've got a case there, though It's important to note though that when "patriarchy" is referenced, it doesn't refer to the entire male gender crushing the female gender, it refers to a variety of systems in place that disadvantage females specifically. The idea is that not all men enforce the patriarch, but all of them benefit from it, whether they realise it or not.

I prefer the word "Kyriarchy" anyhow; it's much broader and encompasses much more territory. Just because I'm female, it doesn't negate my white privilege, as well as my economic advantage (being middle class, and not below the poverty line). It opens up a way more interesting debate.

Also the issues of inequality are much more complex than "men crush women hurrdurr".

[Greed and Death]

Feminist described by futurama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDL-DAdrvQ

[Tahar Joblis]

Rapant 'Rape Hysteria' and absurd, fearful, mutually degrading concepts such as Rape Culture and The Patriarchy is not 'working out splendidly.' It's labeling women as perpetual victims, and males as constant oppressors. It's dehumanizing, nonsensical, and hateful.

I don't think you understand what Rape Culture is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

Read up. It's not spectacularly gender specific. In fact, a major part of it is concerning male victims specifically of prison rape.

Since you have implicitly reinforced the myth that men who are raped are primarily victims of other men, I am obliged to point out that a clear majority men subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., raped by any non-sexist definition of rape, are in fact raped by women. [See "made to penetrate" figures.] This is not widely known, but should be repeated whenever someone implicitly or explicitly reinforces the myth that women raping men is either impossible or at least very rare; it is not even uncommon compared to male-on-female rape, with close to 1% of the adult male population having been raped by a woman in the last year.

However, I would also like to note that there is a still-active thread on the topic of rape, as well as one on the closely related topic of AoC laws; rape is a relatively lively topic here on NSG, and I'd rather not see this thread get derailed too far off the tracks of the original subject.

Patriarchy? You've got a case there, though It's important to note though that when "patriarchy" is referenced, it doesn't refer to the entire male gender crushing the female gender, it refers to a variety of systems in place that disadvantage females specifically. The idea is that not all men enforce the patriarch, but all of them benefit from it, whether they realise it or not.

I prefer the word "Kyriarchy" anyhow; it's much broader and encompasses much more territory. Just because I'm female, it doesn't negate my white privilege, as well as my economic advantage (being middle class, and not below the poverty line). It opens up a way more interesting debate.

Thread about patriarchy, the use, abuse, and meaningfulness, or lack thereof, of the term. Directly on the topic of the thread, "patriarchy," used broadly, is certainly a word used to signal feminism fairly directly.

Also the issues of inequality are much more complex than "men crush women hurrdurr".

Yes, they are.

[Freelanderness]

I don't think you understand what Rape Culture is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

Read up. It's not spectacularly gender specific. In fact, a major part of it is concerning male victims specifically of prison rape.

Since you have implicitly reinforced the myth that men who are raped are primarily victims of other men, I am obliged to point out that a clear majority men subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., raped by any non-sexist definition of rape, are in fact raped by women. [See "made to penetrate" figures.] This is not widely known, but should be repeated whenever someone implicitly or explicitly reinforces the myth that women raping men is either impossible or at least very rare; it is not even uncommon compared to male-on-female rape, with close to 1% of the adult male population having been raped by a woman in the last year.

However, I would also like to note that there is a still-active thread on the topic of rape, as well as one on the closely related topic of AoC laws; rape is a relatively lively topic here on NSG, and I'd rather not see this thread get derailed too far off the tracks of the original subject.

Patriarchy? You've got a case there, though It's important to note though that when "patriarchy" is referenced, it doesn't refer to the entire male gender crushing the female gender, it refers to a variety of systems in place that disadvantage females specifically. The idea is that not all men enforce the patriarch, but all of them benefit from it, whether they realise it or not.

I prefer the word "Kyriarchy" anyhow; it's much broader and encompasses much more territory. Just because I'm female, it doesn't negate my white privilege, as well as my economic advantage (being middle class, and not below the poverty line). It opens up a way more interesting debate.

Thread about patriarchy, the use, abuse, and meaningfulness, or lack thereof, of the term. Directly on the topic of the thread, "patriarchy," used broadly, is certainly a word used to signal feminism fairly directly.

Also the issues of inequality are much more complex than "men crush women hurrdurr".

Yes, they are.

It's cute because I never implied that men couldn't be sexually assaulted by women. That's a really fucking ridiculous statement to make. But thanks for putting me in your little predefined boxes. Rape Culture looks at RAPE CULTURE. That includes all victims, all perpetrators. It has a section that looks specifically at prison rapes, where iirc, a large amount of both gender sexual assaults/rapes occur. Again, prison rape happens to BOTH GENDERS, I was merely bringing up prison rape because it's generally accepted as one of the major problems when looking at men who become victims of sexual assault. (Inb4 you say that I'm implying other sexual assault doesn't happen)

I also was responding to a post about rape culture (generally considered a part of feminist theory) and patriarchy (which is also really related to feminism). So not really threadjacking. Kthxbai.

EDIT: Please note that when I refer to rape, I use the word as a colloquialism such as "rape culture" or "prison rape", but I actually mean sexual assault.

[Forsher]

Patriarchy? You've got a case there, though It's important to note though that when "patriarchy" is referenced, it doesn't refer to the entire male gender crushing the female gender, it refers to a variety of systems in place that disadvantage females specifically. The idea is that not all men enforce the patriarch, but all of them benefit from it, whether they realise it or not.

That's a controversial position here.

I love how you consistently fail to realize that so much of that is out of an utter terror of femininity, thus, misogyny. The negative effects of the patriarchy on men is not and never has been misandry.

This isn't to say, however, that patriarchy is good for men. The category of 'man' was constructed too and forces people into a category they don't truly fit. Patriarchy allows men to dominate women but only at the cost of their own individuality and humanity really. bell hooks discusses this in a very clear and interesting way in her book Feminism is for Everybody.

Tell me something, as in a patriarchal society, men are usually forced into the armed forces, if I were born male, and were forced into service against my will, and, against my will, was killed for a cause I did not believe in, would this not be harm?

There are a multitude of ways in which a patriarchal society harms men. "With great power comes great responsibility". Many men don't want that responsibility, and would gladly give up that power, and yet, both are forced upon them against their will.

Patriarchy doesn't just harm women

It goes on. (Quotes were funny, hence edit.)