Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you consider yourself a feminist? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you consider yourself a feminist?
    Yes, I support feminism and wear the label proudly
    59
    32.96%
    Only in the sense that I support equal rights for men and women, but I prefer to call myself an "egalitarian"
    98
    54.75%
    No, I believe in traditional gender roles
    22
    12.29%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    As a philosophy student/graduate, shouldn't you be looking for a watertight theory, instead of settling for an incoherent one which has an admirable goal which it is incapable of achieving?

    You are willfully reading parts of my sentences and not whole ones, and ignoring whole parts of my post. If you read everything carefully, I stated that feminist theory requires 'clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression [for it] to counteract [and] achieve equality', not that no institutional disadvantage/oppression exists (and even this is subject to another debate). You clearly missed my point.

    Furthermore, the requirement of feminism which I stated is not that which you have understood it to be; it is not a requirement for feminist theory to have only one oppressing group, but rather, feminist theory requires at least one oppressing group. But like what I pointed out (which you seem to have missed), having multiple oppressing groups only weakens the premise for feminist theory into unintelligible gumbo. If you follow through with inter-sectional feminist theory at the macro level to cover every possible human experience (including "oppression" wrought ought from the annals of history), you will soon see that every group has been "oppressing" one another - even black people, homosexuals are capable of doing so - and thus the inter-sectional theory does not hold no water, unlike the much simpler feminist theory, which focuses only on the dismantling the patriarchy.

    This part of you post stems from your gross misunderstanding of my post. Refer to what I wrote above.

    While feminism arguably exists as a sub-category of egalitarianism, it is saddled with the burden of requiring a system or institution of oppression to counteract in order for the theory to apply. A lot of the time, the existence of claimed oppressive institutions are tenuous, or even worse, illusory - take for example the oft-cited gender pay gap which has been disingenuously repeated claim that women are paid less than men for the same work.

    In contrast, egalitarianism bypasses the problems which feminism faces. It is very clear whether a decision/choice has been made with any bias, and since the principle of egalitarianism does not need proof of an oppressive institution, it can be applicable to every possible decision, achieving far greater than what feminism can achieve without making any false claims of oppression. Feminism is reduced to shreds by Occam's razor.

    Maybe a little less pondering for you; go out into the real world and you'll realise how little feminism can achieve in a modern, Western world.
    1) Umm, says you. I don't agree that this particular understanding of feminism is incoherent at all. I also believe it can achieve its goal, which is not unlike that of feminism as a whole; equality in the social, political and economic spheres.

    2) I apologise if I was unclear in my previous post. I did not mean to take you as saying no institutional oppression exists, rather I was more focused on the 'clear and coherent' part, which lead to my point of critique on your understanding of what 'clear and coherent' meant; that being there should be one clear oppressor group.

    3) You have a direct contradiction in your post. You say I misunderstood what you meant and I mischaracterised your position. You try to clarify it here by saying at least one group must be seen as the oppressor. This would imply that MORE than one group is also just fine, but there has to be at least one group. Indeed, that clarification would mean that ONLY a feminism which cites no group as the oppressor is one which fails.

    You then go onto say multiple groups (which again if we took your clarification to be true is not a bad thing) or oppressors only weakens the premise for feminist theory and turns it onto 'unintelligible gumbo'. If we take what you say here to be true, then feminism cannot have more than one oppressor group, least it become incoherent. In other words you have contradicted yourself. Either it is true that only group in your mind can ever be the oppressor (as I understood you before) or it is true that multiple groups can, without there being any problems.

    3) You then follow this line of argument onto the 'macro level' stating that if we allow for multiple groups to oppress one another, then every group will be capable of oppression and we'll have no clear idea of who the victims and oppressors are. This is false, and shows a clear misunderstanding of what intersectional feminism is and aims to do. Taken from the website I post to you after quoting you earlier:

    "One misconception about intersectionality is that it encourages division and exclusion in the feminist movement. By including race, class, sexuality, and other identity markers in feminist analysis, some say, intersectional feminists are spreading the movement thin and undermining its unity.

    The trouble with this line of thinking is that a one-size-fits-all feminist movement that focuses only on the common ground between women is erasing rather than inclusive. Even if all women deal with sexism, not all women deal with racialized sexism, or transmisogyny, or cissexism.

    Glossing over the issues faced by specific groups of women for the sake of unity centers the feminist movement on those who have the most privilege and visibility. It allows those who already take up a disproportionate amount of space in the movement to look as if they’re making room for others without giving up any themselves.

    One-size-fits-all feminism is to intersectional feminism what #AllLivesMatter is to #BlackLivesMatter. The former’s attempt at inclusiveness can actually erase the latter’s acknowledgment of a unique issue that disproportionately affects a specific group of people.
    "

    This is key. In essence, some people are disproportionately affected by certain issues. Some people also have more privilege than others in a society which glorifies paler or white skin, beauty, tradition and being a part of the gender binary, being straight, wealth, and of course the man having the dominant role and the woman being seen to be much more at home with a submissive one, lest she be 'bossy' for taking up a 'man's role'. Again, to quote the website:

    "As feminists, it’s important that we pay attention to the fact that feminism is about more than ending sexism — it’s also about ending all the interconnected systems of oppression that affect different women in different ways.

    As someone who is middle class, for instance, it’s easy for Jarune to fail to understand issues of poverty in the Black community despite being otherwise knowledgeable about issues of race. Similarly, able bodied people don’t easily notice ableism, White people don’t easily notice racism, and cis people don’t easily notice transphobia.

    The things our privileges allow us to take for granted are the reasons we need intersectional analysis to do truly inclusive feminist work. Without it, it’s easy to center feminism around either our own experiences or the experiences of those who are already the most privileged in society.

    So make an effort to avoid centering feminism around yourself or people of privilege. Because society is more likely to listen to a White woman talk about racism than a person of color, for example, White feminists need to be mindful that they’re not talking over or for people of color.
    "

    Your claim that feminism must have one clear oppressor group in order to make sense and thus do any good in its fight for equality is false. Intersectional feminism can go beyond that by asking us to be much more introspective about our position. We need self-reflection on what we have, and whether some of our identity (or even all of it) aligns with the ideal in society. We need to be mindful and empathetic of what others face, even if its not what we face. This is not incoherent or illogical, it's just the reality of the situation and the only effective way to deal with it.

    Besides, while there are some men who uphold sexist institutions and many who partake in cultural sexism (sexual abuse on college campuses for instance) this is not to say everyone consciously does. Many do so subconsciously, by not questioning why things are the way they are. It's not about an evil group of people sitting at a round table calling the shots and making women miserable, it's about recognizing certain privileges one has just for having the identity they do, and trying to dismantle them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The **** are you two arguing about. Intersectional feminism is not that complicated, I'm a white dude and even I get it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    The fact that there's an option in the poll that says "I believe in equal rights for men and women" (which I voted for) has been overlooked by many is very telling that feminism, for many, clearly isn't about equal rights. They've practically looked at the equal rights option and thought "no, I don't support equal rights, I think women should be first class citizens while men should be second class". As a man, I can't support such a movement.
    Preach now
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    The **** are you two arguing about. Intersectional feminism is not that complicated, I'm a white dude and even I get it.
    I thought you were Latino lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I thought you were Latino lol
    Latinos are white.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I thought you were Latino lol
    It's really interesting that you would think that about me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Watch out, guys, the patriarchy is coming.
    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...6f7f8b1d19.jpg
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    The **** are you two arguing about. Intersectional feminism is not that complicated, I'm a white dude and even I get it.
    That's what I'm TRYING to argue lol, well that and how true it is. There are so many false assumptions she makes that it's absurd.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Preach now
    Call me Rev. Woody You must heed the words I speak, brothers and sisters!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    That's what I'm TRYING to argue lol, well that and how true it is. There are so many false assumptions she makes that it's absurd.
    I'm surprised you've had the patience to point out which aspects of her wall of text are pertinently wrong as opposed to just irrelevant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    Call me Rev. Woody You must heed the words I speak, brothers and sisters!
    Yes,father woody :mmm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I'm surprised you've had the patience to point out which aspects of her wall of text are pertinently wrong as opposed to just irrelevant.
    I guess I've been on this site long enough to tolerate the idiots, and given some ignorant people love to debate here, I've become used to telling them why they're wrong about certain things.

    At least many people (including you) are not ignorant and understand these things. xD
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    It's really interesting that you would think that about me.
    Nah actually I think that was smash bandicoot,really confused now
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    The fact that there's an option in the poll that says "I believe in equal rights for men and women" (which I voted for) has been overlooked by many is very telling that feminism, for many, clearly isn't about equal rights. They've practically looked at the equal rights option and thought "no, I don't support equal rights, I think women should be first class citizens while men should be second class". As a man, I can't support such a movement.
    I didn't vote in the poll but this is silly.

    I would have voted for the equal rights option if it didn't say that I prefer to call myself egalitarian. "Egalitarian" means something completely different and has been misappropriated by TSR weirdos for the sole purpose of making feminism seem like a dirty word. I don't prefer to call myself egalitarian because while controlling for externalities, I think capitalism is a very favourable way of organizing society. Needless to say, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gender roles, culture or statutes.

    I believe in gender equality, and while I don't necessarily "wear the label proudly" I would call myself a feminist, when pressed, as an acknowledgement that women still generally have it worse in our culture. This doesn't mean I'm rooting for myself to become a second class citizen, that's ****ing absurd.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No feminism has deformed into something monstrous and bigoted
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    I guess I've been on this site long enough to tolerate the idiots, and given some ignorant people love to debate here, I've become used to telling them why they're wrong about certain things.

    At least many people (including you) are not ignorant and understand these things. xD
    I mean I don't mind debating people, sometimes. Just not when their arguments are obfuscated by paragraphs of meaningless prose and bad logic.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Egalitarianism encompasses feminism. However, I think it is the wrong term to use when discussing issues of gender equality/inequality. Egalitarianism indicates a philosophy that everyone is equal, regardless of gender, race or class (for example). Yes, I am an egalitarian, but I am also a feminist; the former assumes the latter. Your poll suggests that they are irreconcilable.

    When discussing racism or sexism, we do not substitute the words with the umbrella term 'prejudice', because there is a more suitable word to use.

    I voted as a feminist in the poll. This is not because I don't believe in equality; quite the reverse. It is because the poll is obviously to do with the subject of gender equality and I do not prefer to call myself an egalitarian in this instance. However, on a thread that discussed all types of equality/inequality, I would refer to myself as egalitarian. It's sort of like saying you're going to France, rather than saying you're going to Paris .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am in favour of equality among the sexes and I think that's what feminism is so I identify as a feminist.

    There's a problem in political philosophy because the term "equality" is very complex. Equality of what? and equal in what sense? how do you measure how equal are women to men? if you assign women the same rights as men, you'd not get equality because women have different needs (and vice versa). So there's a huge debate on just what sex equality means but there's no doubt that feminism ought to promote the equality of sexes and not what people on here seem to bang on about (i.e. female superiority or the emasculation of men).

    What activists might say or do btw is beside the point. There are plenty of socialist activists who say and do things many socialists take exception to. Same with any other ideology including feminism. I don't much care what this or that particular feminist has done to harm your delicate feelings, she/he does not define what I believe and practise.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I mean I don't mind debating people, sometimes. Just not when their arguments are obfuscated by paragraphs of meaningless prose and bad logic.
    To be fair, maybe I debate people I know I'll win against because I rather like being right. :lol:

    I guess when she said how much intersectional feminism just failed as a theory I couldn't resist defending it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I didn't vote in the poll but this is silly.

    I would have voted for the equal rights option if it didn't say that I prefer to call myself egalitarian. "Egalitarian" means something completely different and has been misappropriated by TSR weirdos for the sole purpose of making feminism seem like a dirty word. I don't prefer to call myself egalitarian because while controlling for externalities, I think capitalism is a very favourable way of organizing society. Needless to say, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gender roles, culture or statutes.

    I believe in gender equality, and while I don't necessarily "wear the label proudly" I would call myself a feminist, when pressed, as an acknowledgement that women still generally have it worse in our culture. This doesn't mean I'm rooting for myself to become a second class citizen, that's ****ing absurd.
    Clearly, we have different interpretations of egalitarianism. Unsurprising, really - the problem with the term egalitarianism is that, officially, there are two definitions; one based around the idea that all humans should have equal civil, social and political rights; whereas the other is based around ideas similar to socialism, in which power and financial worth should be distributed evenly among the population. I support the former, however not the latter, and the former is what I think when I hear the term "egalitarianism".

    Perhaps the poll would be more telling if there was no mention of egalitarianism, however I believe as you said that the majority of TSR perceive egalitarianism as a movement for equal rights for both genders, which is why I found it strange that people voted feminism in the face of an option that represented equal rights.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.