MRA’s have been sending me this video they’re very excited about — it’s done by a pretty young woman who comically repeats every stupid stereotype of feminists by anti-feminists everywhere. Did you know feminists don’t want you to be young and slender and pretty, and you shouldn’t wear makeup or pretty clothes, and most of them hate men, and it’s all about competing to see who is most oppressed? We don’t need feminism any more, because men and women are already equal in all things, and besides, she has never experienced any discrimination, so nobody else can have. It is funny. Funnily bad.
I thought about writing a rebuttal, but shortly I have to go to work, and it would take hours to dismantle it nonsensical misconception by outright flaming stupidity, sentence by sentence. There’s so much of it.
Fortunately, I don’t have to. One of the sensible people who sends me things (They exist! Really, my in-box isn’t just a shitstorm of derp. Usually.) sent me this most excellent common sense general defense of feminism by the Bloggess, so I’ll just tell you all to go read that instead.
Feminism is inherently good. It’s not even close to perfect and still needs lots of work and sometimes it gets all fucked up and backward and awful but that doesn’t mean it’s not still worth fighting for. Now go back and replace “Feminism” with “The human race”. It works, right?. That’s because feminists are made of human. Men and women. In fact, one of my favorite feminists is Sir Patrick Stewart.
Patrick Stewart, feminist. His mother made 3 pounds 10 shillings for working a forty hour week in a weaving shed. She was also an abuse victim and he’s an anti-domestic violence advocate.
I’m not saying you can’t choose to not be a feminist but know what you’re choosing. Don’t make a decision about a group based on the most radical beliefs of a group. Don’t get defensive if you get deeper and are exposed to difficult ideas about intersectionality and race and gender and colonialism and patriarchy and male liberation. Just listen. Some of it will make sense. Some of it won’t. Some of it will later when you’re a different person. Some of it you’ll change your mind about throughout your life and the world will change too. Some of it is bullshit. Some of it is truth. All of it is worth listening to.
And now you get to decide. Are you a feminist? Yes? No? Well, don’t worry because tomorrow you get to choose again. And that keeps happening every day for the rest of your life.
As for me, I am a feminist (among so, so many other things). I believe in equality and I think we still have work to do. I’m thankful to the men and women who worked to give me the freedom and rights I have today and I am proud to be a part of a movement that I hope will make the world better and safer for my daughter (and for the men and women she’ll share that world with). I’m happy we’ve come so far and I’m glad that we’re becoming more aware of feminist issues that don’t just focus on straight, white women, even though confronting those issues is sometimes painful. And I’m happy that the womenagainstfeminism tumblr exists. Because even though I disagree with most of them I’m glad that those women have a platform on which to speak, and also because if we know what the arguments or misperceptions are against feminism then we can better address them. Or agree with them. Or ignore them. Or discuss them with our sons and daughters so they can make informed decisions for themselves. It’s up to you.
That pretty young woman’s video? The most important part of the description is that she’s young. I hope she grows up to be just like the Bloggess.
Good grief, I didn’t get past the first two seconds.
YELLING is not an argument.
Indoor voice, please.
Patrick Stewart just keeps getting more awesome.
feminists don’t want you to be young and slender and pretty
They threw that one at Gloria Steinem, if I recall.
Fuck, they threw all of it at Gloria Steinem. Like religionists, their arguments really haven’t improved much over time.
Patrick Stewart just keeps getting more awesome.
I know it’s OT but I kind of have to disagree with that. He’s maintained a steadily high level of awesome, it’s just that people are only now becoming aware of it. If you haven’t seen his performance in “I, Claudius” as Sejanus, he’s pretty jaw-grittingly nasty. And he’s terrific in “Playing Shakespeare” (which, if you are a fan of The Bard is a ‘what, you haven’t seen it!?!?!’) He’s gotten awesomer, but he set the bar high early on.
Thank you this. I wasn’t aware of the Bloggess before but I love her explanation. It’s refreshing after reading so much lately about man hating straw feminists. Of course, at 61, I’ve heard this all my life but it’s become even more tiresome.
It’s also disheartening to see young women buy into this nonsense. How can they not know what life was like for women even 40 years ago? But I’ve certainly said my share of stupid things when I was young. Hopefully they’ll be embarassed some day. I’m glad there was no Internet in the sixties!
Sir Pat really gets around here’s a link to an image that proves he’s the Kennewick Man.
(skull on the left, reconstruction in the middle, the man himself on the right)
http://www.howlandbolton.com/images/PatrickKennewick.jpg
Can you post images here?
The Patrick Stewart video at the end of the Blogess’ article is pretty moving. I always loved him for his sense of humor and never taking himself too seriously (a trait of a lot of Star Trek performers), but he really opens up about his mom and how she was blamed for the domestic violence she suffered.
Don’t make a decision about a group based on the most radical beliefs of a group.
More to the point, don’t make a decision about a group based on blatant lies about the beliefs of a group, repeated forever by no one but the most bitter opponents of the group.
If you maintain a steadily high level of awesome, your integrated total awesome keeps increasing.
I’ve been reading freethoughtblogs for a few years but have never commented. I’ve been seeing so much as of late about feminism. This sounds like a call for equal rights for women. May I ask why? By name and definition this is asking specific rights for a specific set of people. Shouldn’t we want equality for all without sticking a label on it and driving a wedge between people? Besides, we already have a word for women’s equality. It’s called equality. That word covers EVERYTHING. I admit that women have it worst off than men when it comes to the work place, sports stigmas, etc but is it really necessary to start and entire movement, label it something that is on it’s surface discriminatory (everyone who is NOT female) and call everyone one who doesn’t adopt that label a bigot or anti-women rights? I’ve read countless blog post and watch numerous videos regarding this and I haven’t heard a convincing argument as to why one should adopt this word as part of their daily vocabulary in order to be pro-women’s rights. Please, someone educate me.
You answered your own question with “I admit that women have it worst off than men when it comes to the work place, sports stigmas, etc”.
I’m going to answer simply “yes.” Yes, it is necessary to start an entire movement.
Jared Guthrie (#10)
Uh huh, sure. You’ve been here years, but the depth of your ignorance about feminism rivals the Mariana Trench. We totally believe you.
jd_guthrie @ 10
Would you like to explain which arguments you’ve already heard and rejected, so we don’t end up covering the same ground again? It’d be even better if you explained why you rejected them so we understand your reasoning.
Jared @10, if you truly have been reading for a few years, you wouldn’t have to ask those questions. Please, go read for, say, a few weeks at least, then come back here and report the answers. Every question will be answered, and then some.
BTW, this isn’t Feminism 101. (Well, FTB sort of is, but in more of an exploratory way. Go explore!) The comment section is for the OP, not your education.
Re #10 – If you’re for equality, but not interested in identifying any of the particular ways we fall short of the ideal, you’re not doing much to fix it. Being pro-X doesn’t mean you’ve got to be anti-not-X. It means you’re pro-X – that you figure there’s some _need_ to be pro-X, that X is good and X can use some boosting.
@jd_guthrie: Because trying to make a movement too broad means it’ll never get anything done. “Equality for all” is a nice sentiment, but hardly a concrete enough goal to form an actual, effective social movement around. Feminism, on the other hand, has a much more focused and definable goal: Fair and equal treatment for women. That’s the kind of direct, focused mission it’s possible to actually organize and work around, and those who most often try to broaden this statement to be “everything for everybody” are the same people trying to derail that goal entirely.
Nice strawwoman argument. Nobody has to adopt any label. But why are you against some people doing so? Why are you so afraid of the word “feminism”? Until the workplace is free of harassment, the world free of rapes, and true equality achieved and shown by valid statistics, there is a problem. And the problem needs to keep being mentioned until it ceases to be problem, not because people have stopped talking about it, but because the problem was worked on and solved.
#10 jd_guthrie: Are you also opposed to other special interest groups that could conceivably be fitted into some broader context?
It’s called feminism and is primarily concerned with the issues faced by women because that’s how you get shit done.
Gonna answer jd_guthrie even though I suspect he’s less than sincere–I have encountered ignorance similar to what he’s claiming in the offline wilds, so it’s helpful to be able to formulate the response, if nothing else.
Analogy time: Imagine a large, square board. You want to push the board forward. However, someone else is firing hoses at the board, pushing back against it. Now, the hoses aren’t targeted dead-center, and different hoses have different strengths (some of them even have variable pressure). So just pushing the board forward uniformly will cause it to spin out of control–the portion facing a garden hose will move forward, the portion getting nailed with a full-strength fire hose will get pushed back, and it’ll go all askew.
So you have to push harder at the points where you’re getting the most pushback. The action of pushing back harder at a specific point is, in essence, the nature of every social justice movement out there, and each point of enhanced pressure is given a name matching its location–so, feminism, anti-racism, gay pride, etc. Some folks–those caught directly behind the point of high-pressure resistance–will tend to focus primarily on the part that affects them. Those of us fortunate (privileged) enough to occupy the parts that don’t really get much pushback at all have the luxury of being able to distribute our efforts to multiple points, and thus try to correct any short-term imbalances.
@Serena #11: I was looking for a valid argument as to why a label is needed for a movement. That’s what I don’t get.
@A. Noyd #12: Don’t be an ass hat. If freethoughtblogs has a way to track an IP address they can demonstrate I’ve been here for years. Of course a lot of the time I visit is from work so I’m sure if my IT has some sort of block. I don’t know how all of that works.
@Snoof #13: It’s not arguments for women’s rights I’m against but I’m not understanding the label. It just seems useless to me. It seems to be causing bickering that seems to be doing more harm than good. When blacks wanted equal rights they weren’t fighting for “black” rights but civil rights which is a MUCH more inclusive term. It just seems like a branding that is borderline useless.
@Tonyinbatavia #14: Another one questioning the length of time I’ve been visiting these blogs. I have read and I don’t get it. The comment sections isn’t for comments? Isn’t that education as well? So the only educating should come from the OP and everyone else should comment in agreement? So the comment section is not the place for questions? Strange.
All I’m saying is I don’t understand the label. But go ahead and question if I “really” read and have been for years. You’re implying that if I really have done that I too would label myself a feminist. I believe women are equal to men and should be treated as such.
Analogy time: Imagine a large, square board
A good example of an analogy that’s so complicated it’s more obscure than what it purports to explain.
Try this:
“Equality for all” is the goal. We observe local inequality such as unequal treatment of women, or certain minorities, and – if we focus on those areas of inequality, the goal of “equality for all” emerges from that.
As an operational point: if we try to make things more fair for (for example) women, then we have framed the problem as “increasing fairness for women” rather than a more negative framing such as “reducing privilege of the powerful.” Not only does the latter sound more threatening, it’s also less accurate because the goal is “equality” not “disempowerment” There are relatively few arguments for disempowerment for its own sake! Hey, let’s all be powerful! As long as we’re equal.
Thanks freemage. I was trying to think of another example, but came up blank for some reason (i.e. privilege).
The gay rights movement is basically about equality too, so according to jd_guthrie they should rename it the equality movement and stop being so discriminatory.
It’s obvious nonsense, so I too must question the sincerity of jd_guthrie.
“All I’m saying is I don’t understand the label. But go ahead and question if I “really” read and have been for years. You’re implying that if I really have done that I too would label myself a feminist. I believe women are equal to men and should be treated as such.”
Calling yourself a feminist would much quicker than having spell out how you consider women to be equal to men and should be treated as such.
You see, this is why we have words like feminism. It is an easy way to refer to an idea or concept. Still, if you prefer verbosity over clarity, carry on.
why a label is needed for a movement
For the same reason that someone might say: “turn on the light switch by the couch” — because that is the light that you want on. The overall goal is illumination; the specific goal is illumination by the couch.
The overall goal is equality. The specific goal is equality for women.
You may have been asleep and not noticed that other people are concerned about equality for minorities, or oppressed sexual preferences, or animals, etc. The end goal of all of these things is equality, by definition.
It seems to be causing bickering that seems to be doing more harm than good
It’s causing harm to those who are comfortable with certain forms of inequality and want to act as if there’s no problem. It must be very emotionally stressful for them. Perhaps their equality muscles are sore and tired after freeing the slaves, and they just want to sit on the couch and drink a hard-earned beer and enjoy a sandwich made for them by a subservient woman. Saying “hey, women should be treated equally, too” seems to be doing more harm than good, for such people.
By the way, you’ll often find that people who favor equality for women (for example) also favor equality for LGBT or minorities or whatever. Why is that? Because if there was an argument that convinced you that someone shouldn’t be a slave thanks to their skin color, the same argument will convince you that someone shouldn’t be a slave thanks to their having a uterus. See how that works?
I’m writing this to you using small words because you are pretending to be a dumbass, so I am treating you like a dumbass. How am I doing?
I believe women are equal to men and should be treated as such.
So, you’re only a feminist when there’s a woman being treated unequally. No problem.
Hey! Women are being treated unequally. Now, you’re a feminist.
jd_guthrie @ 20
Yes, that’s what you said. So which arguments for “the label” have you heard and rejected? And why?
(This thread has had some arguments posted. Have you heard them before, or are they new to you? If they’re not new, maybe you could explain to us why you’re rejecting them.)
Oh, jd, jd, jd. How can I put this. … it ain’t the label that’s causing the “bickering”, now is it?
How about you go and seek out some of the people busy setting up strawfeminists to snipe at, and tell them off for sniping so loud?
Ah but if only those feminists wouldn’t keep drawing attention to themselves like that, don’t they know it’s divisive? After all, we all know that the civil rights movement was welcomed with open arms because it was called “civil” – so that nobody ever ever associated it with something as divisive as, say, race.
@freemage #19: Thanks for the sincere response, although you questioned my sincerity. That’s a good analogy and I get that. We can still push without the label. I admit that it’s unfortunate that some people who have adopted the label seem to be really extreme and may hurt the label. It still seems like it would be more useful to just fight for equality for all than opposed to labeling yourself a feminist. Just one person’s opinion.
“Just one person’s opinion.”
Given your lack of sincerity, and your wilful ignorance, your opinion counts for nothing.
jd_guthrie (#20)
You introduced yourself with the equivalent of this:
I’ve been reading FtB for a few years. I’ve been seeing so much of late about evolution. If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? Why would you belive in the same thing the Nazis used to wipe out the Jews. Please, someone educate me.
You’re anti-feminism’s version of a particularly stupid creationist. Particularly stupid because your idiotic questions have been answered over and over and over again here and in every other feminist space in the world. But no, you want to be spoonfed because somehow this has escaped you in all your years of reading FtB. Not even just spoonfed. You seek to debate this, like your incredulity and uninformed opinions are in any way a meaningful basis for that.
So why should we humor the likes of you?
Says the one doing the bickering.
Whoops, should be “used to try to wipe out the Jews?” with a question mark and everything.
It still seems like it would be more useful to just fight for equality for all than opposed to labeling yourself a feminist
This is why people here are questioning your honesty. Several of us have explained that being a feminist is usefully fighting for equality, and you prefer to bicker about the label, then complain about people bickering about labels.
Having a name is part of the difference between a movement and a bunch of unrelated people who say similar things. Something like “the gay rights movement” can have more social and political presence then “some of those liberal commentators who believe in equality and the right of consenting adults to marry each other which extends to people who happen to be of the same sex”. People speaking out on their own are much easier for the public to dismiss as ‘a few fringe individuals’; and while a named movement does not make you any more right it makes it harder to outright ignore.
jd_guthrie: Are you also opposed to gay rights? The label, I mean. I don’t think you really think that interest groups are generally superfluous (because that would be absurd), which is why you don’t seem entirely sincere to me.
I struggled through the YouTube vid. No actual argument in there, just repetition of “this seems like silly, but it’s like I’m like I just can’t even like explain how it makes my brain fuzzy. Oh, and SJWs are bad because like oh I can’t even explain.”
The best bit is the last six seconds 7m6s. “Daddy, what do you think about feminism?” Oh, the irony.
Wow. Never thought I would experience the lashing out for genuine questions. Maybe try to learn how to differentiate between someone genuinely trying to understand and someone who is not sincere. It’s amazing how you can make that call from reading one blog comment from someone. That’s a special power right there. Maybe its just a reaction to someone who would question. If I can’t ask here then where can I ask?
Multiple references round here to “feminism 101”. A long time reader of pharyngula and butterflies and wheels would be able to google some up for you. What did you think of the points in feminism 101, perhaps that’s worth a youtube posting or two?
@EveryZig #34: Thats something I can sink my teeth into. Thank you. Makes sense to me.
@Anders Kehlet #35: I’m for gay rights. But that isn’t a label, it’s a position. It’s a subset of equal rights.
I’m not neccessairly against people labeling themselves. I label myself as atheist, for example. It just seems all of the dissenters from the label “feminist” are pro-women’s right but hate the label, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s because of some things they’ve seen “feminist” stand for. Who knows.
Genuine questions?
If you had been reading these blogs for “a few years” as you claim, then you should have had ample opportunity to read extensive answers to pretty much all those questions already, as they are repeated and frequent topics of discussion on the threads over those “few years” which you claim to have been reading.
So at least ONE of your claims and statements cannot be genuine. Which is it?
Why do doctors need labels for what they do, like “oncologist” or “orthopedist” or “OB/Gyn.”? All parts of the body can get sick or hurt. Why do they need special acknowledgement? That’s unnecessarily divisive.
JD @ 37 – you posted those foolish questions and then ignored the sincere questions of those willing to take them at face value, and now you’re surprised at the lashing-out you earned. On this blog, that you’ve been reading for years. Is this your first foray into the comment section in all that time?
jd, you would be amazed how many people come by here – quite the steady and unstinting flow of ’em – and say something just like the creationist “argument” A Noyd mentions in #31 and then when they’re called on it claim to be Just Asking Questions. JAQing off, as it’s known.
Actually, strike that. If you’d really been reading here for a while, as you claimed in your first comment #10, you would know this.
Never thought I would experience the lashing out for genuine questions.
They’re genuine stupid questions. So, since we don’t know you, we can’t tell if you’re stupid, dishonest, or perhaps both.
I’m now leaning far toward assuming you’re dishonest because several people have adequately explained it to you, and you’re either as dense as a bose-einstein condensate or you’re deliberately being obtuse. I suspect the latter, since now you’re not really even offering an argument, anymore, you’re whining about tone.
@EigenSprocketUK #38: I don’t frequent many secular sites. This one, the a-unicornist and maybe Sam Harris’ blog every once in a blue moon. About 90% of the feminism talk I see comes from here so it was natural I ask the question here. I could of asked in a random youtube video comment section but it’ll probably get lost in the shuffle and we all know about the youtube comment section. Not very much solid info there. I thought I would get some here however, half of it has been questioning my motives.
It just seems all of the dissenters from the label “feminist” are pro-women’s right but hate the label, for whatever reason
Is that your real position?
jd_guthrie, you have gotten plenty of answers to your questions. So what do you think of the answers?
My only relevant question was why the label and I have directly addressed and thanked two people now who have directly addressed that question. Thank you for your responses. I don’t know what else to say. I only read the comments to the particular blog title I might be interested in.
What is the preoccupation with the “Label” issue? For me, this is not an isolated question or attitude, it seems to be a core glitch in the Matrix. ‘I’m not a ‘FEMINIST!!’ poeple just have to yell at the top of their lungs…. This may be TMI or irrelevant, but I’m a hetero white male, and I have no problem whatsoever being identified as a feminist. And I cannot fathom why it’s de rigueur to be anti-feminist now. I am flummoxed and have been since the ElevatorGate explosion. It’s become a cottage industry of hate. Now, I know this is what happens in general when economies take downturns, and people poke their heads up and look around and see a bleak picture confronting them. But jebus h., that’s when you need to listen MORE closely, not pull away. There’s inequality all around us, in many ways, and feminism is one of the movements against inequality. I remain confused.
@jd_guthrie: All the arguments I’ve been seeing from you are classic “concern-troll” posts, attacking the phrasing rather than the message. “Feminism” is a perfectly valid label, as the movement is meant to be a voice for women in a world that frequently doesn’t care about their well-being. It’s necessary that the movement be “feminist” because men, taken as a whole, don’t need a movement to fight for their rights in the same way that women do – the existing, entrenched power structures do that perfectly well already. You could even say that the world is structured towards “masculinism,” which means feminism is a much-needed counterpoint.
Also note that feminism itself doesn’t aim to harm or subjugate men – it only seeks to extend the privileges normally reserved only for the masculine so that they are available to all. Much of the pushback against feminism comes from otherwise well-meaning individuals who haven’t truly examined their own privileges, and how the structure of our society denies these privileges to any group defined as an “other.” Anecdotally, so many of the anti-feminists I’ve encountered are guys who don’t realize their experience isn’t universal – and therefore see feminism’s push for equal rights as an attempt to grab special privileges.
It’s this exact mindset, however, that makes rebranding feminism as “egalitarianism” so dangerous. Doing so would open the doors to an even larger flood of unexamined privilege in which well-meaning, but misguided, men – speaking from a position of societally-granted power – coopt the movement and drown out those who actually need its help.
I enjoyed the response from freemage and everyzig. They provided useful information to a question I had. If by definition feminism means equal rights for women to be equivalent to men then I’m a feminist. I guess I’m just more comfortable saying equal rights for all, not matter the gender, race or sexual preference.
You’re either insincere or dishonest, jd_guthrie, and I don’t think anyone here has to put up with that. You could go and read a short history of feminism. Type the words into Google.
Further, your ignorance (which I hope you own), is clear for all to see. Feminism, women’s rights, is the precursor to equal rights, to civil rights, to gay rights. It is unbelievable that you do not believe that gay rights is not a label when modified with the word activist, but that feminism is a label. It’s very difficult to believe that that is anything other than willful ignorance. But, then, you think that gay rights is a subset of equal rights when it’s historically a branch of feminism.
So, before you dig yourself into any further a hole, we are not Google and we are not here as your personal instructors. Go educate yourself. It is evident that you haven’t done very much reading or that if you have, it wasn’t for comprehension. If you cannot read for comprehension, we wouldn’t be able to help you anyhow.
Now, go away. Maybe we can trust that you’re not a liar when you can ask questions that don’t appear disingenuous.
I believe that jd_guthrie and youtuber Shoe0nHead could well be the same person.
Just a hunch.
I have no data, no argument, just a reckon plucked out of a gut feeling. But that seems to be sufficient for jd/shoe’s world.
Gee, another egalitarian. My view of egalitarians is that they want to pretend everything is equal, but meanwhile continue with the harassment and microagressions against women, POC, LGBT, etc, and keep them in their places. Meanwhile, they are comfortable as they still have their privilege.
The playing field only becomes fully level when the high spots (male privilege) are knocked down, and the low spots filled in. Which is why labels are useful. As a reminder of the work that still needs to be done, until there is equal results for everybody.
@jd_guthrie: The problem with saying “equal rights for all” in the context of gender politics is that it ignores the existing systemic imbalances – namely that (cis) men have greater rights than non (cis) men – in favor of a touchy-feely epithet. In my experience, the people who scream the loudest about “egalitarianism not feminism” are cis-dudes who can’t stand not being the center of attention, and therefore can’t bring themselves to support a social movement that isn’t expressly about them in some way.
jd_guthrie @37: Clearly you’re a troll. The giveaway is the “Wow. Never thought I would experience the lashing out for genuine questions” bullshit. If you had truly been reading for FBT for several years, there’s no way in hell you would be surprised. We see folks like you in the “but-I’m-sincerely-trying-to-understand-how-things are-won’t-you-just-please-answer-my-honest-questions” guise all the time … if you’ve been here a few years, you too would have seen it a thousand times. But, ohs nos, you’re surprised.
Oh, and @20: Obviously I don’t think all of Jared’s Feminism 101 Education can come through the OP; to interpret what I wrote that way is to be willfully dense. The education is in truly exploring everything that’s been written over the years on FTB and trying to read for understanding. There’s a shitload here that would provide a wonderful education if you honestly wanted to know the answers. Go get it. It’s not our job in this comment section to repeat what’s already been laid out throughout FTB.
@Demeisen: I agree with that completely except for the “concern-troll” part. Labeling it “troll” seems like it’s automatically dismissed as “stupid”, which has been the case here, and those people never answer my question directly. The only people who never questioned my motives are the ones who finally address my actual question. Go figure.
Exactly. The “privilege” being knocked down in this case is the “privilege” to mistreat, use, and abuse other people. Everything else gets to stay, as long as everybody can share in it.
Blockquote fail on my part @58. That should’ve been a normal quote attributed to Nerd of Redhead @54. That’s what I get for not paying attention to my formatting.
@Demeisen
I never expected an Abominator Class GOU to read this blog. I, um, hope none of us do anything to attract specific attention.
jd_guthrie, a person can be for equal rights for all and a feminist and a gay rights activist (or ally or whatever modifier) and a civil rights activist and any number of other similar things because none of them are mutually exclusive to each other.
As has been pointed out, being for equal rights is very broad and so non-specific that is is unhelpful as a descriptor for specific problems that any particular marginalised group might have that could be tackled from an activist perspective. It is therefor necessary that people get specific about what it is that they are actively fighting for. The labels are needed because they address specific problems for specific groups.
This is an obvious outcome of having disparate, marginalised groups who are seeking equality and struggling with different but similar problems achieving it. Do I really need to point out that while there is obvious intersectionality with gay rights and feminism, the goal of same-sex marriage isn’t necessarily high on (or even on) any given feminists agenda, and equal pay for women isn’t necessarily high on (or even on) the agenda of a given gay rights activist, but that both goals would put everyone one step closer to equality? If not, then I do not see why you are asking the questions that you’re asking.
like it’s automatically dismissed as “stupid”, which has been the case here
No, it was stupid. Objectively stupid. I am sure it hurts you in little ways to see your self-important JAQing off identified and correctly classified as stupid, but that’s not quite the same thing as “dismissal.”
You’re being dismissed for being a dishonest waste of time, if you want to correctly figure out where the dismissal is happening.
@jd_guthrie #57: No, I called you a troll because you continued to ask the same silly question after multiple people explained why it’s necessary to have a movement specifically for women. Calling you a “troll” isn’t assuming stupidity on your part, it’s actually assuming that you’re intelligent enough to know exactly what you’re doing, and are therefore doing it on purpose.
Backpedaling and pretending to support a cause while doing nothing but criticize it are classic concern-troll tactics. We get plenty of those around here, but the people who are legitimately asking good-faith questions show a willingness to learn. It’s up to you to show that initiative: Read the 101 guides linked above, educate yourself, and stop asking the horde to do all your work for you – then we’ll believe you’re actually here in good faith and not simply trying to derail the conversation.
Very possible.
If so, I think the only thing she lied about was “reading this blog for years.” She’s so young, practically a child, she can’t have been reading much of anything, much less this blog, “for years.” And if she is older than the full 14 years she seems to be and has been reading it for years, I wouldn’t call that “reading.”
@Marcus Ranum #60: GOU? No, I’m just a humble Picket Ship. More of a glorified night-watchman, really…
@jt_guthrie
“Feminist” came about as a label to combat a specific problem; namely, the lack of women’s rights. Just like “abolitionist”, which came about in response to slavery. When slavery was gone in the US, “abolitionist” went away as well. These labels are used exactly as long as they are still needed. In places where slavery still exists, you wouldn’t fault someone for donning the label “abolitionist” just because “oh, you should be called ‘equalist,’ which is inherently an anti-slavery position.”
Women are still treated as second-class, and women’s rights is still relevant. Therefore, “feminist” is still relevant and will continue to be an appropriate label. If you like the message (which I’m assuming you do), but don’t like the label, then don’t call yourself a feminist. But don’t fault others for doing so.
And definitely don’t attribute the backlash against feminism to the label “feminist.” The Republican party and the MRM are not going to abandon their misogyny just because of a name change.
@EigenSprocketUK: I can post my youtube channel if you would like. The only video I ever made was for a girl back in high school (10+ years ago) that had a Titanic clip in it and it was ripped down for copyright..haha. My youtube channel is just subscriptions. I’ve already conceded the labeling part.
I own my ignorance on history of this specific movement and why this label was chosen or any label at all for that matter. What skeptical people do when they are ignorant is research and ask questions. That’s what I did. Apparently that isn’t enough for some people. To answer the question of why I”m asking questions and not just look at “X” article. Does everyone REALLY completely agree with every pro feminism blog post or video and everything in it? Probably not. I was wanting conversation here.
“Feminists are toxic lunatics who just want to destroy the family and put men in concentration camps” -me circa 1994
Since then I’ve moved away from Utah graduated from college, and actually read the things that feminists say, and now I am happy to call myself a feminist and even embrace the radical feminist label (although I am still enough of a child of the 90’s that I can’t read the word radical and not think of the ninja turtles).
@jd_guthrie #67
No, you didn’t research. You came in here and asked people to explain it to you. That is not research, that is asking people to spoonfeed you.
jd_guthrie
I don’t believe that you are sincere.
Would anyone like links to my facebook page and youtube account to put at ease the accusations that I’m some young, female vlogger who goes by the name of “ShoeonHead”? I assure you that I’m not. We’re on the same side but use different labels. Maybe the feminist label is more “in your face” and direct. From what I gathered from the few people willing to provide a short explanation, it has its uses. I appreciate those responses.
@Demeisen Post #16: I never seen this post from you. My apologies. It must of not loaded or I didn’t scroll up enough to see it. You did answer my question there and I thank you for that.
I’ve already conceded the labeling part.
The people here are pretty smart, granted, but I hardly think they were the first ones to make the arguments they did. If you aren’t a troll, you certainly come off as disingenuous as fuck.
It just seems all of the dissenters from the label “feminist” are pro-women’s right but hate the label, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s because of some things they’ve seen “feminist” stand for. Who knows.
Why don’t you come clean about your real position here. You don’t care about the label, you just think it’s been associated with radicals. Assuming you don’t think feminism itself is radical, then you’ve probably been buying too much anti-feminist propaganda.
ssssss
whaat. The other blockquotes disappeared… I’ve never seen that before.
Below the top blockquote in my previous comment should have been this:
And below the bottom blockquote in my previous comment should be this:
oh, ok. They were there… the blockquotes around them just disappeared…
*vanishes in a puff of embarassment*
Yeah, I don’t believe you, jd_guthrie. That’s a compliment; see; I don’t believe that you’re quite as stupid as you appear be. And, now, despite openly questioning your motives, I shall proceed to address your bogus concerns and questions, concern troll, thereby disproving your whiny assertion that
I don’t believe that you didn’t expect it and I don’t believe that your questions were genuine.
We can. I can. You sound precisely like an insincere person so far. If you want to be thought sincere, maybe next time try typing “feminism 101” into google before asking feminism 101 questions on a comment thread that isn’t about a feminism 101 post.
Nope, just fucktons of practice. Literally hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of reading the same dreck gives you pretty advanced pattern recognition skills.
Speaking of things that make you sound precisely like an insincere troll… Yeah, that’s it, you’re onto us. SHOUT DOWN ALL QUESTIONERS! My, aren’t you clever for spotting that. And accusing your interlocutors of hating ALL disagreement isn’t at all inflammatory, nor a tired old trolling tactic.
/sarcasm
You’re on the internet. Sincere people wouldn’t ask this question because the obvious answer is “google.”
Who is this “we” you’re talking about? What the fuck have YOU done to advance women’s rights? When was the last time you served as a clinic escort? Went to an abortion rights rally? Wrote a letter to the editor in support of equal pay? Left a supportive comment on a blog post about feminism, as opposed to concern trolling feminists?
You have no idea who the fuck these people are. The only name you can think of is Andrea Dworkin and she didn’t even say what you think she said. You’re just spreading lies about feminism, either ignorantly or maliciously, and are concern trolling feminists in the process.
As has already been pointed out:
1. History shows that it has been useful. Any bickering or fighting you have noticed is not caused by the LABEL but rather by the ACT of women no longer tolerating sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, at school, at home, and in the streets, by women standing up sexualization and objectification of women, and for full reproductive rights.
2. Your opinion is ignorant as fuck and therefore isn’t worth shit. Next time, get informed before spewing your opinion.
Doubtful. I reckon you’d have trouble actually accepting what it means for women to have fully equal rights to men. You just haven’t thought through what it would actually mean for women to have, say, the same exact rights to bodily autonomy as men do. Or existence in public spaces.
Feminism is inherently uncomfortable, especially for cis men. Equal rights for women entails some pretty drastic changes at all levels of society, many of which will entail making men’s lives much LESS comfortable (on account of having to give up unearned privilege). If you’re feeling comfortable with the whole concept, then you probably aren’t actually dealing with feminism. So it’s a safe bet that even if you’re sincere in WANTING to be a feminist, you aren’t one yet.
But like I said, I don’t buy that any of what you have said so far is sincere.
Has anyone but you brought up that you might be ShoeonHead? I didn’t get that from anything you’re writing, whether you’re a troll or sincere.
In some respects it really doesn’t matter, because if a genuine conversation could be had it would be productive (for some people) to try and correct the misconceptions/misrepresentations in that first linked video.
Of course I’ve personally rarely encountered someone who puts out a video like that that is fully receptive to a productive conversation.
here is the way I like to think about JD’s “question” in quotes because it is indeed phrased as a question it is more of a criticism then really seeking information.
Any and everybody is free to adopt any tag they wish to apply to themselves and .further can make their statements in any language they wish. I and anyone else is perfectly free to disagree with the sentiment or the statements or opinions and offer any counter statements they want.
No one has the right to tell anyone else how they should make their arguments nor how they identify themselves.
You agree with the ideas of equality fine make your statements in support any way you like stop telling others how to make their own statements!
What ever gives you the idea that it is any concern of yours what others say or how they say it?
uncle frogy
Tinjoe, EigenSprocketUK brought it up, but the comment admitted it was just a gut feeling, and was taking a swipe at jd_guthrie’s standards of evidence at the same time
It wasn’t a very serious comment, it wasn’t picked up by a bunch of people, but like many trolls, creationists, and those that really cannot respond to the substantial criticism, the little negative comments become the focus of replies, leaving the meaty ones to be ignored.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ???
@Travis – Thank you. I did a text search for ShoeonHead (with an ‘oh’ not a ‘zero’) which explains why I missed it.
Tinjoe, no problem, the same thing happened to me when I went to search for the comment. I knew the comment existed as I had read it earlier, but had to manually go back and find the comment and realized the 0 was my stumbling point.
Oooh, has this devolved into a Feminism 101 thread thanks to one clueless individual who hasn’t taken the time to understand the subject he is pontificating on? I bet the clueless individual is even talking about things as if he does have a clue, unaware of hos deeply ignorant he is. As SallyStrange said…pattern recognition.
Here, have a Feminism 101 link: http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Here’s another: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/
Those two should keep any clueless individual –who genuinely wants a better understanding of the shit women face, and thus the need for feminism– busy for a few days.
I highly recommend watching
The Captains, or at least the episode with Sir Patrick Stewart. Warning, you have to put up with Shatner (who is the host/interviewer in all the episodes). I’ve only seen the one so far, though and it was pretty good.
@SallyStrange #75
I don’t know that this is completely true. There are some men comfortable with it that are feminists. I assume PZ himself is. I’m pretty comfortable with it myself. Unless you meant something more specific to jd_guthrie… I’m sorry if I misconstrued your points.
That said, I’m sure I am not always a feminist in my actions, though I am trying to go further in that direction. It’s still hard to get past some acts that have been ingrained almost since birth, including some jokes that a feminist probably shouldn’t find funny.
My feminism makes me uncomfortable on a near-daily basis. Definitely weekly. I think you misconstrued my point, namely, what it means to feel comfortable with feminism. Thinking about equality in the abstract is pretty comfortable, but actually DOING feminism–challenging sexist language, for example, like those jokes you mentioned–is pretty fucking uncomfortable. And that’s just the start of it. Organizing protests, writing letters to the editor, running for office? None of it is remotely comfortable. Agitating for change never is.
Good points SallyStrange. It’s not just uncomfortable, it can get pretty lonely, too.
@Sallystrange
Thank you for the clarification. I can agree that that aspect of it is definitely uncomfortable. Again, sorry for misunderstanding, but glad to understand you.
@Chimera
The girl in the video is 22 years old, not 14.
@85
General agreement here. Challenging language or attitude in work or some friend spaces can be very uncomfortable.
I’ll assume you’re sincere for a moment, jd_guthrie. You want a place to go ask questions in good faith? Try Love, Joy, Feminism. Libby Anne has set up an ongoing comment thread just for that purpose. She does have rules about commenting though, so keep that in mind.
Now I’ll say that your “questioning” reads as a criticism of feminism itself, not of a label.
Yes, feminism is asking for the specific rights for those identified as women and girls–the specific right to be equally treated by society. If one is in favour of that goal, why would “sticking a label on it” drive a wedge anywhere?
First, you’re diminishing the size of the problem, which should be obvious to you if you start paying attention. Yes, it is really necessary to start (and by that I mean continue) an entire movement. If you don’t think so, you are opposed to the goal of feminism, not just a label.
What makes you think it is the label and not the goals of feminism which are the cause of the resistance (i.e. “bickering”)?
How would we go about that? Specifically, what would someone who wants equality for women do to fight for that?
I think you’re mistaken. Dissenters and resisters are supporting the status quo (i.e. inequality and male privilege). They are, therefore, not pro-women’s rights. They may attack the label too, but that’s just a red herring. It’s like saying you really do support teaching evolution in schools but you object to calling it science instead of an opinion.
You’re getting closer. What could these things be?
This kind of attitude smacks of denialism. It gives the impression that if we all just lie back and be quiet, equal rights for everyone will just happen of its own accord. If feminism makes you uncomfortable, maybe that’s because recognizing that hard work needs to be done even to get recognition that equality is a desirable goal is unsettling.
Well, I gritted my teeth and sat through the whole thing. It turns out it was worth it. The whole time Shoe0nHead was going on and on (and on and on) about how everything’s all equal nowadays and rape is something that only happens in Saudi Arabia, etc., I was looking at the room she’s in and the stuff in it and thinking, “Hmmm, that looks like it requires a fair amount of money. I wonder if she’s ever had to try to get a job to pay the rent on that place?” And then, Lo and Behold!, a middle-aged guy walks into the room and Shoe0nHead asks him, “Daddy, what do you think about Feminism?”
LOL! Priceless. Daddy’s little princess telling us all about how the world is full of sparkles and rainbows! LOLOLOL!!!
JD,
Republican is a label. They are for a number of things. They could list out all those things – keeping the poor and minorities in their place, supporting theocracy, keeping male privilege strong, making sure white people have guns in case of darkies, eliminating the teaching of science and critical thinking – but it would quickly get to be a very long list. So, they apply the label ‘Republican’.
Ditto for Democrats.
Why are you here, whining about feminism being a ‘label’ instead of on one of the many political forums whining about how democrat/republican is a label?
The obvious answer is that you aren’t being honest about your issue with ‘feminism’, but employing the JAQing off concern-troll technique to attack feminism without having to admit to yourself that you are attacking the concept that women deserve to be treated as people.
jd_guthrie (#37)
Way to give yourself away (again). There’s questioning to inform yourself and there’s questioning to argue. Maybe you should come back after you figured out we’re smart enough to spot the difference instead of trying to pretend you’re here for the former when you’re clearly here for the latter.
@Tony (#82)
Your links are a reminder of how if an anti-feminist isn’t “questioning” the term “feminism” itself, they’re usually oh-so concerned with the terms “(male) privilege” and “rape culture” instead. Silly feminists, we can’t name anything right.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/07/nicely-done-megan-rose-gedris/#comments
Just thought I’d link to this awesome comic that was posted by PZ earlier this month. It’s about intersectionality but blond guy in the first panel is basically jd_guthrie and it made me giggle. Surprised they missed it, being such an avid reader and all.
Rumtopf #95
Yep. Same thought occurred to me.
I was going to add something… Hey look a nickle!
In all seriousness I thought we’d already seen the Jaclyn Glenn video.
As for the awesome stuff Patrick Stewart said… Well it was awesome.
Feminism isn’t a bad thing, just like gay rights aren’t a bad thing. And until religion pulls it’s head out of its @$$ and starts treating women as more than broodmares. There is plenty of need for feminism.
Indeed. And there are identifiable differences in the tone and manner of the questions themselves in those two instances, which anyone with a halfway average social intelligence can tell instantly.
It is ironic, but that a young woman (or at least an increasingly larger number of young women – I imagine that the daughters of the EXTREMELY rich have always had this privilege so long as they happened to have fathers who let them indulge in it) can grow up with the privilege of being so naive and also have the self-confidence and opportunity to actually voice opinion on a wide public forum, is itself the result of one of the triumphs of the feminist fight, part of the several feet of ground already gained after decades of hard trench fighting.
Such gains are by no means assured to be sustained. The enemy’s lines remain intact, if a little buckled, and they have enormous reserves.
Hopefully, someday, with more life experience, she will come to realize this.
I imagine that the daughters of the EXTREMELY rich have always had this privilege so long as they happened to have fathers who let them indulge in it) can grow up with the privilege of being so naive and also have the self-confidence and opportunity to actually voice opinion on a wide public forum, is itself the result of one of the triumphs of the feminist fight, part of the several feet of ground already gained after decades of hard trench fighting.
That’s probably more of a gain due to the increasing privilege of wealth, than due to feminism.
For your edification, jd: There is a lot of knee-jerk anti-feminism in general society. That knee-jerk opposition to the label or idea of feminism is incredibly common and it always ultimately either misunderstanding what feminism actually is and/or the repeated insistence that the struggle for female equality shouldn’t be called “feminism”. It’s a potent combination of bias and stupidity. And you have not done very well at dispelling our inference that you seem to be one of the afflicted.
Actually, jd gave Xiself way in its first as Slymepit script #6. And never varied, which is why nobody believed a word Xe said.
Try something new Slymepitters, either put up or shut the fuck up. In which case, we will never hear from you again, thank FSM….
All my love to Steward, but PZ, remember that you made a similar argument not long ago “I survived my teen years without consequences therefore everyone that complains about romantic problems should shut up”.
F.O.: Citation needed.
“A few radical loudmouths are ruining the label so we should all drop it” could be thrown at atheism just as much as feminism, no?
As to the video, parental wealth is a great insulator but I don’t think it’s that. There are always women ready to play the Special Snowflake, to try to get special favor with the opposite sex by climbing on the backs of other women.
Late to the party, so I’ll just point out that every one of jd’s comments addressed tone, and none answered Snoof’s question at 13, posted 12 minutes after jd showed up (“what arguments do you find unconvincing?). Classic troll.
tfkreference @ 106
It’s pretty typical behaviour around here, sadly. I assumed (in spite of all prior experience) that jd_guthrie was posting in good faith and tried to engage, and what happens? They (deliberately?) misinterpret my question and refuse to reciprocate.
It’s no wonder so many of the regulars here automatically assume the worst, especially of posters who use phrases like “asking questions” or “educate me”.
Snoof (#107)
We just had a counter-example a couple days ago. A theist exploring evolution asked for resources and got treated extremely well. But then, that’s what people sound like when they’re questioning to inform themselves.
You’re wrong, I’m-too-cool-to-have-a-nym #88. If she’s 22 she’s not a girl, and if she’s a girl she’s not 22.
I remember being like Shoe0nHead. “ZOMG evil feminists trying to take away my right to get a perm (it was the 80’s) and have a boyfriend. Soooo unfunny ’cause boys won’t like me if I can’t laugh at beating-your-wife jokes.”
No, the guys I want to spend my time with will. And she unfortunately will learn that outside Daddy’s umbrella, when she goes for a job, her choices will be limited by the fact that she is a woman. She will get paid less for doing equal work, and will get the side-eye for the potential to need maternity leave. She will get catcalled on the street, felt up by a stranger at a concert, and Daddy will call her a slut when he finds her birth control pills.
Or, maybe the feminists will have changed the world enough by then that she will never need to realise how shitty things can be without feminism.
(And that perm… big mistake.)
The problem with just saying that you’re for equality is that it is too vague to actually be meaningful. It’s like a politician saying that they support fair treatment for everyone under the law. Well what does that mean exactly? Not a goddamn thing. That’s why specific labels like Feminism are useful. They give people an idea of specific issues that you see and what your solutions for them are.