Cathy Young adds her thoughts to our recent wrangling over feminist labels:
[…] a few thoughts. Christina Hoff Sommers’ “equity feminism/gender feminism” distinction (originally made in the 1994 book Who Stole Feminism?), which I’ve sometimes used myself, is rather imprecise, and too open to being used as shorthand for “feminists I like/feminists I don’t like.” Sommers defines “gender feminists” as those who see women as oppressed by a “sex/gender system” ingrained in cultural gender roles, and “equity feminists” as those who want simply to establish legal equality and equality of opportunity. But one needn’t be a particularly radical feminist to believe that various aspects of traditional gender roles lead to unequal opportunity, and one can seek to transform those roles while seeking “equity” rather than female advantage. (Many of the early feminists Sommers praises, such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were harshly critical not only of legal and institutional inequality but of traditional femininity.)
So, what terms would I use? Actually, “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” still make sense to me, but I would fine-tune the definitions somewhat. “Equity feminism” is focused on fairness and equal treatment for individuals regardless of gender; “gender feminism”—a form of identity politics—is focused on solidarity with women and seeking the betterment of women. However, as Jeff has found out, the term “gender feminism” is fairly useless in discussions with feminists to whom one would apply the term, since they regard it as a slur (much as I do “anti-feminist”) […]
In any case: Here are a few basic principles of my kind of feminism, whatever one wants to call it.
1. Equal treatment regardless of gender. No excuses for unequal treatment such as “we need to make allowances for women’s lack of power/history of oppression,” “real equality means redistributing power from the oppressor to the oppressed,” etc. Feminism should be about equity, fairness and judging people as individuals, not “siding with women” (individually or collectively).
2. We should seek to achieve greater equity/equality by expanding choices for both men and women, not narrowing them—e.g., not make it less socially acceptable for women to stay home with their children, but to make this option more available to men. Equity does not necessarily mean full parity in every field; it means equal opportunity, including freedom from cultural barriers that can hold men or women back from excercising their options (e.g., the belief that it’s unmanly to be a child care worker, or that a woman should be interested in “people things” rather than scientific abstractions).
3. Western women today are not an oppressed or powerless group. While women have some gender-based problems, so do men. Gender-based disadvantages and prejudices should be addressed whether they affect men or women. In today’s society, “more for women” is not necessarily synonymous with justice.
4. Women as well as men can be sexist—toward men as well as women—and can have sexist expectations of and prejudices toward men. Female chauvinism (e.g., the belief that mothers have a special bond with their children inherently superior to that of fathers) should be taken as seriously as male chauvinism.
5. Not everything bad that happens to women (e.g., rape or domestic violence) is the result of sexism or “the patriarchy” (which, in my view, is a meaningless concept when talking about the West in the 21st Century). Women’s personal wrongs in relationships with men should not be considered a feminist issue unless some institutional or cultural bias against women is involved (for instance, a man’s belief that he is entitled to multiple sex partners but his wife or girlfriend is not).
6. Claims of sexism, sex discrimination, or male mistreatment of women should be taken seriously, but not given a presumption of truthfulness and objectivity. Giving a woman’s account greater credence than a man’s because of her gender is just as sexist as presuming a man to be more believable.
7. Finally, my kind of feminism takes a non-adversarial stance toward Western and American society. This was brought home to me by Jeff Goldstein’s exchange with Lauren, who sees a young Muslim immigrant’s decision to wear the hijab as possibly a positive and empowering one because it’s a protest against the majority culture. I don’t regard an adversarial stance vis-a-vis American culture as something valuable in itself. For all its flaws and its much-less-than-perfect history where women are concerned, the West today is the civilization that champions freedom and equal rights for women. For that alone, from a feminist point of view, it is worth defending.
For what it’s worth, Cathy’s deliminations places her squarely in the camp I’ve called post-establishment feminism; which I juxtapose with “establishment feminism,” a movement that, throughout each of its subgroups, is infused with the ideas of women-first and women’s solidarity (and tends to elevate the concerns of women as an identity group over the concerns gender equity—defined here as an equality of the sexes before the law and an equality of opportunity regardless of sex, which as Cathy notes is not meant to exclude addressing those portions of woman-specific gender assumptions that might be preventing such equity).
One of the benefits of my labels is that it addresses the current power dynamic within the feminist movement—especially now that we’ve agreed to allow “anti-feminists” back into the fold.
Be sure to read the comments, as well, where Lauren has responded to Cathy’s principles of feminism.
****
update: My pal Richard Bennett makes an interesting observation in the comments to Cathy’s post:
The hijab thing illustrates what’s wrong with the strand of feminism that’s founded on the belief that women are oppressed by a patriarchal conspiracy. The need for identity that’s expressed in this group is so strong that it has to actually fight against equality. Equality, after all, undermines the basis of this form of feminist identity and threatens the whole enterprise.
The woman who chooses to wear the hijab participates in her own oppression and reifies it. Thus, she strengthens the foundations of identity feminism and is therefore lauded by its membership.
Identity feminists oppress women, in other words.
I think Richard overstates things a bit here, but not by much. I think what establishment femism does do, insofar as it a stepchild of identity politics, is creates a tension between equality as the end goal of feminism and the desire to elevate the position of women in order to reach that goal by, counterintuitively, favoring one gender over the other—though I hold out hope that feminists like Lauren recognize that natural tension and aren’t trapped by it. In Lauren’s case, her argument was that under specific cultural circumstances, a given act often seen as an emblem of submission can deconstruct itself in such a way that it actually become empowering—which is not much different from saying that under the right circumstances, a good wife-beating can be seen as a heroic act if the wife happened to have recently molested a child.
Nevertheless, of all the establishment feminists I’ve dealth with, Lauren and Roxanne of Rox Populi seem quite suspicious of the mulitculturalism project that is an end product of identity politics. And so not all of those who follow establishment feminism (or subscribe to its identity politics) are oppressing women—or tolerant of any such thing in a way that is doctrinaire.
****
update 2: The Countess weighs in:
One thing I agree with regarding Cathy Young’s comments about the recent brouhaha about the definitions of feminism is that Christina Hoff Sommer’s coinage of “equity feminist” and “gender feminist” is “rather imprecise, and too open to being used as shorthand for “feminists I like/feminists I don’t like.” That’s exactly why feminists have problems with those terms.
The problem is that Cathy does what those at Protein Wisdom did – she merely tried to come up with a new term that was nothing more than a substitute for the old term.
Actually, this is a misunderstanding of my posts and their objective.
Perhaps it will help Trish, Lauren, et alâ€â€those who are worried that we’ve simply replaced one binary with that same binary rephrased to think of it this way: Feminism as they imagined it last weekâ€â€the whole of itâ€â€hasn’t changed; instead, feminism has accepted into the movement those men and women who the establishment feminists (previously “gender feminists”) were last week calling “anti-feminists.â€Â
To make the distinction between the erstwhile “anti-feminists†(who were as averse to that term as establishment feminists were to being called “gender feminists”), we’ve set up new labels.
This doesn’t imply that feminism is now divided into a binary. In fact, my terms make it clear that what was once “anti-feminism†is the strategic outlier of the feminist movementâ€â€the one whose followers are critical of the strategies of the greater body of feminism (which includes all the feminist subgroups that had already been accepted into feminism proper). In fact, I decided on “establishment feminism†precisely because it aggregated all of what was feminism last week, before the anti-feminists were accepted into the fold.
So yes, we’ve just changed the terms; but no, we haven’t kept the two meaning. If this is a binary, it is a binary that is heavily weighted on the establishment side.
We’re officially in tilting-at-windmills territory now.
I think you have an extra “l” in there, Allah.
Should feminism be a legal project, or should it be a social-engineering project. That, to me, seems to be the crux of the matter.
Even if every legal impediment were removed, “levelling the playing field” of opportunity, there would still be an overall imbalance in average income between the genders, as many women would still choose to opt for traditional roles as mothers and homemakers. Is this a problem?
If you think it is a problem, you would seem to fall into the category that sees feminism as a social engineering project. And I have a problem with that.
That fact of the matter is that as long as there are communities of Amish, Mormon and other more conservative religious/cultural groups in this country, a significant portion of the female population will not be entering the upper echelons of the workplace and the average income of males will remain higher than the average income of females.
To insist that this imbalance be rectified by government fiat is to insist that the government, in effect, attempt to abolish the ethos of these religious/ethnic groups by a sustained campaign of social engineering. Is this really something the government should be doing?
Interestingly enough, just today my associate, and I had a similar conversation about lesbians. She says there are two types of lesbians – those who are perfectly happy in the straight world, and those who want the straight world to conform to them. She calls the latter “pity lesbians” – you know the people who complain all the time.
I’d be interested to know if people think men fall into both these camps, or is it just an affliction of women?
At this point I’m wondering if we all wouldn’t feel the hijab to be empowering . . .
I have a problem when young denies
They do, at least during infancy; It’s real, it’s biological, and it’s wrong to pretend it doesn’t exist. It is sexist to pretend women are just like men with regards to childbirth and the biological attachments that ensue from physiology.
Men may make fine surrogates, but the natural mother is the superior choice for infant care unless she is unavailable.
Well, I think the “infancy” thing is an important distinction. What Cathy seems to be implying (judging by her other works), is that the biology argument shouldn’t be given so much credence down the road in custody battles.
Just saying,
I’ve held many a crack-addicted newborn that didn’t need their “natural mother” ever again, even if she were available.
Just saying.
Scott beat me to it. A major problem with this whole thing is that a big chunk o’ women don’t CARE about that. Nor should they, if the opportunity they seek is to stay at home and raise a family.
It doesn’t make them stupid, unenlightened, traitorous. Just free to do as they choose. Yet it is exactly that sort of choice that so infuriates the “gender feminists” and causes the waters to be so muddied.
It’s wrong to deny post-partum depression and the fact that mothers murder more newborn babies than anybody else does. The image of the Blessed Mother used to pack ‘em in to the churches, but there’s not much to it really.
The true blue feminist believes that a mother can be replaced by a minimum-wage illegal alien and a crate full of Barney videos. The stay-at-home nurturing mother is just a dupe of the patriarchal hegemony enforced by the rape ritual we now call marriage.
Entitlement feminists
If ya got it flaunt it feminist
Passive-aggressive feminist
agro-feminists
Cow-tow feminist
Marxist-feminist
Randian-feminist
Randy feminist (teenage boys love this model)
Too busy to care feminist
I appreciate Jeff’s attempt to herd cats, it makes for solid and unending entertainment.
The whole thing gives me the creeps. When I read the writing of “gender feminists” (or what you want to call them), I see Orwell’s worst nightmare.
These people strike me as wanting to dictate not only what others are allowed to do, but how others are allowed to think. If we don’t mimic their thoughts, we are “anti-feminist” or even “anti-women”.
If we don’t cheer a woman who chooses to wear a hijab – not just if we don’t approve, but if we don’t actively celebrate her choice – then clearly we are in the wrong. This is true even if the hijab and the burka and all of the related accouterments are used in many places to oppress women.
Western civilization has held up the ideal of equality (and realized that ideal) more than any other civilization in history. No matter what time or place you choose, women have more rights and respect than any alternative. This is not considered good enough. As long as there is even the slightest statistical argument for inequality (even if gained by ignoring demographics), the “patriarchy” still dominates, and this proves that western civilization is evil.
More than that – so long as there is anyone who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with the entire agenda, that person is no better than a rapist.
When you add in the paranoia and rigid thinking of the extreme believers, it makes me want to reject the entire philosophy of “feminism”. It has become nothing more than another version of identity politics, where people are judged on their demographic characteristics, and their willingness to follow the party line, and not on their virtue.
No thank you. In fact, hell no.
Nicely said, Scott. How many of us are aware that (1) women only lag men by a handful of wage percentage points when willful leave is factored? That what Richard Bennett graciously omits from his comment is that (2) women own billions more in personal property? Or that in his comment Jeff alludes to (3) a new sexist weighting that has already completely overwhelmed family court and custody decisions?
None of these either place constitutional values foremost, nor are they in any way designed to equalize anything whatsoever between the genders.
How shall our omniscient federal Nanny include these facts in its benevolent social engineering calculus when it’s already shown itself to be a gender feminist playground?
Of course, once we dance on that slippery slope, we all lose. Sure, at this late stage it’s laughably impossible, but keeping government out of social law entirely is the only answer.
Liberal Feminism: “Classical liberal” feminism. Primarily concerned with the ex anteindividual equality of women before the law, and, by extension, within the rules of institutions, vis-a-vis other individuals, especially males.
Presuppositions: “individual outcomes are produced by an unknown and unknowable number of dependent and independent factors, thus the most just approach is to make the rules apply the same way to everyone and let the chips fall where they may.”
Social Feminism: “Post-modern” feminism. Primarily concerned with the ex post facto equality of social outcomes for women compared to the outcomes of other groups, especially those of men.
Presuppositions: “Where the chips fall is determined by the power structure, therefore producing equitable outcomes necessitates the redistribution of power within the structure.”
These terms have the added benefit of being mostly acceptable to their respective adherents. Social feminists would probably be more accurately referred to as leftist feminists, but they would probably reject the label even though they would find being referred to as “leftist” or a “feminist” seperately acceptable.
:peter
Transhumanism: The “new” feminism.
Gotta love this–Lauren’s commenter “No Blood For Hubris” at Feministe says this–
What would this be? A “radical feminist”?
no…a “bio-ignoramus feminist”, he/she is denying that biology exists.
*tee hee*
Or a selective feminist.
tw: Opportunistically reading only what she wants from political correctness.
It would be really cool if social feminists like this commenter who believe that if there were no sexism then there would be 50-50 representation in all things, would try to prove their point by working to get the institutions they control—like NOW and other feminist organizations—50% male and 50% female. But I’m not going to hold my breath for that one either…
:peter
I think (at least for myself) I’ve cracked the definitional barrier. Or at least as I see it.
Essentially, the feminist establishment tends towards behaviors that focus on idenitity politics, as described in this article as Gramscian, while the post-establishment folks are more Tocquevillian in their outlook.
The interesting implication, is that it moves sexual harrassment training from the simple realm of telling people not to be jerks, but becomes a question of looking to subvert “traditional intellectuals” and cultivate the group identity to change their outlook.
In other words, the people for whom this is true, don’t seek equality, per se, because in their worldview, there is always an oppressor and oppressed class. In this case, patriarchy and feminism. They look to create revolution and redefine the power balance.
Or I could be wrong.
TW: wife.
HA!
Proportional representation is the most insidious of all the radical feminist wishes; it is the rebellious stepchild of the equality movement, the experimental teenager who who dropped out of Vassar, started running with a strange crowd, and wound up a militant Moonie.
To go from the idea of equality of the sexes and equality of opportunity to a statistical analogy spread across society—one that would force free people to choose political or job candidates specifically based on their biological plumbing (regardless of the ideas they hold)—is to turn feminism on its head.
I like Young’s definition–but isn’t it more of a definition of transhumanism than feminism, since it includes equal opportunity for men AND women?
And, i’m sorry, i thought of one more–chauvanistic feminists, that care more for their local endo-groups than for exo-groups.
Jeff, do you think the word feminism itself has undergone negative branding?
I think it’s able to generate different emotions depending on the context.
I think while people are sitting in “harassment training seminars,” a lot of people are cursing “feminism” under their breath. And there are others instances, too.
But for most people, when feminism is put in the context of equality for the sexes, I they’re proud to have supported the movement.
Ahhh.
Past tense.
Perhaps modern feminism is a term that has outlived its positive connotations. A victim of its own success.
See, because of success, more and more grrls like me are in the workforce.
We don’t remember a time of discrimination, so we chafe and fume at the legacy wiring, which we see only as a tool of identity politics.
i myself have seen many, many more incidents involving exploitation of sexual harrassment doctrine than incidents of actual sexual harrassment.
I see. It’s much more palatable when it comes from certain kinds of feminists. This cogent observation coming from someone who admits she’s had nothing to do with feminism until Jeff linked it. Right.
Final note on the binary deal before I check out of this conversation: The overwhelming problem with political discussions and binaries is that it becomes far too easy to label things as Us and Them, when I for one would rather see We. Though I know you’ve hashed through this in other threads, there is no feminism that falls under the dictionary definition of “establishment.” Feminism is not a systemic group. That everyone continues to talk over attempts to argue the contrary leads me to believe you are more interested in an indictment of feminism than anything else.
I’m not Jeff, but allow me. Yes. It sure has. Which is why definition and label semantics are necessary features of discussions like these if our attempt is mutual understanding.
But Lauren, you’re all just plain feminists to me. For me, an outsider, the word feminist overwhelms whatever you prefix it with.
You are correct, i don’t have a clue as to what sort of feminist Cathy Young is–i just like what she said. It resonates.
Cool, it resonates with me too since I believe 95% of what she says.
Was your date overwhelmed by your SAT scores the other night?
“We” is fine. Unfortunately, up until a few days ago, I couldn’t get it so “we” included “anti-feminists”—feminists who criticized the strategies of many of those within the feminist movement who advocate for policies that are at odds with the precepts of a classical liberalism.
These are convenient shorthands for separating out the perspective we are coming from. Anti-feminists—because it carried the connotation of being against women and equality (and so was truly Orwellian) would not do.
lol.
He would have been if i told him.
We’re not at that stage yet.
Lauren, you’ll like this. A friend of mine at work once told me i’d be his ideal woman if only i were pithed.
ha ha!
whoa!
smiley overdose!
must be time for bed.
Congratulations Jeff, against all odds, i’d say you made progress.
i should clarify that. In geek courtship, exchanging karyotypes and standardized test scores comes later.
we’re just at the hiphop dancing stage.
bonne nuit, toute de monde!
Transhumanism necessitates feminism and “masculism” (the belief that men should not be treated as inferiors). If only women are in danger of being treated as inferiors, only feminism is a relevant ideology.
See, this is what happened because we let them learn to read.
Jeff: “For what it’s worth, Cathy’s deliminations places her squarely in the camp I’ve called post-establishment feminism; which I juxtapose with “establishment feminism,†a movement that, throughout each of its subgroups, is infused with the ideas of women-first and women’s solidarity (and tends to elevate the concerns of women as an identity group over the concerns gender equityâ€â€defined here as an equality of the sexes before the law and an equality of opportunity regardless of sex, which as Cathy notes is not meant to exclude addressing those portions of woman-specific gender assumptions that might be preventing such equity).”
I’m not going to stick with this discussion long myself. I’ll say this much and bow out as Lauren has.
It seems to me, Jeff, that you have only replaced one invalid term with another. You’ve replaced “gender feminist” with your own coinage of “establishment feminist”. Your new version is just as dichotomous as your old version, so nothing has changed. It’s still a matter of “views I like/views I don’t like”. Unless I missed it in the last comments thread, you never defined exactly what “establishment” means. There is no “established” feminism. As I have already written, there are many different types of feminism that can’t be pigeonholed into a classification of “establishment feminism” that you created to differentiate views you don’t like from views you do like. This just seems like the same old argument with new clothes.
I see this push for “concerns for gender equity” as really a way to merely maintain the status quo for men, or to give them rights that they have not earned, while disguising it as “equity”. This “concern for gender equity” plays out in men’s and fathers’ rights demands for presumptive joint physical custody. Custody should not be a matter of “gender equity” for fathers. It should be a matter of what form of custody is most appropriate for a given family, and especially what is best and most appropriate for the children. In all this talk of “gender equity”, children’s voices are often lost.
The problem with “equality of the sexes before the law and an equality of opportunity regardless of sex” is that it implies that men and women are equally or similarly situated, but they are not. Women in many realms are at a distinct disadvantage in relation to where men are. Yes, women have made gains over the decades and centuries, but there is still feminist work to do. Men are disadvantaged in many areas as well, and feminism recognizes this. Feminists recognize that there are masculine stereotypes that harm men. The same patriarchy that negatively impacts women also negatively impacts men. Feminists throughout the ages have done their own hard work to help women be able to live their lives to their highest potential, and to open up more opportunities for them. Feminists do not try to achieve these goals at the expense of men. That said, it should be the job of men’s activists to help men in the areas where they need to be better able to live their lives to their highest potential and to open up more opportunities for them. Sadly, I see many men’s and fathers’ rights groups not so much working to help men achieve these goals, but instead they are reactionary against feminism. Any quick look at their message boards will tell you that. Most of the talk is complaining about some elusive “feminist” conspiracy against men. No such conspiracy exists.
I personally don’t believe that people like Cathy Young are feminist. Maybe she’s not “anti-feminist”, since she doesn’t like to be called that, and I will respect that from now on, but I do not think she is a feminist. Too often, so called “equity feminists” spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about feminism. I know you aren’t going to like this, and it means I’m diving right into the same “let’s label people” thing that I’d really rather not get into, but Susan Faludi wrote an article for (I believe) Ms. where she referred to people like Christina Hoff Sommers as “pod feminists”. They pretend to be feminist while endorsing views that are definitely not feminist. She was onto these faux feminists. I’m sure you know the term comes from the movie “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
Well, I’m bowing out now. I wish all of you well, and have a happy holiday season.
Jeff: “For what it’s worth, Cathy’s deliminations places her squarely in the camp I’ve called post-establishment feminism; which I juxtapose with “establishment feminism,†a movement that, throughout each of its subgroups, is infused with the ideas of women-first and women’s solidarity (and tends to elevate the concerns of women as an identity group over the concerns gender equityâ€â€defined here as an equality of the sexes before the law and an equality of opportunity regardless of sex, which as Cathy notes is not meant to exclude addressing those portions of woman-specific gender assumptions that might be preventing such equity).”
I’m not going to stick with this discussion long myself. I’ll say this much and bow out as Lauren has.
It seems to me, Jeff, that you have only replaced one invalid term with another. You’ve replaced “gender feminist” with your own coinage of “establishment feminist”. Your new version is just as dichotomous as your old version, so nothing has changed. It’s still a matter of “views I like/views I don’t like”. Unless I missed it in the last comments thread, you never defined exactly what “establishment” means. There is no “established” feminism. As I have already written, there are many different types of feminism that can’t be pigeonholed into a classification of “establishment feminism” that you created to differentiate views you don’t like from views you do like. This just seems like the same old argument with new clothes.
I see this push for “concerns for gender equity” as really a way to merely maintain the status quo for men, or to give them rights that they have not earned, while disguising it as “equity”. This “concern for gender equity” plays out in men’s and fathers’ rights demands for presumptive joint physical custody. Custody should not be a matter of “gender equity” for fathers. It should be a matter of what form of custody is most appropriate for a given family, and especially what is best and most appropriate for the children. In all this talk of “gender equity”, children’s voices are often lost.
The problem with “equality of the sexes before the law and an equality of opportunity regardless of sex” is that it implies that men and women are equally or similarly situated, but they are not. Women in many realms are at a distinct disadvantage in relation to where men are. Yes, women have made gains over the decades and centuries, but there is still feminist work to do. Men are disadvantaged in many areas as well, and feminism recognizes this. Feminists recognize that there are masculine stereotypes that harm men. The same patriarchy that negatively impacts women also negatively impacts men. Feminists throughout the ages have done their own hard work to help women be able to live their lives to their highest potential, and to open up more opportunities for them. Feminists do not try to achieve these goals at the expense of men. That said, it should be the job of men’s activists to help men in the areas where they need to be better able to live their lives to their highest potential and to open up more opportunities for them. Sadly, I see many men’s and fathers’ rights groups not so much working to help men achieve these goals, but instead they are reactionary against feminism. Any quick look at their message boards will tell you that. Most of the talk is complaining about some elusive “feminist” conspiracy against men. No such conspiracy exists.
I personally don’t believe that people like Cathy Young are feminist. Maybe she’s not “anti-feminist”, since she doesn’t like to be called that, and I will respect that from now on, but I don’t think she is a feminist. So-called “equity feminists” spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about feminism. I know you aren’t going to like this, and it means I’m diving right into the same “let’s label people” thing that I’d really rather not get into, but Susan Faludi wrote an article for (I believe) Ms. where she referred to people like Christina Hoff Sommers as “pod feminists”. They pretend to be feminist while endorsing views that are definitely not feminist. She was onto these faux feminists. I’m sure you know the term comes from the movie “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
Well, I’m bowing out now. I wish all of you well, and have a happy holiday season.
what a load of bs
wow, err…visiting from Aqua Teen Hunger Force?
surely you can expound futher on your thesis.
And, i guess from maor’s definition, i would have to say that Cathy and Jeff are actually transhumanists too, since the Countess excludes anyone practicing maculinism from being a true believer.
I think transhumanism is more forward-looking than feminism, anyways. I think feminism just looks back.
In the future, transhumanism will embrace equal opportunity under the law for not just men and women, but cyborgs, AIs, chimeras, and ebrains.
juss sayin’.
sorry, masculinism.
Realizing when you’re contradicting yourself is the first step towards wisdom. The next step would be to start caring about it.
Just to try something wacky here, how about some sort of symbolic logic or something like that. I’m a bit rusty, so please bear with me here.
Let us state that there exists a set of individuals who are of the set F of feminists. We can establish that a given individual is either part of that set or not.
If we can’t do that, then we don’t have a usable definition of feminism.
Of the set F, we can define a subset A of feminists that we might call non-conservative, or establishment, or Gramscian feminists.
If we can’t do that, then we don’t have a usable definition of feminism.
We can then define the subset A’ as being all those elements that belong to the set F, but do not belong to the subset A.
If we can’t do that, then we don’t have a usable definition of feminism.
So, in any case, the question then becomes one of definitions used. To assert that no such definitions do or can exist, is to assert that the set F is poorly defined. Or to put it another way, it ceases to have descriptive meaning, as it loses any sense of discrete definition.
With regards to the definition of subset A of feminists, we don’t need to have a strict definition, per se, as the we can arbitrarily assign the finite number of elements of set F to A or not A, pending what ever selection criteria we choose to use.
Two speakers may not agree on the criteria used to declare a person part of subset A or not, which is, I suppose, the point of the discussion.
However, I would reject that it is impossible to sort people of the set F into subsets A and A’.
Make any sense?
Good examples of “Go Get Me a Beer” mentality.
[…] increased number of legal immigrants, and a guest worker program] opposition to gay marriage, and opposition to feminism are more evil than the bigotry of people like JD and Thor. What Goldstein does is both […]
[…] This attempt to define “feminism” to include only a particularly activist strain as “authentic” I’ve discussed at length — so while it is certainly nothing new, it is, nevertheless […]
[…] See also, Cathy Young Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:05 am Comments (0) | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Thoughts on the […]