The two types of Feminism

[Arctish]

It starts with the straw man argument and cherry-picking, and ends with a type of ad hominem the author calls PC-baiting. The conclusion:

The root of the issue here seems to be whether to judge feminism based on its definition or on the current situation of the movement. Some say the definition is ok, but that the movement is rotten. As I argued, the truth is that in the absence of opinion polls we can’t be sure. And even if opinion polls do reveal extreme opinions to prevail in the contemporary feminist community (which I doubt), this will only be a valid objection to feminism as it happens to be at the moment, not to the ideology in principle.

Yes. That is very much what I was writing about in the OP. Only I am not convinced that the second type I wrote about (that patronizes women and treats them as weak victim non-agents instead of empowering them) is the same ideology. I think it has used and abused the first type of Feminism (women's lib).

You haven't really made the case that any type of feminism weakens or patronizes women.

Can you give a specific example of what you call the second type of feminism? I've been a feminist for more than 40 years and I haven't encountered or read works from a feminist who doesn't believe in gender equality, or one who's "paternalistic". I have met those who want others to see things from the p.o.v. of the victims of entrenched sexism, and who point out how women can have limited agency, but I've never met one who thought women were incapable of managing their own lives once they were free of the social constraints that hold them back.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

So are you suggesting that this is something women are incapable of doing, or something that a patriarchal society has blocked them from doing?

I'm saying it's something most women do not choose to do as they value being with their kids more.

So you are saying that men are somehow genetically predisposed to NOT value their children?

 

[ruby sparks]

Confronted you say? Those who do that take it on voluntarily. Nobody forces them to marry men who won't agree to do housework or raise kids. Short of rape, nobody forces women to have children at all. It is perfectly feasible for a woman to marry a man who then stays home and raises the kids (as my sister has) or to hire a nanny or to not have kids. Women who prioritize work over family can do so. Fewer want to. That's just the fact of the matter.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

Just on the above though. Many women don't know until a certain situation arises (becoming a married mother in full-time employment is for instance a common one) that they will not get enough help from their partners in certain domestic matters. At that point, they don't have much more than Hobson's Choice about what to do about it if their partner won't willingly change. They are free of course to leave the relationship (or their paid job) but they may have their children's welfare to consider. For many, hiring help (a nanny or a domestic cleaner) isn't easily affordable.

 

[ruby sparks]

You haven't really made the case that any type of feminism weakens or patronizes women. .

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say too. I'm probably starting to sound like a flunkey with all this partly agreeing with nearly everyone schtick. Lol.

Weakens or patronises aren't the words that I would choose, but I can see why someone might want to use them. I would rather say that some feminism (or perhaps better to say some feminists) effectively tell women (eg conservative, traditionalist or non-feminist women) what they should or shouldn't do (or think, including in certain cases that they should self-apply the label 'feminist' to themselves) and as such that might be said to be an attempt to effectively reduce (weaken) their freedom to choose. It might even be construed as patronising, at a pinch, using a common definition of the word.

If you ask me for a citation I will have to go and look for one. I'm speaking off the cuff. That said, I would be very surprised if I could not readily do it.

 

[bilby]

You haven't really made the case that any type of feminism weakens or patronizes women. .

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say too. I'm probably starting to sound like a flunkey with all this partly agreeing with nearly everyone schtick. Lol.

Weakens or patronises aren't the words that I would choose, but I can see why someone might want to use them. I would rather say that some feminism (or perhaps better to say some feminists) effectively tell women (eg conservative, traditionalist or non-feminist women) what they should or shouldn't do (or think) and as such that might be said to be an attempt to effectively reduce (weaken) their freedom to choose. It might even be construed as patronising, at a pinch, using a common definition of the word.

If you ask me for a citation I will have to go and look for one. I'm speaking off the cuff. That said, I would be very surprised if I could not readily do it.

I mostly agree with you, in that you do indeed sound like a flunky.

I hope that helps.

 

[ruby sparks]

Musical interlude:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI2Gst05m68[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ruby sparks]

I hope that helps.

I'd rather be a flunkey than be faux-sincere.

Aside from that, yes, I agree with a lot of what you said.

 

[Arctish]

You haven't really made the case that any type of feminism weakens or patronizes women. .

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say too. I'm probably starting to sound like a flunkey with all this partly agreeing with nearly everyone schtick. Lol.

Weakens or patronises aren't the words that I would choose, but I can see why someone might want to use them. I would rather say that some feminism (or perhaps better to say some feminists) effectively tell women (eg conservative, traditionalist or non-feminist women) what they should or shouldn't do (or think, including that they should self-apply the label 'feminist' to themselves) and as such that might be said to be an attempt to effectively reduce (weaken) their freedom to choose. It might even be construed as patronising, at a pinch, using a common definition of the word.

If you ask me for a citation I will have to go and look for one. I'm speaking off the cuff. That said, I would be very surprised if I could not readily do it.

I agree that some feminists tell others what to think but that's not an aspect of feminism, it's an aspect of human society. Some folks are overbearing. They insist that everyone must do things their way. It's not all that surprising that in a group as large and diverse as feminists, some of them would be that kind of hard-charging, domineering personality type.

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree that some feminists tell others what to think but that's not an aspect of feminism....

That, right there, is more or less a no true scotsman fallacy.

Or, if that seems unfair, how can some feminists telling others what to do not be 'an aspect of feminism'?

 

[Arctish]

I agree that some feminists tell others what to think but that's not an aspect of feminism....

That, right there, is more or less a no true scotsman fallacy.

In what way?

I really don't get the distinction Jolly is making between feminists and the second group. It looks to me like he's saying that nice, friendly feminists are okay but he doesn't like rude, obnoxious ones. Well, no one likes rude and obnoxious people but that doesn't make them something other than feminists.

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree that some feminists tell others what to think but that's not an aspect of feminism....

That, right there, is more or less a no true scotsman fallacy.

In what way?

I tried to clarify and give myself wiggle room, belatedly. It could be an NTS fallacy. It might not. It is, I think, related.

I really don't get the distinction Jolly is making between feminists and the second group. It looks to me like he's saying that nice, friendly feminists are okay but he doesn't like rude, obnoxious ones. Well, no one likes rude and obnoxious people but that doesn't make them something other than feminists.

It could be said to be an artificial or simplistic distinction, made only for the purposes of setting up a basic contrast and also, I have to say that I don't fully get it either (or necessarily agree with it), but that general point is not the specific point of Jolly's (or yours) I replied to.

 

[ruby sparks]

At the risk of now also, as well as appearing to be a flunkey, sounding like some sort of internet self-help guru (which I probably will) it seems to me that in many perhaps most discussion/debates, both or all parties are at least partly right but we mainly seem to hone in on the disagreement parts. Maybe we all just like conflict or something. I know I can succumb to that. It does warm the blood nicely. I have, over the years, noticed a tendency for some threads to wane or die if there isn't arguing of the 'I'm right you're wrong' variety keeping them going. There was a time I'd like nothing more than to argue to the death about...almost any topic....but nowadays I'm less arsed.

Now I'm probably being patronising too.

I think I might have Confrontatile Dysfunction. I just can't seem to get up for it the way I used to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another (female) voice on this: https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bl...demeans-women-while-claiming-to-protect-them/

Women as children, women as hysterical, women as irrational, women as incapable, women as selfish, women as unaccountable—these are all accusations that feminists throw at the so-called patriarchy. But when you put down the dictionary and look at what feminism actually says and does, who is it that insults, infantilizes and demoralizes women?

The broader culture treats women as adult humans capable of making choices and dealing with the consequences of those choices, just as we expect all men to do. Feminism is the social movement pushing to treat women as large children who need protection from their own actions.

I don't agree with her that we don't need feminism (of the first type; the battles are not yet all won). I don't agree with many of her other statements. I strongly suspect that my personal ideologies differ strongly from hers. But I do see and agree with much she says, especially the bolded. The second type of feminism I refer to in the OP does exactly that. She gives a few examples in her article. You can further see it in pretty much any issue the first type of feminism tackles. The second type approaches it from a more prejudiced, infantilizing or discriminatory angle.

Consider violence against women. Feminists of the first type see it as deplorable because women are people and deserve respect and protection by virtue of being people. They see misogynists making excuses for violence and harassment against women ("Masculinism" of the sort Don2 is discussing in his thread) and they fight to put a stop to it. I am right there with them on that. Feminists of the second type see the same thing, but they see it as deplorable because it is women being hurt, see women are inherently vulnerable and weak (and their language displays this) and move beyond protecting women to displaying the same attitudes as the misogynists hold, except against male victims when it is at the hands of women. I think a the key differences between these two types is that the second sees it more tribally and as a zero sum game, prejudging women and men and treating the former as inherently the oppressed and the latter as inherently the oppressor, regardless of what is actually going on in the particular case.

A prime example of the second type of Feminist is Chanty Binx ("Big Red") who has become infamous for her activism, documented on youtube where she screams at people and literally sings "cry me a river" when they try to get her to acknowledge that men have issues too (I think that particular moment came about when male suicide rates were brought up). She also opposes CAFE (Canadian association for equality) because they advocate for everyone's rights and not just women. She was part of the group that pulled the fire alarm to disrupt Toronto Men's Rights meeting where people were talking about issues in society that men face.

The suffregettes and the women angrily burning bras in the 70s were both examples of the first type of feminist, out for equal rights and with the attitude of "Anything you can do, I can do!". These are the ones that seek to break down barriers and destroy what is left of the glass ceiling. They are coming from a genuine sense of equity and are opposing prejudice and double standards. I support them strongly, and I believe most of us here do.

It looks to me like he's saying that nice, friendly feminists are okay but he doesn't like rude, obnoxious ones.

No. They often coincide, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm looking at something more substantial to the ideologies of these two types of feminism. One empowers women while the other infantilizes them. One pushes against discrimination and prejudice while the other pushes for it. You can be very rude and stay within the first type, and you can sugar coat the second type. We usually see the second type as more aggressive and offensive because prejudice and discrimination are at its core. The second type of feminism sometimes has more in common with misogyny than it does with the first type of feminism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't really think there are two types of feminism. I think there are a lot of individuals who may consider themselves feminists, mostly women, but also some men. The general stated goal of feminism is to promote egalitarianism and social equality among genders. Honest disagreement among members occurs. Some people, feminists or not, say dumb and/or extreme things sometimes. And also some individuals may have one extreme opinion on one issue but then a completely non-radical, even backward view on another. I think what the op author is trying to imply is that a large segment of feminists are man-haters or at least that is what the op reduces to and well it may be true that a lot of women (and even some men) are angry at how societies have ended up, toward the systemic oppression of women, there's something else that has to be stated. The op author is looking for an analogy to patriarchy and it simply does not exist. There is no society on the planet controlled by women where men are second class citizens. It's a figment of extremists' imaginations, and pretending that this is a "both sides" argument is ludicrous. The imbalance of the "sides" is also seen in the other thread I had made--interestingly, about half or more respondents have to talk about feminism or feminists in such thread about masculinism. Yet there's not a "both sides."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't really think there are two types of feminism. I think there are a lot of individuals who may consider themselves feminists, mostly women, but also some men. The general stated goal of feminism is to promote egalitarianism and social equality among genders.

I would add to that the goal of ending double standards, prejudice based on gender, and sexism. I think that Feminism (the first type) is just Egalitarianism for gender, but particularly from a Female perspective. It is about not treating women differently, regarding them with different respect, holding them to different standards, paying them differently, etc just because they are women.

I see the second type of "feminism" I refer to in this thread actively and deliberately working against the above.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't really think there are two types of feminism. I think there are a lot of individuals who may consider themselves feminists, mostly women, but also some men. The general stated goal of feminism is to promote egalitarianism and social equality among genders. Honest disagreement among members occurs. Some people, feminists or not, say dumb and/or extreme things sometimes. And also some individuals may have one extreme opinion on one issue but then a completely non-radical, even backward view on another. I think what the op author is trying to imply is that a large segment of feminists are man-haters or at least that is what the op reduces to and well it may be true that a lot of women (and even some men) are angry at how societies have ended up, toward the systemic oppression of women, there's something else that has to be stated. The op author is looking for an analogy to patriarchy and it simply does not exist. There is no society on the planet controlled by women where men are second class citizens. It's a figment of extremists' imaginations, and pretending that this is a "both sides" argument is ludicrous. The imbalance of the "sides" is also seen in the other thread I had made--interestingly, about half or more respondents have to talk about feminism or feminists in such thread about masculinism. Yet there's not a "both sides."

Oh fuck. Now I have to say (again) that I agree with a lot of what you say! Lol.

The only point of departure might be that I myself would not say that 'a large segment of feminists are man-haters'. I might even go so far as to say I'm fairly confident it's an overstatement. Hating another gender is, imo, much rarer than is often suggested. Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't really think there are two types of feminism. I think there are a lot of individuals who may consider themselves feminists, mostly women, but also some men. The general stated goal of feminism is to promote egalitarianism and social equality among genders.

I would add to that the goal of ending double standards, prejudice based on gender, and sexism. I think that Feminism (the first type) is just Egalitarianism for gender, but particularly from a Female perspective. It is about not treating women differently, regarding them with different respect, holding them to different standards, paying them differently, etc just because they are women.

I see the second type of "feminism" I refer to in this thread actively and deliberately working against the above.

Ok this is getting out of hand as regards the partial-agreement-arguably-syncophantic thing. Lol. Yes to most of that but I don't honestly think that you could lump all your 'second type' in as, 'actively and deliberately working against the above'. I doubt if all but a few could be said to be doing that, and even then, I would struggle to think of any examples where it could not be argued that even though they are radical and perhaps aggressive, and even at a pinch hostile to men, that they are not still working towards equality. There might be some exceptions, as always. As to coming up with an accurate percentage, don't ask me. No two of anyone we include would be this or that to exactly the same degree anyway.

I will say this. I think many men (myself included) tend to overreact to feminism and feminists 'as if' their individual position was more radical (or 'as if' stuff said was only the thin end of some sort of wedge). If that's the case, then the next question would be, why, why do (many it seems) of us men do that?

I can assure you that I'm not over-reacting (or trying not to) here partly because it's easier when it's online, hypothetical and impersonal. I still have the instinct to respond to feminist points with counterexamples, disclaimers and caveats when you put me in the firing line myself, in the real world. It is not THAT hard to raise my hackles at least a bit. Speaking for myself only, obviously.

Do I think women generally are any better or worse when it comes to being touchy about this issue? No. All you could say is that by and large they have more valid reasons to be touchy, given that they are still (as a general group), in several ways, the ones at the sharp end of the problems. Some of which are almost invisible to lots of men (as are male issues often invisible-ish to women).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not talking about the effects of pregnancy. As you say, it's minimal.

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

True. They generally do not put in the 50 or 65 hour weeks. That's because they are lumped with an unfair proportion of child rearing and other "domestic" duties. Are you going to invoke "maternal instincts" again?

As I mentioned, pregnancy did not stop my sister from running her business. Bringing up two daughters did not stop her from working long hours either. (You can't run a business that employs a couple of dozen people on a 40 hour week.) Firstly, her husband, who also owned and ran a business, pitched in more than most fathers do. Secondly, being the boss in her work place, she had a crèche built in it. She, and her female employees had their infants close by, and it was free of charge. As the children entered school, the crèche was enlarged and adjusted to cater for their needs.

This is one aspect through which doors can be opened for women. There should me more of this. Much, much more.

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm saying it's something most women do not choose to do as they value being with their kids more.

So you are saying that men are somehow genetically predisposed to NOT value their children?

How many fathers do you see who choose jobs that leave them with little time with their kids? How many mothers?

I'm not trying to blame, I'm pointing out a very real pattern.

 

[laughing dog]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

Business is part of society not apart from it. It contributes to society, and it reinforces societal norms. Hell, it might even help form them.

 

[Arctish]

Sorry, my computer is pasting text together randomly. Ignore this post.