Analyzing a "Feminist thought" quiz

[Tahar Joblis]

Still, 46 on "Liberal Feminism" is really weird for me. That is a misrepresentation of "Liberal Feminism" - I guess that, in example, the quiz when it comes to pornography is wrong:



I totally agreed here. But such question is not just only about Radical Feminism but also about Liberal Feminism: indeed a liberal "feminist" would totally disagree.

The quiz is pretty bad, speaking purely from a technical perspective.

Questions probably only affect one of the scores, at a guess.

By the paper that it's based on, yes. Each question affects only one subscore. In the originating paper, I believe this is by design, so as to test whether or not these subscores are measuring distinct factors. For the purpose people are adopting it, that is not necessarily the most desirable design - if you're trying to sort people into distinct categories, as is the typical intention of online quizzes, you want each question to affect multiple categories.

[Vashtanaraada]

Socialist feminist 47
Liberal feminist 41
Radical feminist 26
Women of Color 23
Cultural feminist 20
Conservative 0

about right

[Tahar Joblis]

Whathas sexuality got todo with feminism?

That's an interesting question. It's one which does not line up well with the claim that feminism is strictly about anti-sexism.

It does line up with the description of feminism as women's interest advocacy, and historically, it has a lot to do with political lesbianism. There are basically two veins leading in that direction.

One is the insistence that men are evil oppressors of women, with sexuality as an instrument of oppression. Thus, women loving men (see questions #31 and 48 in this particular set) is at best complicity in oppression. This leaves the only non-oppressive outlet for female sexuality being with other women.

The other is the reflexive insistence that any problem faced by any particular woman is a feminist problem; so then if lesbians face difficulty with acceptance, this is a feminist struggle, with homophobia being a form of class oppression of women (even if, in fact, homophobia directed towards gay men is more virulent and violent).

Some feminists have had a dim view of homosexuality, contrastingly, but many veins of feminist thought have found at least one of the above two lines of reasoning compelling.

[Fanosolia]

Perspective Score
Liberal feminist 47
Women of Color 37
Socialist feminist 32
Cultural feminist 29
Radical feminist 28
Conservative 17

I can't say i'm too surprised accept for the women of color being higher than socialist. I don't know what that says about me but...

Anyways I had some problems with the test. I mean I still sort of got what they were getting at but I wasn't very appreciative using gender roles for things like peace, as a individualist point of view which caused me to be neutral on some of the questions. Still I could understand why it was phrased the way it was, and still thought the quiz was fair.

[Angleter]

I got:

Liberal Feminist 37
Women of Colour 26
Radical Feminist 17
Conservative 16
Socialist Feminist 14
Cultural Feminist 13

It's already been said, but the main flaws of the quiz are the way it tots up the numbers, and the way it seems to ignore how these issues intersect. As an observation, I haven't seen much 'cultural feminism' around recently - it seems to be something that's less popular in feminist circles now than it once was.

[Kelinfort]

Is feminism suddenly the flavour of the month on NSG?

Anyway, the quiz itself does not add a category for support of Men's needs, it's obvious the quiz needs to be redesigned to take into account the MRM and gender abolitionists. That being said, quibbling over the answers to an online quiz created by an anonymous person is a little misguided.

[Kelinfort]

Whathas sexuality got todo with feminism?

That's an interesting question. It's one which does not line up well with the claim that feminism is strictly about anti-sexism.

It does line up with the description of feminism as women's interest advocacy, and historically, it has a lot to do with political lesbianism. There are basically two veins leading in that direction.

One is the insistence that men are evil oppressors of women, with sexuality as an instrument of oppression. Thus, women loving men (see questions #31 and 48 in this particular set) is at best complicity in oppression. This leaves the only non-oppressive outlet for female sexuality being with other women.

The other is the reflexive insistence that any problem faced by any particular woman is a feminist problem; so then if lesbians face difficulty with acceptance, this is a feminist struggle, with homophobia being a form of class oppression of women (even if, in fact, homophobia directed towards gay men is more virulent and violent).

Some feminists have had a dim view of homosexuality, contrastingly, but many veins of feminist thought have found at least one of the above two lines of reasoning compelling.

I don't think political lesbianism has that much influence in feminism as it did in the sixties and seventies. In fact, the MGTOW movement is almost analogous and just as rare today.

Feminism is far more supporter of queer rights than the mainstream was just four decades ago.

[Chessmistress]

I don't think political lesbianism has that much influence in feminism as it did in the sixties and seventies. In fact, the MGTOW movement is almost analogous and just as rare today.

I don't fully support political lesbianism, but I still think it's an honourable way to act. And I'm not alone.

"I think it's time for feminists to re-open the debate about heterosexuality, and to embrace the idea of political lesbianism. We live in a culture in which rape is still an everyday reality, and yet women are blamed for it, as it is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex. Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women in relationships with men. Women are told we must love our oppressors, while, as feminists, we fight to end the power afforded them as a birthright."

Julie Bindel (English writer, feminist and co-founder of the group Justice for Women) from her article on "The Guardian" on January, 30, 2009

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... -gayrights

"Being a heterosexual feminist is like being in the resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe where in the daytime you blow up a bridge, in the evening you rush to repair it."

Statement cited by Julie Bindel in the very same article on "The Guardian" on January, 30, 2009.

Also Swedish ROKS partially supported separatism
http://www.roks.se

For the very same reason, I'm less harsher in my judgements when it comes to MGTOW: they have a victimhood complex without reasons (because women have it worse and men are still the dominant class), they're misogynists, but I still think that's the lesser evil part of the so called "manosphere".

[Ostroeuropa]

That's an interesting question. It's one which does not line up well with the claim that feminism is strictly about anti-sexism.

It does line up with the description of feminism as women's interest advocacy, and historically, it has a lot to do with political lesbianism. There are basically two veins leading in that direction.

One is the insistence that men are evil oppressors of women, with sexuality as an instrument of oppression. Thus, women loving men (see questions #31 and 48 in this particular set) is at best complicity in oppression. This leaves the only non-oppressive outlet for female sexuality being with other women.

The other is the reflexive insistence that any problem faced by any particular woman is a feminist problem; so then if lesbians face difficulty with acceptance, this is a feminist struggle, with homophobia being a form of class oppression of women (even if, in fact, homophobia directed towards gay men is more virulent and violent).

Some feminists have had a dim view of homosexuality, contrastingly, but many veins of feminist thought have found at least one of the above two lines of reasoning compelling.

I don't think political lesbianism has that much influence in feminism as it did in the sixties and seventies. In fact, the MGTOW movement is almost analogous and just as rare today.

Feminism is far more supporter of queer rights than the mainstream was just four decades ago.

MGTOW doesn't advocate homosexuality.
It advocates staying away from relationships with women because of the current relationship dynamic. Theres a variance in MGTOW.

One of them I talked to described it as

"You MRAs are stupid. You want back on the plantation as soon as they agree not to whip you anymore. Fuck that. We're off the plantation now."
And-
"Why would you want to willingly sleep with a snake, just because it's had its fangs taken away?"
Which is pretty misogynist, albeit stemming from sentiments I sympathize with.

Another however, would describe it more along the lines of constructing a new model of self-worth independent of womens approval, or in acknowledging that someone doesn't care about relationships and joining a movement to destigmatize single men.
In that sense, i'm pro-MGTOW.
I'm MGTOW insofar as I'm not getting into a relationship with any woman who displays gynocentric behaviors and isnt willing to confront them. So i've basically come to accept i'm not getting into a relationship, or that it's very unlikely. (Such women do exist.) I want actual children, not an adult child.

[Hydesland]

My results, seems accurate enough:

Liberal feminist 43
Women of Color 34
Radical feminist 21
Cultural feminist 21
Socialist feminist 20
Conservative 13

edit: although I'm surprised I got any radfem or socialist fem score, as I am neither.

[Chessmistress]

MGTOW doesn't advocate homosexuality.
It advocates staying away from relationships with women because of the current relationship dynamic. Theres a variance in MGTOW.

One of them I talked to described it as

"You MRAs are stupid. You want back on the plantation as soon as they agree not to whip you anymore. Fuck that. We're off the plantation now."
And-
"Why would you want to willingly sleep with a snake, just because it's had its fangs taken away?"
Which is pretty misogynist, albeit stemming from sentiments I sympathize with.

Another however, would describe it more along the lines of constructing a new model of self-worth independent of womens approval, or in acknowledging that someone doesn't care about relationships and joining a movement to destigmatize single men.
In that sense, i'm pro-MGTOW.
I'm MGTOW insofar as I'm not getting into a relationship with any woman who displays gynocentric behaviors and isnt willing to confront them. So i've basically come to accept i'm not getting into a relationship, or that it's very unlikely. (Such women do exist.) I want actual children, not an adult child.

That's really interesting, I can deeply relate to your feelings.
Just switch "men" and "women" and your argument works fine for me.
Something like that:

"You liberal feminists are stupid. You want back on the plantation as soon as they agree not to whip you anymore. Fuck that. We're off the plantation now."
And-
"Why would you want to willingly sleep with a snake, just because it's had its fangs taken away?"

I'm pro-political lesbianism insofar as I'm not getting into a relationship with any man who displays patriarchal behaviors and isnt willing to confront them. So i've basically come to accept i'm not getting into a relationship with a man, or that it's very unlikely. (Such men do exist.)

Luckily, I'm bisexual

[Antarctica and Her Provinces]

Personally I think that feminists should all swap over to the term egalitarian because radical feminists that believe women are superior to men and the ones that ignore or even promote problems men face (i.e. domestic abuse, false rape claims, unfair court rulings) are poisoning the movement.

[Kelinfort]

MGTOW doesn't advocate homosexuality.
It advocates staying away from relationships with women because of the current relationship dynamic. Theres a variance in MGTOW.

One of them I talked to described it as

"You MRAs are stupid. You want back on the plantation as soon as they agree not to whip you anymore. Fuck that. We're off the plantation now."
And-
"Why would you want to willingly sleep with a snake, just because it's had its fangs taken away?"
Which is pretty misogynist, albeit stemming from sentiments I sympathize with.

Another however, would describe it more along the lines of constructing a new model of self-worth independent of womens approval, or in acknowledging that someone doesn't care about relationships and joining a movement to destigmatize single men.
In that sense, i'm pro-MGTOW.
I'm MGTOW insofar as I'm not getting into a relationship with any woman who displays gynocentric behaviors and isnt willing to confront them. So i've basically come to accept i'm not getting into a relationship, or that it's very unlikely. (Such women do exist.) I want actual children, not an adult child.

That's really interesting, I can deeply relate to your feelings.
Just switch "men" and "women" and your argument works fine for me.
Something like that:

"You liberal feminists are stupid. You want back on the plantation as soon as they agree not to whip you anymore. Fuck that. We're off the plantation now."
And-
"Why would you want to willingly sleep with a snake, just because it's had its fangs taken away?"

I'm pro-political lesbianism insofar as I'm not getting into a relationship with any man who displays patriarchal behaviors and isnt willing to confront them. So i've basically come to accept i'm not getting into a relationship with a man, or that it's very unlikely. (Such men do exist.)

Luckily, I'm bisexual

Adding this to my Factbook of NSG irony.

[Chessmistress]

Personally I think that feminists should all swap over to the term egalitarian because radical feminists that believe women are superior to men and the ones that ignore or even promote problems men face (i.e. domestic abuse, false rape claims, unfair court rulings) are poisoning the movement.

Feminism is not about female supremacy. It's impossible, equality is the opposite of supremacy.
Feminism is not about males' problems (even if the collapse of patriarchy will solve even their problems).
Feminism doesn't promote males' problems: it' s impossibile, exactly since we don't care about males' problems. I think it's important for us to stay away from males' problems because it could be even harmful: women cannot be good at fixing specific males' issues, and that's exactly why, at the opposite, we don't want "feminist" males but just only allies.

Adding this to my Factbook of NSG irony.

Sometimes life is ironic.

A question for Ostroeuropa:
You keep continuing to say that gender roles and masculinity are meant just only to the benefit of women.
Just a little example, it really happened:
A guy die in an illegal street race, it wasn't meant to impress women: it was secret and there weren't women at all.
How that's meant to benefit women?
It wasn't a benefit for me: I suffered for that. And it wouldn't have been a benefit for me nor even if he would have winned.
Are you able to get that's related with the concept of masculinity, including competitiveness and risk-taking, are you willingly to admit that cannot be meant to benefit women?

[Natapoc]

Personally I think that feminists should all swap over to the term egalitarian because radical feminists that believe women are superior to men and the ones that ignore or even promote problems men face (i.e. domestic abuse, false rape claims, unfair court rulings) are poisoning the movement.

1. Radical feminists do not believe that women are superior to men.
2. Egalitarian is already a word. It means something else and has a long history (seriously take some philosophy, world history, and sociology courses). You can't have it.
3. Radical feminists are (unfortunately) a minority within feminism right now so why would you want the majority of feminists to reject a term simply because of the views of a minority that they disagree with a few details on?
4. What should happen when, after switching to your favored word "egalitarianism", people with views you don't like also join that movement? Will you suggest another name change?

[Fanosolia]

I was reading the closest feminist I was and I have to ask, what does "down to earth" mean into terms of reform for their activism?

[Conserative Morality]

Liberal feminist 42
Women of Color 29
Socialist feminist 25
Radical feminist 24
Cultural feminist 13
Conservative 12

. Liberal feminists believe that "female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women’s entrance to and success in the so-called public world". They strive for sexual equality via down to earth political and legal reform.

Sounds about right.

[Conserative Morality]

Feminism is not about males' problems (even if the collapse of patriarchy will solve even their problems).
Feminism doesn't promote males' problems: it' s impossibile, exactly since we don't care about males' problems. I think it's important for us to stay away from males' problems because it could be even harmful: women cannot be good at fixing specific males' issues, and that's exactly why, at the opposite, we don't want "feminist" males but just only allies.

Don't be ridiculous. All aspects of sexism are inherently double-edged swords - approaching it from one end or the other makes no difference. This 'women and men are SO INHERENTLY DIFFERENT' idea is just another wave of sexist bullshit that's become fashionable for some reason among people who otherwise claim to be feminists.

[Conserative Morality]

A question for Ostroeuropa:
You keep continuing to say that gender roles and masculinity are meant just only to the benefit of women.
Just a little example, it really happened:
A guy die in an illegal street race, it wasn't meant to impress women: it was secret and there weren't women at all.
How that's meant to benefit women?
It wasn't a benefit for me: I suffered for that. And it wouldn't have been a benefit for me nor even if he would have winned.
Are you able to get that's related with the concept of masculinity, including competitiveness and risk-taking, are you willingly to admit that cannot be meant to benefit women?

If we take the assumption that masculinity is meant only for the benefit of women, that doesn't mean that peripheral actions arising from the attitude disprove the origin and purpose of the attitude.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're arguing against it in completely the wrong way.

[Ostroeuropa]

A question for Ostroeuropa:
You keep continuing to say that gender roles and masculinity are meant just only to the benefit of women.
Just a little example, it really happened:
A guy die in an illegal street race, it wasn't meant to impress women: it was secret and there weren't women at all.
How that's meant to benefit women?
It wasn't a benefit for me: I suffered for that. And it wouldn't have been a benefit for me nor even if he would have winned.
Are you able to get that's related with the concept of masculinity, including competitiveness and risk-taking, are you willingly to admit that cannot be meant to benefit women?

If we take the assumption that masculinity is meant only for the benefit of women, that doesn't mean that peripheral actions arising from the attitude disprove the origin and purpose of the attitude.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're arguing against it in completely the wrong way.

This, pretty much.

By the way, if you want an example of why masculinity being purely constructed around servitude to women hurts women too you need look no further than women entering the workforce.
Men resisted because it would mean they are less needed by women, and their self-esteem is tied to their utility to women.

Broadly speaking, there are a few groups in this dynamic.

1. Men who rank their self-esteem in terms of utility to women and want to monopolize ways that they can be of utility to women, and will engage in social or physical violence to monopolize these ways.

2. Men who rank their self-esteem in terms of utility to women

3. Men who have confronted and rejected societal norms of male self-esteem. (Which usually turns them into social pariahs like the MRM.)

4. Women who exploit men and their self-esteem issues by being cruel and insulting when they don't get what they want in order to shame men into doing it, and who will engage in social or physical violence against males who go against their self-interest. These are also the type of women to leverage this system by demanding men fight each other (Thus providing utility based esteem for the person who engages in this hit for her.)

5. Women who exploit men and their self-esteem by blithely relying on cultural norms created by the 4th group

6. Women who try to reject their female privilege (Pretty difficult.) or return displays of male insecurity with an appropriate reciprocity. (He pulls out your chair, you pull out his. etc.)

The issue will only be resolved when a large number of men no longer give a single fuck about women or their opinion, and reject utility based models of masculinity in favor of other forms of it.
As individuals you might care about their opinion. But as women? No.
Feminism actively harms progress on this front. Especially with it's continued use of real manist language, and attacking men and calling them all kinds of horrible shit, which naturally injures their self-esteem more, and not only that, but perpetuates a narrative that women have been wronged by men. Making even more women into entitled shits and making men even more hysterical about their need to provide some sort of utility to women to make up for it.

It's just a bullying process, that's all gender roles are really.

[Ragnarum]

Liberal feminist 39
Conservative 16
Socialist feminist 14
Women of Color 14
Cultural feminist 12
Radical feminist 11

[Ethel mermania]

This thing scored me as a liberal feminist. I am neither. Apparently in order to be conservative you have to hate gays. Bunch of crap.

[Vashtanaraada]

I don't think political lesbianism has that much influence in feminism as it did in the sixties and seventies. In fact, the MGTOW movement is almost analogous and just as rare today.

I don't fully support political lesbianism, but I still think it's an honourable way to act. And I'm not alone.

"I think it's time for feminists to re-open the debate about heterosexuality, and to embrace the idea of political lesbianism. We live in a culture in which rape is still an everyday reality, and yet women are blamed for it, as it is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex. Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women in relationships with men. Women are told we must love our oppressors, while, as feminists, we fight to end the power afforded them as a birthright."

Julie Bindel (English writer, feminist and co-founder of the group Justice for Women) from her article on "The Guardian" on January, 30, 2009

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... -gayrights

"Being a heterosexual feminist is like being in the resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe where in the daytime you blow up a bridge, in the evening you rush to repair it."

Statement cited by Julie Bindel in the very same article on "The Guardian" on January, 30, 2009.

Also Swedish ROKS partially supported separatism
http://www.roks.se

For the very same reason, I'm less harsher in my judgements when it comes to MGTOW: they have a victimhood complex without reasons (because women have it worse and men are still the dominant class), they're misogynists, but I still think that's the lesser evil part of the so called "manosphere".

someone blatantly avoided addressing my points on the other page

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

I totally agreed here. But such question is not just only about Radical Feminism but also about Liberal Feminism: indeed a liberal "feminist" would totally disagree.

Oh, 'feminist' in quotes for 'liberal feminist', huh?
Cute. I bet you're the only true Scotsman too.

[Nierra]

I think the quiz is incredibly biased against traditional conservatives as it only gives then 3 reasonable choices that reinforce what actual conservatives think. The rest are strawman assumptions.

I scored mid 40s in liberal feminist and 18 in conservatism and I'm anti feminism so....