Do You Have to be a Feminist to be Egalitarian?

[Philjia]

That's only an answer to one part of my question. It's a very fascinating answer, and I find myself in agreement with much of it.

What is the strain of feminism you disagree with, in your view?

The mainstream, which is often called 3rd Wave intersectional feminism in the West.

Media exposure does not correlate with mainstreamness.

[Twilight Imperium]

The mainstream, which is often called 3rd Wave intersectional feminism in the West.

Media exposure does not correlate with mainstreamness.

Since when?

[Alvecia]

Media exposure does not correlate with mainstreamness.

Since when?

Since the mainstream was boringly moderate and the extremes got more views because they were excitingly controversial.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The name of feminism has been slandered back and forth for so long, more people are inclined to call themselves not feminists even though they believe in the root feminist cause. IMO, whether or not you identify personally as a feminist, if you support egalitarian society, you support the root cause of feminism. Not all this radical nonsense or all the "pants are patriarchy" or whatever. But the root cause of feminism - to raise the legal and social status of women as a whole to equal the legal and social status of men as a whole.

[New Edom]

The name of feminism has been slandered back and forth for so long, more people are inclined to call themselves not feminists even though they believe in the root feminist cause. IMO, whether or not you identify personally as a feminist, if you support egalitarian society, you support the root cause of feminism. Not all this radical nonsense or all the "pants are patriarchy" or whatever. But the root cause of feminism - to raise the legal and social status of women as a whole to equal the legal and social status of men as a whole.

You know in one sense, that's fair. However I would like to point out that my main issue with feminism is really more about issues within the movement that its strongest adherents seem to want to avoid dealing with. When I originally started bringing this up I was a lot more positive about it, now I'm frankly not as its seems to suggest to people that it means that the movement is entirely worthless if it has issues. I don't mean that. I mean that the issues need to be dealt with. A lack of serious response to concerns about the movement has convinced me that the leadership and spokespersons of the movement are not interested in responding at all to these concerns. They dismiss them, they refuse to allow their words to be publicly analyzed, they insist on demanding their views be taken seriously without any opposition even to their methods. So this has nothing to do with the end goals.

[Frenline Delpha]

Since when?

Since the mainstream was boringly moderate and the extremes got more views because they were excitingly controversial.

Who's to sya the extremes aren't the majority. They certainly are the most vocal.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The name of feminism has been slandered back and forth for so long, more people are inclined to call themselves not feminists even though they believe in the root feminist cause. IMO, whether or not you identify personally as a feminist, if you support egalitarian society, you support the root cause of feminism. Not all this radical nonsense or all the "pants are patriarchy" or whatever. But the root cause of feminism - to raise the legal and social status of women as a whole to equal the legal and social status of men as a whole.

You know in one sense, that's fair. However I would like to point out that my main issue with feminism is really more about issues within the movement that its strongest adherents seem to want to avoid dealing with. When I originally started bringing this up I was a lot more positive about it, now I'm frankly not as its seems to suggest to people that it means that the movement is entirely worthless if it has issues. I don't mean that. I mean that the issues need to be dealt with. A lack of serious response to concerns about the movement has convinced me that the leadership and spokespersons of the movement are not interested in responding at all to these concerns. They dismiss them, they refuse to allow their words to be publicly analyzed, they insist on demanding their views be taken seriously without any opposition even to their methods. So this has nothing to do with the end goals.

Feminists with their heads not up their asses recognize and try to incorporate solutions for those problems into their philosophy. I can't read your mind as to the ones you are talking about, but if it's anything like what everyone else had talked about to death, things like male rape, child support/custody issues, etc. etc., then yeah. I recognize and want to fix those issues, because sexism affects men. Benevolent sexism is an issue, yes, even when women are on the receiving end.

[Alvecia]

Since the mainstream was boringly moderate and the extremes got more views because they were excitingly controversial.

Who's to sya the extremes aren't the majority. They certainly are the most vocal.

If the extremes are the majority then they are almost by definition no longer extremes.

Edit: And anyway, these days more than any allow for a smaller and smaller number of people to become very loud with little to no effort

[New Edom]

The mainstream, which is often called 3rd Wave intersectional feminism in the West.

Media exposure does not correlate with mainstreamness.

Other than a few words of a dictionary definition, what IS acceptable to you? If people claiming to educate others about feminism are not sufficient, who is? Gender studies? We've brought them up. Philosophers? I've mentioned them. Psychologists? We've done that. Can this movement even be defined? If it can't, why should it be taken seriously?

[Alvecia]

Media exposure does not correlate with mainstreamness.

Other than a few words of a dictionary definition, what IS acceptable to you? If people claiming to educate others about feminism are not sufficient, who is? Gender studies? We've brought them up. Philosophers? I've mentioned them. Psychologists? We've done that. Can this movement even be defined? If it can't, why should it be taken seriously?

Does a movement have to have a definitive definition, like I think you're talking about, to be taken seriously?
If a large majority of a population holds a position circumstantially with no real drive to push said opinion, should it be dismissed out of hand because it is not organised?

[Frenline Delpha]

Who's to sya the extremes aren't the majority. They certainly are the most vocal.

If the extremes are the majority then they are almost by definition no longer extremes.

Edit: And anyway, these days more than any allow for a smaller and smaller number of people to become very loud with little to no effort

True. However, most of the Feminists with any power or influence are the ones with the more sexist views. So, while they may be the minority, they are also the ones with power.

[Alvecia]

If the extremes are the majority then they are almost by definition no longer extremes.

Edit: And anyway, these days more than any allow for a smaller and smaller number of people to become very loud with little to no effort

True. However, most of the Feminists with any power or influence are the ones with the more sexist views. So, while they may be the minority, they are also the ones with power.

I dunno, that makes it sound like the people who don't agree with them are just gonna follow blindly because "They're the leader".
I think people have a bit more individual thought than that.

[Frenline Delpha]

True. However, most of the Feminists with any power or influence are the ones with the more sexist views. So, while they may be the minority, they are also the ones with power.

I dunno, that makes it sound like the people who don't agree with them are just gonna follow blindly because "They're the leader".
I think people have a bit more individual thought than that.

I don't know. Ideaologies do strange things to people's minds. i mean, just llok at the Salem Witch Hunts if you want the most extreme example.

[Alvecia]

I dunno, that makes it sound like the people who don't agree with them are just gonna follow blindly because "They're the leader".
I think people have a bit more individual thought than that.

I don't know. Ideaologies do strange things to people's minds. i mean, just llok at the Salem Witch Hunts if you want the most extreme example.

I don't think that's a particularly good example of people following a leader despite disagreeing with them. I suspect the majority actually did believe.

[Frenline Delpha]

I don't know. Ideaologies do strange things to people's minds. i mean, just llok at the Salem Witch Hunts if you want the most extreme example.

I don't think that's a particularly good example of people following a leader despite disagreeing with them. I suspect the majority actually did believe.

I don't disagree. And I will admit that there are feminists who I mostly agree with (I never completely agree with anyone). Some include Christina Hoff Summers, Nano, and Wallenberg (occassionally). However, the movement has become so tainted for me that I do not feel comfortable associating myself with the label.

[Alvecia]

I don't think that's a particularly good example of people following a leader despite disagreeing with them. I suspect the majority actually did believe.

I don't disagree. And I will admit that there are feminists who I mostly agree with (I never completely agree with anyone). Some include Christina Hoff Summers, Nano, and Wallenberg (occassionally). However, the movement has become so tainted for me that I do not feel comfortable associating myself with the label.

Which only really contributes to the problem. The less people that associate with a label because of the actions of it's extreme members, the more relatively numerous said people become, and as a result the label becomes even more tainted, driving more moderates to dissasociate with it, etc.

[Frenline Delpha]

I don't disagree. And I will admit that there are feminists who I mostly agree with (I never completely agree with anyone). Some include Christina Hoff Summers, Nano, and Wallenberg (occassionally). However, the movement has become so tainted for me that I do not feel comfortable associating myself with the label.

Which only really contributes to the problem. The less people that associate with a label because of the actions of it's extreme members, the more relatively numerous said people become, and as a result the label becomes even more tainted, driving more moderates to dissasociate with it, etc.

It's the circle of shit.
And it hurts their cause.
Because of extreme
Views that some hold
'Til it is revived
By somebody more sane
It's the circle,
The circle of shit.

Yeah, I just did that.

[Galloism]

I still haven't seen exactly what the objections concerned, was it the exact language of the law (potentially understandable) or was it the fact that rape of men now became punishable (an objection I would not agree with).

The rest of your post you're largely correct on, but I want to focus on this.

I've linked to this several times on the forum, but you may not have seen those links. The objection was, in essence, that if rape of men by women becomes actually punishable by law, then women will have to deal with "counter-rape complaints" - IE, men who are the rapists accusing their victims of rape. Women are, after all, the only true victims of rape.

I do think you're trying to weasel your way out of the coal mining example I've presented above, but to further illustrate my point on the topic of global feminism, I'll simply provide a contemporary feminist push (launched in 2013) to get women into a dirty and hazardous industrial job.

Incidentally, while I greatly respect you for being multi-lingual (and I'm not being in any way sarcastic), I am not. I don't know what that says.

[Kraslavia]

Most problem is that some feminist take it trought the egalitarianism right to other side. Then problem is not - if you need to be feminist if you want ot be egalitarian (and it all depends on definition of feminism), but if some feminists really want equality, or they want to repalce "male chauvinism " with equally non-eaglitarian "female chauvinism". Patriarhate and matriarhate are equally non-egalitarian.
But - I still that there's much place for proper understood feminism - there is still much issues in treatng women all over the world.

[New Edom]

Other than a few words of a dictionary definition, what IS acceptable to you? If people claiming to educate others about feminism are not sufficient, who is? Gender studies? We've brought them up. Philosophers? I've mentioned them. Psychologists? We've done that. Can this movement even be defined? If it can't, why should it be taken seriously?

Does a movement have to have a definitive definition, like I think you're talking about, to be taken seriously?
If a large majority of a population holds a position circumstantially with no real drive to push said opinion, should it be dismissed out of hand because it is not organised?

If
1. It promotes no public policy
2. Has no direct expression of its intent and values to the public
3. Does not in some significant way contest a well known popular position
4. Seems to mirror the dominant narrative of others who claim to lead the movement--uses the same langauge, terminology, catcphrases

Then how does anyone know it exists?

[Gravlen]

I still haven't seen exactly what the objections concerned, was it the exact language of the law (potentially understandable) or was it the fact that rape of men now became punishable (an objection I would not agree with).

The rest of your post you're largely correct on, but I want to focus on this.

I've linked to this several times on the forum, but you may not have seen those links. The objection was, in essence, that if rape of men by women becomes actually punishable by law, then women will have to deal with "counter-rape complaints" - IE, men who are the rapists accusing their victims of rape. Women are, after all, the only true victims of rape.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing something like that. However, it still doesn't completely answer my question, because are the worries founded in how the statute was written, or was it a general worry because, as you say, women are the only true victims of rape? If the former, I would need to know more to understand if their objections were valid (and my google-fu has been weak here). If the latter, however, that's an objection which isn't valid until they can somehow demonstrate that it's actually happening. (I don't know that this has been an issue anywhere where the rape laws are gender neutral, so I can't imagine that it would be a problem in Israel either, given that the wording of the penal code isn't crazy).

I do think you're trying to weasel your way out of the coal mining example I've presented above, but to further illustrate my point on the topic of global feminism, I'll simply provide a contemporary feminist push (launched in 2013) to get women into a dirty and hazardous industrial job.

Incidentally, while I greatly respect you for being multi-lingual (and I'm not being in any way sarcastic), I am not. I don't know what that says.

And the link on the page I linked to (the link to the opinion piece itself) does't work anymore for some reason, either, so I can't provide an accurate translation.

Well, all I can do is say that it was supposed to lead to a link to an opinion piece written by Emma Østerbø, project manager for NCE Raufoss Women's Arena, where she says that she (and the feminist group she represents) work for an increased rate of women in her field and call upon more women to work in industry, in particular the aluminium industry. Take it for what it's worth.

[Galloism]

The rest of your post you're largely correct on, but I want to focus on this.

I've linked to this several times on the forum, but you may not have seen those links. The objection was, in essence, that if rape of men by women becomes actually punishable by law, then women will have to deal with "counter-rape complaints" - IE, men who are the rapists accusing their victims of rape. Women are, after all, the only true victims of rape.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing something like that. However, it still doesn't completely answer my question, because are the worries founded in how the statute was written, or was it a general worry because, as you say, women are the only true victims of rape? If the former, I would need to know more to understand if their objections were valid (and my google-fu has been weak here). If the latter, however, that's an objection which isn't valid until they can somehow demonstrate that it's actually happening. (I don't know that this has been an issue anywhere where the rape laws are gender neutral, so I can't imagine that it would be a problem in Israel either, given that the wording of the penal code isn't crazy).

Presumably it's the latter - the same objection was raised in both places.

Both the Indian Penal Code and the Israeli Penal Code are in languages I don't speak, so I'm not sure I could find specific text for you (i'm looking around for a direct translation, but I'm coming up blank). It also mirrors some of the arguments radical feminists made in the United States against statutory rape being made a gender neutral crime - that underage boys will rape grown women and then use the law to put the victim in jail. (Credit where credit's due: US Liberal Feminists supported the change)

I submit this is a trend.

Incidentally, while I greatly respect you for being multi-lingual (and I'm not being in any way sarcastic), I am not. I don't know what that says.

And the link on the page I linked to (the link to the opinion piece itself) does't work anymore for some reason, either, so I can't provide an accurate translation.

Well, all I can do is say that it was supposed to lead to a link to an opinion piece written by Emma Østerbø, project manager for NCE Raufoss Women's Arena, where she says that she (and the feminist group she represents) work for an increased rate of women in her field and call upon more women to work in industry, in particular the aluminium industry. Take it for what it's worth.

Well, I don't know all that much about the aluminum industry, but that sounds like a good thing on the surface at least.

Then again, Europe is not immune to criticism when it comes to feminist initiatives. As Chess is so fond of arguing, the very very sexist Convention of Istanbul focuses specifically on violence against women, despite women being less common targets of violence across the board. It also focuses specifically on domestic violence - where, depending on the country, you find that, in survey data, in most cases somewhere between 40-60% of the perpetrators are women, and 40-60% of the victims are men. Yet the convention specifically focuses on women to the exclusion of men when it comes to domestic violence.

This is part of a general trend to minimize and erase men who are victims of violence, especially domestic violence.

This was adopted by almost all of Europe. You can't say that feminism doesn't have a sexism problem in Europe (whether it's as bad as other places or not is a valid point of discussion).

[Balkenreich]

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing something like that. However, it still doesn't completely answer my question, because are the worries founded in how the statute was written, or was it a general worry because, as you say, women are the only true victims of rape? If the former, I would need to know more to understand if their objections were valid (and my google-fu has been weak here). If the latter, however, that's an objection which isn't valid until they can somehow demonstrate that it's actually happening. (I don't know that this has been an issue anywhere where the rape laws are gender neutral, so I can't imagine that it would be a problem in Israel either, given that the wording of the penal code isn't crazy).

Presumably it's the latter - the same objection was raised in both places.

Both the Indian Penal Code and the Israeli Penal Code are in languages I don't speak, so I'm not sure I could find specific text for you (i'm looking around for a direct translation, but I'm coming up blank). It also mirrors some of the arguments radical feminists made in the United States against statutory rape being made a gender neutral crime - that underage boys will rape grown women and then use the law to put the victim in jail. (Credit where credit's due: US Liberal Feminists supported the change)

I submit this is a trend.

And the link on the page I linked to (the link to the opinion piece itself) does't work anymore for some reason, either, so I can't provide an accurate translation.

Well, all I can do is say that it was supposed to lead to a link to an opinion piece written by Emma Østerbø, project manager for NCE Raufoss Women's Arena, where she says that she (and the feminist group she represents) work for an increased rate of women in her field and call upon more women to work in industry, in particular the aluminium industry. Take it for what it's worth.

Well, I don't know all that much about the aluminum industry, but that sounds like a good thing on the surface at least.

Then again, Europe is not immune to criticism when it comes to feminist initiatives. As Chess is so fond of arguing, the very very sexist Convention of Istanbul focuses specifically on violence against women, despite women being less common targets of violence across the board. It also focuses specifically on domestic violence - where, depending on the country, you find that, in survey data, in most cases somewhere between 40-60% of the perpetrators are women, and 40-60% of the victims are men. Yet the convention specifically focuses on women to the exclusion of men when it comes to domestic violence.

This is part of a general trend to minimize and erase men who are victims of violence, especially domestic violence.

This was adopted by almost all of Europe. You can't say that feminism doesn't have a sexism problem in Europe (whether it's as bad as other places or not is a valid point of discussion).

Its almost as if feminism as we understand it now is a sexist ideology.

[Maccav]

Who caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares?

[Galloism]

Its almost as if feminism as we understand it now is a sexist ideology.

Let's say "it has a sexism problem".

You know, I used to be a Republican once. I *loved* Eisenhower. He wasn't perfect, but I liked him.

I can no longer in good conscience support any Republican for office. The party platform has become about xenophobia, racism, oppression, and government obstruction and I can't in good conscience support that. If they changed their tune on those subjects, I would consider them again. Individual republican friends/colleagues can be all right, but the party as a whole is bankrupt ethically.

Such is how I feel about feminism, as a movement. Individual feminists can be all right, but I see a lot of ethical bankruptcy out of the movement as a whole, and I can't in good conscience support that.