Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Riverwolf]

So anyway, my feminist friend invited me to the feminist book store and I told her I wasn't into that man hating stuff. Then she said "look, if you're a woman and you think that's probably a good thing, then you're a feminist".

Anita Sarkeesian once quoted from a show that she otherwise didn't like, but had a great moment that illustrates what feminism is all about. (No, I neither remember the name of the show, nor the episode Sarkeesian mentioned it in, so the below "quotation" will be more of a from-memory rewording.)

Daughter: "I'm not a feminist."
Mother: "Oh, really? So you're against women having the right to vote, having the right to free speech, and having the right to work?"
Daughter: "What? No! I..."
Mother: "Well, then. I think you need to reconsider what feminism is."

Then POOF, I was corrected, just like that. I got some great books from that store - not easy books to find anywhere else. When God Was a Woman, Daughters of Copper Woman, a book about historical female rebels that were never mentioned in school, a couple wicked erotica compilations... All sorts.

Wicked erotica compilations? Nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

The patriarchy in the US may not be as bad as it is in Japan, but it's still patriarchy. After all, as bad as it is in Japan, it's still not as bad as in Saudi Arabia.

I reject this black & white application of the term, especially in a legacy sense. I've seen no cogent argument that our society is a system of men controling powerless women. Sure, some men have influence over women, but the reverse is also true. And the extent of each will vary with context & locale.
Note also that dang near everyone here hotly rejected my proffering the concept that it's a mix of patriarchy & matriarchy (men & women both exercising power). Some even ignored the concept of shared power to infer that I claimed solely that it's a matriarchy. Consequently, I find feminist thought rather contrary, rigid & narrow.

And all of them, or at least all the ones I've ever heard, are about the feminine being weak. ...okay, in the hour it took to write this response, I've managed to think of one male-oriented insult that's not about the feminine being weak: the use of slang terms for penis as synonyms for inconsiderate and/or rude people. That's still using penis to refer to something undesirable, but that's what we call "sex-negative", which is an issue that has LOTS of overlap with feminism, but not inherently tied to the movement.

You give plenty of reasons why feminism is devoid of anti-male bias, but nonetheless I see a different picture.

And, as always, it's just one thing of many. That's how cultural oppression works: it's NEVER just one thing doing all the work; it's an aggregate of lots of subtle things that, on their own, have no power, but when brought together, bring about problems.

A culture is made up of many elements working together, with varying degrees of influence and visibility; cultural problems are likewise sourced from many elements working together, which would have no power on their own.

It's the nature of the problems that makes it appropriate.

A connotation only you seem to have.

A term only becomes meaningless when it takes on dozens of contradictory meanings. Being used a lot does not inherently make it meaningless, especially when new definitions are not inherently contradictory to the old ones.
[/spoiler]

As for the stuff in the OP:

The draft hasn't been an issue in decades, so that doesn't surprise me. (Unless it got reinstated without my knowledge.)

The focus is on females, because the gender-based problems that women have to face far exceed the gender-based problems that men have to face. But two feminists I follow (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green) frequently address the gender-based problems men have to deal with.

As a personal example: when I was about 9, I discovered Sailor Moon, and became an instant fan. Not because of scantily-clad girls and the occasional panty-shot, but because I relate to those characters on a deeply personal level. IOW, I didn't want to bang them, I wanted to be them. But I had to pretend I hated the show while on the schoolyard, because of the harassment I was afraid of getting (and absolutely would have gotten).

I see a similar situation today in the Brony community(for those who don't know, a Brony is an adult male who is a fan of the new My Little Pony... no, while I think it's a quality show, in fact one of a few diamonds in a sea of festering garbage that is US television, I'm not a Brony myself): a lot of the time, they're stressing that they should be able to enjoy a show primarily marketed and designed for little girls without fear.

The MRM is still young. Perhaps it will someday change to be something worth taking seriously.

I'm not against the idea of such a movement, but my observations of the MRM is that it's just that: anti-feminist and whiny at best, and outright misogynistic in its worse forms (that is, from the group who founded the term and concept of "Men's Rights' Movement": they engage in blatant pedestal sexism).

Sure, that might not reflect the majority of MRAs, but the thing is, nobody's ever directed me to an MRA or MRM group that doesn't primarily whine about feminism instead of actually focusing on real issues. (...heck, nobody's ever directed me to an MRA period.)

Well I know that you, as a libertarian, are against high governmental authority, so I'd call that political bias. ^_^ (I kid. Having political bias is no bad thing.)

Of course, it's only bad when the political bias is against mine.

I've never seen such an advocacy, but it does make sense that it would be common, since many feminists are also socially, economically, and politically modern liberals, or at least leaning in that direction. (However, I should point out that one of the self-identified feminists I follow, Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug, is also a fiscal conservative-capitalist who's very much against higher governmental authority).

Thing is, the points where men are discriminated against in law situations generally have to do with child custody and care. If earlier forms of feminism advocated for that discrimination, then that would have been a serious ball-drop, since it only reinforces the very thing feminists are trying to fight against. (To be honest, I haven't actively studied the detailed history of the movement, since I was under the impression that the details aren't particularly relevant to contemporary issues... and apparently I was mistaken.)

But I don't think I can name a single movement that was absolutely consistent in its activism, where everything it did perfectly reinforced its goals.

I've explained how that's wrong, in detail, over and over again...

It's you who says calling it patriarchy is the same as calling it man's fault. When feminists use the term, that's not AT ALL what we mean. I'll allow that it has certain connotations for you, personally, so I'll try to avoid using the term when talking to you, specifically (as I've tried in my response to this OP), but don't make my mistake of thinking that your personal connotations for a word represent the accepted connotations of the group using it.

Any observant feminist would fully understand that patriarchy, whether we in the US live in one or not, is supported and reinforced by both men and women, and so cannot be placed solely at the fault of either gender.

Hardly. The feminist movement is inherently using the power women have. We're fully aware that things have been improving over time, and even now I believe we're ultimately winning despite some recent heavy losses.

But we also recognize that we still have work to do. Having power in some areas doesn't mean there's no victimization at all. Don't forget that in highly sexist time periods of recent history, there were Queens, and that the extremely misogynistic Greeks and Romans still revered Goddesses.

Besides, "power" is useless if nobody's recipient to it. What good is the power to speak freely if nobody's listening? What good is the law if nobody's enforcing it?

The idea is that women should have a choice with what to do with their own bodies, and that it shouldn't be the business of men or the law. (Considering that only biological women can get pregnant, I think this is one issue where being 99.9% female-centric is appropriate; but it's an exception.)

I don't think all anti-abortion activists are inherently "anti-woman" (especially since a lot of them are women themselves), but the sentiment that women shouldn't be able to have a legal choice in what to do with their bodies (which can be distinguished from the question of when life begins) IS anti-woman.

You say it's anti-woman, but I disagree. First, there are women (& men) who are pro-women but still oppose abortion. I find it a false & abusive claim. Second, I find most feminists to be rather authoritarian regarding body autonomy. Sure, sure, they're in favor of it in the abortion context, but then they're perfectly happy restricting body autonomy in other contexts. Many are against prostitution in general, many are against hiring prostitutes, & nearly all are against selling one's organs. Now, this is not enuf to prevent me from being a feminist, since I'd just be on the fringe of the group. But this selective application of body autonomy rights does fail to attract me.
What is the purpose of divisive language like "war on women"? Does it fire up the troops by demonizing the foe? Sure, but would it be better to avoid divisive politics, & actually discuss the issues with the loyal opposition? It reminds me of Dem claims that Pubs won't work with them, & then Dems proceed to insult Pubs. When actions are at cross purposes with stated goals, I wonder about intelligence & honesty of the combatants.

However, I will admit that this is one topic that I don't have a lot of knowledge or experience about. I'm also in favor of legalizing abortion, even if I personally believe its ethically wrong after the first trimester (which is roughly when I believe the life has its own autonomy), but I don't think much on that subject; my active feminism is directed elsewhere, primarily in gamer culture where it's badly needed. The fact that someone took the time to make a flash game (not an easy task) about beating up Anita Sarkeesian, who chose to challenge the casual sexism in games, is proof of that IMO. (Though the game was removed.)

Likewise.

You & your long posts!
I'll respond with a series of edits, since it's hard to keep track of everything.
Stay tuned for coming offenses!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

My take on this history is what I saw.
Yours is what you read about it.
They're equally valid, with advantages & disadvantages.

It occurs to me that you're reading works of the period, but those might not be prominent in the media or public discourse, which is what I experienced. I've no doubt that you can find feminist writings which are anti-draft, but if they were relatively obscure, does that define the movement? I saw the public face of feminism, & that defines the movement far more for me than arcane literature.

I do not think Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Angela Davis or Robin Morgan were relatively obscure nor is their literature arcane. All of them opposed the draft and the war.

I see it rising above its roots to the extent that "patriarchy" is a sexist
& misleading anachronism in some societies, eg, Americastan.

I don't think it is anachronistic at all since it is rich, white males who benefit the most from this system. In fact I don't think it is rising about its roots, I think it is firmly rooted and the tree needs to be cut down.

 

[Riverwolf]

I reject this black & white application of the term, especially in a legacy sense.

Not sure I follow. I expressed that it's on a scale; i.e., not black and white, but a rainbow.

One thing I've come to learn is that there's only one thing, and one thing only, in this world that's binary(i.e., black and white): binary itself.

I've seen no cogent argument that our society is a system of men controling powerless women.

Because none has been made, attempted, or intended.

Sure, some men have influence over women, but the reverse is also true. And the extent of each will vary with context & locale.

No arguments from me, except that we constantly hear horror stories of men dominating/pressuring women in relationships, and only occasionally hear the reverse. The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knew and trusted. (For the record, since I know someone's going to ask now that I've brought up rape in the same paragraph as men dominating women, I fully acknowledge that women can, and do, rape men, and likely more often than expected or reported.)

Note also that dang near everyone here hotly rejected my proffering the concept that it's a mix of patriarchy & matriarchy (men & women both exercising power). Some even ignored the concept of shared power to infer that I claimed solely that it's a matriarchy.

There's no cultural matriarchy that I've ever seen. There's some political see-sawing between them in the government, but that's hardly compelling, seeing as the government plays an almost insignificant role in everyday life and culture. (Though the vast majority of politicians are male.)

The patriarchy I refer to is cultural, not political.

You give plenty of reasons why feminism is devoid of anti-male bias, but nonetheless I see a different picture.

We both live in different worlds, so that doesn't surprise me.

Of course, it's only bad when the political bias is against mine.

Exactly.

First, there are women (& men) who are pro-women but still oppose abortion.

I think I was quite clear that I'm aware of that, and that the anti-abortion stance itself is not inherently anti-woman, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe anti-abortion activism is itself anti-woman.

Second, I find most feminists to be rather authoritarian regarding body autonomy.

As we should be.

Each individual should be in charge of their own bodies.

Sure, sure, they're in favor of it in the abortion context,

Actually, the context I see far most often is pressure to look and dress a certain way, sexual activity, etc.

but then they're perfectly happy restricting body autonomy in other contexts. Many are against prostitution in general, many are against hiring prostitutes, & nearly all are against selling one's organs.

I've never seen those sentiments from the feminists I follow. Laci Green in particular, is in favor of prostitution. I also don't know why anyone would be against a personal choice to sell one's own organs.

And has been pointed out, I've named names.

What is the purpose of divisive language like "war on women"? Does it fire up the troops by demonizing the foe? Sure, but would it be better to avoid divisive politics, & actually discuss the issues with the loyal opposition? It reminds me of Dem claims that Pubs won't work with them, & then Dems proceed to insult Pubs. When actions are at cross purposes with stated goals, I wonder about intelligence & honesty of the combatants.

I wouldn't know, since I never use the phrase. My focus is culture, not national politics.

You & your long posts!
I'll respond with a series of edits, since it's hard to keep track of everything.
Stay tuned for coming offenses!

Sorry. I tend to favor high detail. But I feel the need to do that in order to keep things clear, especially in a topic like this where there's still a lot of ambiguity and misunderstandings.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not think Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Angela Davis or Robin Morgan were relatively obscure nor is their literature arcane. All of them opposed the draft and the war.

But their public presence might be exaggerated thru the lens of historical study.
Note that I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just relating what I personally saw.

I don't think it is anachronistic at all since it is rich, white males who benefit the most from this system. In fact I don't think it is rising about its roots, I think it is firmly rooted and the tree needs to be cut down.

I don't see that same picture. I see women succeeding in many fields, competing successfully
with men, accumulating & controlling wealth, & charting the course of their own destiny.
Rich white guys just don't appear to be women's problem. Your post illustrates an element
of feminism which I find wrong, ie, that they're fundamentally victims of men.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry. I tend to favor high detail. But I feel the need to do that in order to keep things clear, especially in a topic like this where there's still a lot of ambiguity and misunderstandings.

I get so lost in a lengthy response, that I must do it piecemeal.
And I'll not address things which you might find important.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no cultural matriarchy that I've ever seen. There's some political see-sawing between them in the government, but that's hardly compelling, seeing as the government plays an almost insignificant role in everyday life and culture. (Though the vast majority of politicians are male.)

I don't say there is a cultural matriarchy...only that it could be a component of the system. It's analogous to the concept of partial pressures in mixed gases. (Thermodynamic analogies are always the most illulminating.) In this analysis/perspective, no single gas would be at full pressure, but each contributes to the total. Similarly, women have great power in our society, but feminists seem to avoid acknowledging this. Uncomfortable as this will make feminists, I see it as women not taking full responsibility for their lot in life.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't say there is a cultural matriarchy...only that it could be a component of the system.

But if it's a component of a system, doesn't that mean it's there? That is, there has to be one in order for it to be a component of the system?

It's analogous to the concept of partial pressures in mixed gases. (Thermodynamic analogies are always the most illulminating.)

Nerd. :sw:

In this analysis/perspective, no single gas would be at full pressure, but each contributes to the total. Similarly, women have great power in our society, but feminists seem to avoid acknowledging this. Uncomfortable as this will make feminists, I see it as women not taking full responsibility for their lot in life.

That's not so much uncomfortable as offensive. I see it as akin to victim-blaming, if not as dramatic. (If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that.)

Like I keep saying, feminists are well aware of the power women have, and utilize it simply by declaring themselves feminist. The feminists I follow have acknowledged the progress we've made towards building a fully egalitarian society.

But that doesn't mean there's no more work to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not so much uncomfortable as offensive. I see it as akin to victim-blaming, if not as dramatic. (If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that.)

I call this both a red herring & a straw man.....oh, hell, it's flat out untrue.
Too many feminists fail to make the distinction between responsibility & blame.
The last refuge of the feminist losing an argument to accuse a non of blaming a rape victim.
(I needed to make a catty remark. That was it. Is "catty" sexist too?)

Like I keep saying, feminists are well aware of the power women have, and utilize it simply by declaring themselves feminist. The feminists I follow have acknowledged the progress we've made towards building a fully egalitarian society.
But that doesn't mean there's no more work to do.

This is what you see. But I see too much dwelling on victimhood & blame.

 

[Riverwolf]

I call this both a red herring & a straw man.....oh, hell, it's flat out untrue.

I don't mean to imply it's what you intended.

But it's what I saw.

And come to think of it, now you know how I and other feminists feel.

This is what you see. But I see too much dwelling on victimhood & blame.

Only because it's still problematic enough to dwell on.

Nobody is so fully in control of their own lives that they're free of the influence/domination of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if it's a component of a system, doesn't that mean it's there? That is, there has to be one in order for it to be a component of the system?

Aye!

Nerd. :sw:

And proud of it!

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody is so fully in control of their own lives that they're free of the influence/domination of others.

I concur, which is why I'm a libber (libertarian....card carrying).
What is best in feminism is a subset of libertarianism.
(That isn't intended as an insult, btw...just a perspective.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Aye!

I apparently missed the word "could". Goes to show what missing a single word can do to one's understanding of an argument.

And proud of it!

Hail!

I concur, which is why I'm a libber (libertarian....card carrying).
What is best in feminism is a subset of libertarianism.
(That isn't intended as an insult, btw...just a perspective.)

I didn't think it'd be an insult. ^_^

Thing is, I actually don't believe it's even possible to be 100% autonomous, except maybe for people with antisocial personality disorder, or some other condition that negates our inherent social needs. Doesn't mean we can't try to balance the scales so that the domination/influence isn't based on arbitrary things like gender.

I think elements of feminism can overlap with the best of most political philosophies, including libertarianism (which you know my opinion of.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Thing is, I actually don't believe it's even possible to be 100% autonomous.....

Tis a commonly understood but unstated premise that
one must temper ideals with achievable goals.

....except maybe for people with antisocial personality disorder, or some other condition that negates our inherent social needs.

That's a common criticism of us libbers by fervent but uninformed foes.
Sure, we're abnormal, but not as much as they would portray.

Doesn't mean we can't try to balance the scales so that the domination/influence isn't based on arbitrary things like gender.
I think elements of feminism can overlap with the best of most political philosophies, including libertarianism (which you know my opinion of.)

Aye, but I don't remember what you think of us libbers.
(I get all the many wolves confused...painted, river, etc, etc.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Also relating to the dogma aspect of them, and I've seen this more on the feminist side, is that you are either with them or against them. It's not enough to support their causes, you have to profess loyalty to the brand, so to speak.

True dat. Even if you agree with them, you must wear "the brand" or get the boot (nice turn of
phrase you have there), as you just found out over there, where this has been explicitly stated.
At least here one needn't identify as a "men's rights advocate" in order to discuss the issues.
Criminy, if we had to, then I probably wouldn't be allowed here either.
Death to the purple! No....too violent.... Go green! Yeah, that's better.

 

[Willamena]

Anita Sarkeesian once quoted from a show that she otherwise didn't like, but had a great moment that illustrates what feminism is all about. (No, I neither remember the name of the show, nor the episode Sarkeesian mentioned it in, so the below "quotation" will be more of a from-memory rewording.)

Daughter: "I'm not a feminist."
Mother: "Oh, really? So you're against women having the right to vote, having the right to free speech, and having the right to work?"
Daughter: "What? No! I..."
Mother: "Well, then. I think you need to reconsider what feminism is."

The Mother's name wasn't George W. Bush, was it?

(You're either one of us or with the terrorists.)

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know what "TLDR" is, but I like the term "Eggy".
Perhaps I'll change from calling libertarians "libs" to "libbies".....or is "libber" better?

TLDR is rude, really. It means 'Too long, didn't read'.
Now you can use it on me!

So Egalitarians can be Eggies.
Feminists are obviously Fems (or Femmies?)
Libertarians ..... Libbies just flows...?
Machismos could be...... idiots?

We should work on this, you know

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Purples are also a great way to dis other posters without having to face a response.

Maybe it's no coincidence that purple and passive-aggressive both start with the letter p.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Mother's name wasn't George W. Bush, was it?
(You're either one of us or with the terrorists.)

Good analogy.
It's one reason I don't identify as a patriot either.
(And yet, this old draft dodger runs with gun nut veterans & patriots. Hell, I even
run with socialists. We're all fellow travelers on the spaceship Earth, ya know!)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Can we please stay on topic and not use this thread as an opportunity to bash another forum on RF?

If you truly have grievances with the existence of a particular forum, or if you wish to offer a suggestion for a change in color or an addition of another subforum, I respectfully suggest taking it up in Site Feedback.