Feminism and How I don't Care

[Nulono]

I consider myself a paleofeminist, "dictionary feminist", or "Feminist Classic". I disagree with the anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-prostitution, pro-legalization-of-abortion strand of feminism that seems to be popular now.

Um, I'm not sure what feminist circles (not squares, those are masculine) you're hanging about it....but anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-prostitution are not common or popular stances in most mainstream feminism anymore. Those stances have been relegated to certain radical feminist groups, which I think make some excellent arguments actually. They don't argue that it's an issue of morality, they argue that these structures are so inherently abusive and exploitative, that the idea of a woman 'freely choosing' to participate in them is basically an oxymoron. I don't agree with them 100%, but I do absolutely see where they're coming from. I think other feminists approach the issue from a 'we can change things from the inside' perspective. All feminists want to remove the exploitative and abusive nature of these systems...they just don't agree on how that should be best done.

Okay, I could be wrong there. But it's a VERY vocal minority.

I consider myself a paleofeminist, "dictionary feminist", or "Feminist Classic". I disagree with the anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-prostitution, pro-legalization-of-abortion strand of feminism that seems to be popular now.

Anti-prostitution, anti-porn, yes, there are feminists who advocate those positions. And nearly all genuine feminists, at least in the Western world, are pro-choice.

I don't think there's ever been "anti-sex" feminism. And regardless, there are plenty of feminists who are neither anti-porn nor anti-prostitution--at least not as such (forget feminism, you cannot be any semblance of a decent human being if you defend everything that goes on in the porn and prostitution industries.)

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life, and plenty of feminists today are too. But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

[Grandtaria]

oh and what the OP really means by "Feminism and How I don't Care" is - "i only care about me, me, me. - please post some masculist/antifeminist bullshit ITT".

Its in human nature not to give a damn about others. Im quite sure deep down, you could care less if every poster in nationstates dropped dead.

[Hydesland]

2. One school of philosophy considers another lacking in rigour. Oh my, I may be getting "the vapors"!

Indeed, so I don't see why you're getting so upset about it. Ayn Rand's objectivism is a kind of unconventional thinking that pushes the boundaries, that doesn't mean I have to respect it or find it compelling.

[Soheran]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life,

So? I am not making a definitional argument.

and plenty of feminists today are too.

There probably are some. I said "nearly all", not "each and every one."

But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not at all (though in some cases, like Sarah Palin, non-feminists should be called out for being what they are.) It's just an observation of the contours of what the modern feminist movement is and what it stands for. Abortion is not a live debate among feminist theorists, or feminist activists, the way pornography was or aspects of multiculturalism are. This is not a point about the merits, it is just a recognition of where the movement is today (and has been for a few decades.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

The one aspect of feminism I think is stupid is the academic feminism, mostly because it has strong ties to other bullshit like the postmodernist and relativist movements.

Care to explain, please ?

Please read Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" when you get a minute. It devotes a nice chapter to this. I agree with UnhealthyTruthseeker. Some radical forms of femnism attempt to overthrow scientific rationality in their approach to womanhood. It's a very scary mode of thinking.

1. Asking NSG posters to go read a @500-page book is a pretty bad form of argument.

2. Despite what many think, Sokol made more of a fool of himself than anyone else in the Sokol affair.

3. I have to admit my recollection of Philosophy of Science is a bit rusty, but my memory of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions makes me particularly skeptical of these overly rigid notions of "you can't think about that!"

[UNIverseVERSE]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life, and plenty of feminists today are too. But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not particularly. Quite how one can combine a philosophical position which says that women should be treated as equal human beings with one that says they should not be to control their own bodies, I do not know.

Feminism and the 'pro-life' movement as practiced in the US are pretty much entirely incompatible. One is about empowering women, the other about restricting their rights.

[Nulono]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life,

So? I am not making a definitional argument.

and plenty of feminists today are too.

There probably are some. I said "nearly all", not "each and every one."

But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not at all (though in some cases, like Sarah Palin, non-feminists should be called out for being what they are.) It's just an observation of the contours of what the modern feminist movement is and what it stands for. Abortion is not a live debate among feminist theorists, or feminist activists, the way pornography was or aspects of multiculturalism are. This is not a point about the merits, it is just a recognition of where the movement is today (and has been for a few decades.)

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist". The definition of the word remains the same, hence "dictionary feminist". Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Now, I disagree with Palin on many things, but how is she a nonfeminist? The only "evidence" I've seen cited can be attributed to free-market-ism.

[Bottle]

WTF is with all the anti-feminism threads?

I am a proud male feminist. I can't comment on the specific book mentioned in the OP, but other works I have read by bell hooks have been quite persuasive.

Regardless:

1. We live in a sexist society that enforces gender roles hurting all genders.

2. Feminists (with perhaps fringe exceptions that I'd disqualify from feminism) seek to shatter the oppression of all genders by gender roles AND equity among all genders.

Why does this twist so many bollocks?

I think it is because people intentionally discuss a kind of feminism that I would also exclude from the name. I believe they do this because otherwise they would have to look seriously at their own lives, and that is never comfortable. Not to mention, the current structures in place that give a certain small group of people a 'hand up' from birth is something that small group does not want to lose, and in order to deflect attention away from it, using oppressed-people language is seen as an excellent tactic.

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women. This means that every time women gain more access to the world, or begin to enter into a previously-male-only space, masculinity is threatened. The more free women are to participate in various spheres of life, the more the masculine spheres must shrink. It's natural for people to be unhappy if they feel that their space in the world is shrinking.

[Nulono]

I think feminism has more or less succeeded, so I'm not very vocal on it. Though we should really start focusing on the middle east and this.

[Soheran]

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist".

I understand. Effectively, I was conceding you your point about that aspect of the modern feminist movement--the only accurate characterization in your post.

Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Is it unimaginable to you that most people of feminist convictions could have actually been convinced of the case for female reproductive autonomy? What is lurking at the bottom of this, I think, is (to go all philosophical on you) a conflation of "concept" and "conception": you see "Feminism wants equality of the sexes" in the dictionary and so you think "not abortion", but you miss how the feminist movement, at least in the United States, has historically come to the recognition that equality for women necessarily involves reproductive autonomy. In understanding what equality means, we are not bound by what people thought a century ago: our understanding has developed.

[Georgism]

The feminist foremothers were vocally pro-life, and plenty of feminists today are too. But I sense some "No True Scotsman" logic here.

Not particularly. Quite how one can combine a philosophical position which says that women should be treated as equal human beings with one that says they should not be to control their own bodies, I do not know.

Feminism and the 'pro-life' movement as practiced in the US are pretty much entirely incompatible. One is about empowering women, the other about restricting their rights.

If men could have babies we wouldn't let them be aborted either.

Or something stupid like that.

Although I find it interesting that you use the word 'empower'. If both sexes were equally repressed by a big bad evil repressive government, would this be more desirable to feminists than the current situation?

[Jordaxia]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women. This means that every time women gain more access to the world, or begin to enter into a previously-male-only space, masculinity is threatened. The more free women are to participate in various spheres of life, the more the masculine spheres must shrink. It's natural for people to be unhappy if they feel that their space in the world is shrinking.

Wow. I'd really never thought about it like that before. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, I'd just never considered it in that way.

[Georgism]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

[Treznor]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

...

Perhaps she should have said "men frequently define themselves in the way which they are different from women." It doesn't mean you're wrong in how men should define themselves, but it also doesn't mean she's wrong in how men frequently do define themselves in comparison to women.

[Georgism]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

...

Perhaps she should have said "men frequently define themselves in the way which they are different from women." It doesn't mean you're wrong in how men should define themselves, but it also doesn't mean she's wrong in how men frequently do define themselves in comparison to women.

Meh, 'Socialism' is often defined as 'that Kenyan trying to give all my money to the lazy and telling us what to do!'

Because some people define it as that does not make it so. Then again, I also disagree with the concept of 'gender roles', although less because I disagree with how they're defined as...I don't know. Some sort of emotional reaction against them I guess. Probably involving the line 'people should be able to make whatever they want of themselves, be that a male childminder or fashoin advisor or a female marine (provided they meet the physical requirements anyway) or whatever.

Hell, in an ideal world I'd even like to see people who were born as men able to bear children, although how many actually take the offer up is debateable.

[Treznor]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

...

Perhaps she should have said "men frequently define themselves in the way which they are different from women." It doesn't mean you're wrong in how men should define themselves, but it also doesn't mean she's wrong in how men frequently do define themselves in comparison to women.

Meh, 'Socialism' is often defined as 'that Kenyan trying to give all my money to the lazy and telling us what to do!'

Because some people define it as that does not make it so. Then again, I also disagree with the concept of 'gender roles', although less because I disagree with how they're defined as...I don't know. Some sort of emotional reaction against them I guess.

The thing is that self-identity is tricky that way. There are men who go into a rage if anyone suggests that they might be anything less than the ultimate stereotype of an alpha male: strong, aggressive and in control. That's why some of the most popular insults against men compare them to women: "does your vagina hurt?" "You pussy!" and so forth.

A lot of men still define themselves in terms of how they're different from women. It's still very strong in our culture, and stronger in more "traditional" and patriarchal cultures around the world. So long as it's a dominant feature there will always be a need to highlight it so we can combat it. Yes, men and women are different, but that doesn't mean we should make such a big deal out of it.

[SD_Film Artists]

WTF is with all the anti-feminism threads?

I am a proud male feminist. I can't comment on the specific book mentioned in the OP, but other works I have read by bell hooks have been quite persuasive.

Regardless:

1. We live in a sexist society that enforces gender roles hurting all genders.

2. Feminists (with perhaps fringe exceptions that I'd disqualify from feminism) seek to shatter the oppression of all genders by gender roles AND equity among all genders.

Why does this twist so many bollocks?

I think it is because people intentionally discuss a kind of feminism that I would also exclude from the name. I believe they do this because otherwise they would have to look seriously at their own lives, and that is never comfortable. Not to mention, the current structures in place that give a certain small group of people a 'hand up' from birth is something that small group does not want to lose, and in order to deflect attention away from it, using oppressed-people language is seen as an excellent tactic.

The Illuminati?

[Bottle]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

...

Perhaps she should have said "men frequently define themselves in the way which they are different from women." It doesn't mean you're wrong in how men should define themselves, but it also doesn't mean she's wrong in how men frequently do define themselves in comparison to women.

Yeah, my whole point was that this is how masculinity is defined by society. OF COURSE there are men who break away from that, and thank heavens for them or I'd have become a radical lesbian separatist years ago. My whole point is that masculinity doesn't have to be defined the way it is, and that's what feminism is about...helping create a world where a man doesn't have to reject everything feminine in order to be recognized as a man.

[Bottle]

In Western culture, gender roles are a zero-sum game. Masculinity is defined as being not-feminine. Men's roles and men's spaces are defined by the extent to which they exclude women. Men are defined by the ways in which they are different from women. This means that every time women gain more access to the world, or begin to enter into a previously-male-only space, masculinity is threatened. The more free women are to participate in various spheres of life, the more the masculine spheres must shrink. It's natural for people to be unhappy if they feel that their space in the world is shrinking.

Wow. I'd really never thought about it like that before. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, I'd just never considered it in that way.

I had an "Ah-ha!" moment when somebody pointed it out to me, too. It really helps to understand why there are so many guys who are otherwise pretty cool people, yet have great big glaring sexist blind spots.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I've noticed how a good number of self proclaimed feminists who say they want to put an end to sexism are pretty sexists themselves. I suppose as Rush would say, THEY'RE REVERSE SEXISTS!

EDIT-- Nevertheless, those are just a few people. Feminism is generally a good thing, especially in the sexist society in which we live.

[Nulono]

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist".

I understand. Effectively, I was conceding you your point about that aspect of the modern feminist movement--the only accurate characterization in your post.

Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Is it unimaginable to you that most people of feminist convictions could have actually been convinced of the case for female reproductive autonomy? What is lurking at the bottom of this, I think, is (to go all philosophical on you) a conflation of "concept" and "conception": you see "Feminism wants equality of the sexes" in the dictionary and so you think "not abortion", but you miss how the feminist movement, at least in the United States, has historically come to the recognition that equality for women necessarily involves reproductive autonomy. In understanding what equality means, we are not bound by what people thought a century ago: our understanding has developed.

Men aren't allowed to kill our offspring.

[Bottle]

I've noticed how a good number of self proclaimed feminists who say they want to put an end to sexism are pretty sexists themselves. I suppose as Rush would say, THEY'RE REVERSE SEXISTS!

Eh, I've noticed that a lot of sexists like to appropriate the feminist label as a cover. I can't count the number of anti-feminist organizations that insist that the real way to fight for women's rights is to take away the right to choose, or punish women who have sex outside of marriage, or cut funding for social services like childcare programs, or all manner of other anti-feminist activities.

Judge people by what they actually do, not by what they call themselves. If a person opposes the social and political equality of the sexes, then they're not a feminist, so you can ignore them if they call themselves one.

[Bottle]

The modern feminist movement may be largely pro-choice, hence my identification as a "paleofeminist".

I understand. Effectively, I was conceding you your point about that aspect of the modern feminist movement--the only accurate characterization in your post.

Abortion is not a live debate among feminists because pro-life feminists were forced out or accused of not being "true" feminists, so the two camps became pretty isolated.

Is it unimaginable to you that most people of feminist convictions could have actually been convinced of the case for female reproductive autonomy? What is lurking at the bottom of this, I think, is (to go all philosophical on you) a conflation of "concept" and "conception": you see "Feminism wants equality of the sexes" in the dictionary and so you think "not abortion", but you miss how the feminist movement, at least in the United States, has historically come to the recognition that equality for women necessarily involves reproductive autonomy. In understanding what equality means, we are not bound by what people thought a century ago: our understanding has developed.

Men aren't allowed to kill our offspring.

You already know what the response to this will be, so why are you bothering?

We don't believe an embryo is "offspring" the way you do. So saying this stuff over and over is pointless. Do you have any other points, any at all, or is your entire argument founded on this one disagreement which will never get us anywhere?

[Soheran]

Men aren't allowed to kill our offspring.

Wow, that's a very thoughtful response that clearly shows recognition of the substantive issues involved in the question.

[Bottle]

Men aren't allowed to kill our offspring.

Wow, that's a very thoughtful response that clearly shows recognition of the substantive issues involved in the question.

Aborshun iz murder. Women kill bay-beez. Feminism bad, bay-beez good. Urk.