Feminism - more of it

[TerraPrime]

This thread is not meant for the debate on the validity of feminism. It is intended for the exploration of feminist ideas and implications in politics, personal lives, and entertainment. It will be heavily moderated and contents deemed inappropriate for the scope of this thread will be deleted.

Enjoy.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I guess a question I have is relatively simple: if you are for the equal treatment of the genders, are you, by definition, a feminist?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LitA,

I guess a question I have is relatively simple: if you are for the equal treatment of the genders, are you, by definition, a feminist?

As a follow on can a "Radical Feminist" who does not believe in equal treatment of the sexes, who believes men should not have the power, rights, or priviledge they would like to see accorded to women alone really be a feminist?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

LitA,

As a follow on can a "Radical Feminist" who does not believe in equal treatment of the sexes, who believes men should not have the power, rights, or priviledge they would like to see accorded to women alone really be a feminist?

That would make such a person both a sexist and a misandrist, no?

[TerraPrime]

Scot:

Radical Feminism has a specific meaning, and it's not about believing that men should have no power or rights. So your question is implying a premise that is not true.

Here's a primer on what Radical Feminism means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

LIFA:

Almost everyone I've met who has a bug up their asses about self-identifying as "feminist" has a really warped view of what feminism is. It's like someone saying they don't identify as Americans because being an American means killing and eating babies.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Right. And I'm just trying to educate myself on the proper semantics.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Interesting. I did not understand that distinction and will not use that term with regard to Witchwind and others who agree with Witchwind.

Where would Witchwind and those who want to eliminate (or virtually eliminate) the male sex be catagorized? Can they be considered feminists?

[TerraPrime]

So, then, the answer is depends on whom you ask.

If, for instance, you believe the "feminism" means subjugation of men and oppression of men, then no, you wouldn't necessarily say that support of gender equality means you're a feminist. In fact, you may argue that it is the opposite of feminism.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Misandrists. A feminist couldn't possibly advocate eliminating men. That defeats the purpose of feminism, which seems to be equal treatment of the sexes (with a lean towards fighting for women's rights because they're the majority oppressed). Now if Witchwind wanted to eliminate everyone on Earth, they (Witchwind and Witchwind supporters) might be considered feminist.

[jet199]

LitA,

As a follow on can a "Radical Feminist" who does not believe in equal treatment of the sexes, who believes men should not have the power, rights, or priviledge they would like to see accorded to women alone really be a feminist?

There are different strands of feminism.

I know Germain Greer decided at some point in the past that there could never be true equality due to physical differences. Things like breast feeding, women generally being weaker that men, etc. So I guess her goal is that their will be different rights and privileges but it will be based on real needs rather than cultural assumptions.

I think the term used on the last thread regarding Witchwind was lesbian separatist (although I am not sure of her sexuality).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Actually the rabbit hole I'm running down now is the debate between Trans advocates and (Trans-Exclusionary) Radical Feminists over the existence or non-existence of "CIS-Priviledge". It's really quite interesting reading the different perspectives.

[Castel]

Actually the rabbit hole I'm running down now is the debate between Trans advocates and Radical Feminista over the existence or non-existence of "CIS-Priviledge". It's really quite interesting reading the different perspectives.

Is this on a specific site?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

This is an interesting discussion I'd found:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So wholly separate from the theoretical discussion that is going on right now, but I believe on topic:

I am seriously considering sending my daughters to an all-girls school, at least K-8. This is not something that I ever thought I would consider, and in some ways is not sitting entirely at ease next to my feminist principles. That said, I've been really impressed by the girls' schools that we've toured and they seem dedicated, in fact, to turning out girls with strong feminist principles who will be very successful in the world outside of K-12 education. In particular, I've been impressed with the way the schools market public speaking, leadership, STEAM etc., with the pitch being that there are no "coded" rules in a girls school about what girls are good at v. what boys are good at, because, in fact, girls are good at everything in the school.

Thoughts on modern single sex education and how it fits with feminist principles?

[Lyanna Stark]

Ser Scot,

I'll just copy paste what I wrote before in an earlier incaranation of the feminism thread, but it basically explains what the various waves of feminism were about, and briefly what is meant with the various labels commonly used for different denominations of feminism. Some of them obviously overlap in places.

I might add here, as this should be obvious to anyone reading about this, that while there are feminists like Germaine Greer who's pretty well known for being rather divisive (even within the feminist movement, or perhaps particularly within the feminist movement) the basic tenets of feminism is still equality. The methods may vary, but the goal is the same. So that means if the people you quoted are serious, then no, they are not feminists, they are misandrists, pretty much.

Liberal feminists are mainly fighting for equal rights in a legal sense. One of the most famous liberal feminist goals was women's suffrage, for instance. The main thought behind it is that once women gain equal rights in the eyes of the law, we will reach equality.

Radical feminists went further/has a different focus in that a lot of feminists looked at what liberal feminism had achieved and thought that while good, it was not enough. It could not touch the areas of the private sphere, for instance, or try to explain why even though we are equal in the eyes of the law this was not enough. Even if there were no theoretical barriers to women in education and in the workplace, we still suffered inequality. One of the famous lines often attributed to various radical feminists (although the origin is unclear) is "the personal is the political".

Socialist feminism relies heavily on explaining women's oppression through a socialist framework. As socialism originated in the class struggle, you can fairly easily work within that framework to also include oppression against women. (Interestingly enough, even if this at first glance seems superextremist/weird, a lot of these thoughts on explaining hierarchies and structures of oppression can be found in sutff like the kyriarchy theory).

These are just very small abbreviated explanations. Personally I am most familiar with liberal and radical feminism, but I believe socialist feminism is becoming really relevant especially when trying to analyse power hierarchies.

Waves:

Further, there are also the waves of feminis. Normally the "standard ones" are the first and second wave. Exactly where they started and ended seem to be a topic for debate, but generally, first wave feminists were liberal and fought for stuff like women's suffrage, women's right to education, equality in the eyes of the law. The main achievement is definitely women's suffrage.

Second wave feminists are normally seen as the "60s bunch", i.e. it really took off during the 60s. While the first wavers were looking to women's suffrage and legal equality, second wave feminists focused on reproductive rights, rights in the work place, family etc. They were active in a huge number of areas, but I think it's pretty easy to see the difference from first wavers and that the second wave feminists were thinking more along the general lines of radical feminism, that the personal is political, especially with the focus on reproductive rights, domestic violence, the fight for legislation against marital rape, etc.

Third wave feminism is a bit more blurry (perhaps because it is more modern and it will be easier to see it "crystalising" with the wisdom of hindsight) but in general, third wave feminism aim at being more inclusive when it comes to women of colour, women who aren't from the US or western Europe. It's also taken strides towards allying more with the LGBTQ movements and many third wavers are far more queer and trans-positive than the second wavers. There's also a move towards rejecting the "gender binary" (more on that below in the constructivits vs essentialist divide).

Constructivist vs essentialist debate:

This is the debate on whether there is something essentially feminine,a female essence, that all women carry with them at all times.

The essentialists mean that there is such an essence, that there is something universally feminine in all women and that this stands in opposite to the universally male essence, as it were. This line of thought means that there is a fundamental difference between men and women that explains our current gender roles. Often this ends up with certain traits or attributes being seen as feminine, for instance altrusim and receptiveness. The solution to the problem is then to devalue male essence while simultaneously adding value to what is seen as the essential feminine.

Constructivists mean that our gender roles are constructed and that how these roles are constructed is a product of our culture and society. Hence constructivists reject that there is an essential femininity to each woman, like some magic uterus power. Constructivists emphasise that the differences between male and female gender roles are divided in such a way due to cultural pressures. Further, constructivists are also often positive to "breaking the gender binary", i.e. there is a move towards accepting non-standard gender expression. Constructivism has gained a lot of traction within third wave feminism and is now far more popular than essentialism. This is also why third wave feminism is more trans positive. If gender is a construction that is not determined by birth sex, then you have a completely different ranges of gender expression available.

I might add here as well that Julia Serano has some very good theories on modification of the constructivist ideas which further breaks it down and makes it more...reasonable? Less theoretic?

I feel I need to read Whipping Girl again to really be able to process the information in it and write about it coherently, as I've only read it all the way through once with some scattered re-reads.

[Lyanna Stark]

Thoughts on modern single sex education and how it fits with feminist principles?

That's a brilliant question. The motivation that girls should be good at everything is actually really strong. Definitely food for thought.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lyanna,

Thank you. Actually, reading some of the arguments about "CIS Privledge" from the TE Radical Feminists perspective has prompted a great deal of cogitation for me.

[Castel]

Castel,

This is an interesting discussion I'd found:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

Thanks Scot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

I found some criticism of that article as being too favorable toward pro-Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. I'll link to it:

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/05/op-ed-open-letter-new-yorker

From the open letter:

Anyway, I have critiqued Jeffreyss theories on gender in both my books. Her theories. I have never engaged in a personal attack on her, used the wrong pronouns when addressing her, questioned whether or not she is a real feminist, or dissected her sexuality or sexual history. However, Jeffreys does all of these things to me in her book. And much of it she does via invoking Ray Blanchards theory of autogynephilia. Now, I am not going to get into the details of that theory here, because you are probably not interested. Really, all you need to know is that (1) his theory posits that many trans women transition to female in order to fulfill sexually deviant fantasies they have, (2) the theory has been scientifically proven incorrect (see reviews here and here and here if you are a science/sexology nerd), and (3) studies by other researchers have found that up to 93 percent of nontransgender women would be characterized as having autogynephilia based on Blanchards definition. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that Blanchard believes that homosexuality and nonreproductive forms of sex are abnormal.

Honestly, I am not sure how Jeffreys (who is a lesbian and radical feminist) was able to so forcefully promote Blanchards archaic and male-centric notions about sexuality in her book without her head exploding from cognitive dissonance. But what I do know is why she did it: If Blanchards theory is true (which it is not), then that means that trans women like me are really sexually deviant men who are infiltrating the feminist movement. This is the thesis she puts forth in her book. And instead of seriously addressing my views on gender, feminism, and transgender issues, all she had to do was excerpt portions of my book where I discuss my own sexual history (which I talked about primarily in order to challenge Blanchards theory and the stigma it has generated). And in doing this, she was then able to caricature me as a sexually deviant man who is trying to reinvent feminism to fit my erotic interests. She seriously says that, almost verbatim, except that she puts the word feminism in scare quotes and she misgenders me (because she doesnt consider me to be a real feminist or woman).

[Mlle. Zabzie]

That's a brilliant question. The motivation that girls should be good at everything is actually really strong. Definitely food for thought.

Thanks. I've been thinking about it a lot as we go through this process. It's a funny thing, because I truly believe that coeducation was a good thing, giving women access to the best opportunities. However, for my daughters, I'm looking at single sex education and seeing it as the path to a better outcome. I also am thinking about my son, and whether an all-boys school would be right for him when the time comes. I don't know.