Why Feminism Is Stupid
Now that I've alienated you with my sensationalist title, let me clarify a little. There are, depending on who you ask, many potential definitions of the word feminism. Most of them seem to fit roughly into two categories:
1. People who want to improve female status to the point that it is equal to male status, or
2. People who want to improve female status regardless of male status.
As for the latter category, it should be fairly obvious that wanting females to possess an elevated status solely by virtue of being female is not a distinct argument from wanting males to possess an elevated status solely by virtue of being male. In other words, this category of feminism is as bad as the patriarchal society they rail against.
The former category, however, is at least in theory looking for equality, a viewpoint I myself promote. Why then would I call them stupid? Well, they chose the name feminism. This is vaguely analogous to a Palestinian group calling themselves "Kill all Jews" while advocating peace. It has the additional negative of turning many men off of their cause, whether through fear of ridicule ("I don't want sexist men to associate me with a WOMAN cause") or (mis-?)interpretation of the term feminism ("I agree with them, but look at the name, it's obviously a group for women").
And if that's the definition you accept, what is the opposite of a feminist? A masculinist? That believes the exact same thing?
I suppose "equalist" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but at least it or some such thing would avoid the problems mentioned above, and wouldn't be itself an example of the exclusion they would like to destroy.
1. People who want to improve female status to the point that it is equal to male status, or
2. People who want to improve female status regardless of male status.
As for the latter category, it should be fairly obvious that wanting females to possess an elevated status solely by virtue of being female is not a distinct argument from wanting males to possess an elevated status solely by virtue of being male. In other words, this category of feminism is as bad as the patriarchal society they rail against.
The former category, however, is at least in theory looking for equality, a viewpoint I myself promote. Why then would I call them stupid? Well, they chose the name feminism. This is vaguely analogous to a Palestinian group calling themselves "Kill all Jews" while advocating peace. It has the additional negative of turning many men off of their cause, whether through fear of ridicule ("I don't want sexist men to associate me with a WOMAN cause") or (mis-?)interpretation of the term feminism ("I agree with them, but look at the name, it's obviously a group for women").
And if that's the definition you accept, what is the opposite of a feminist? A masculinist? That believes the exact same thing?
I suppose "equalist" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but at least it or some such thing would avoid the problems mentioned above, and wouldn't be itself an example of the exclusion they would like to destroy.
posted by Gideon Humphrey at 5:33 PM
5 Comments:
Equalism is too general. We already have a word for that anyway, egalitarianism. Cheers!
Egalitarianism. Works for me.
As I understand it, the word "feminism" was coined by a female activist, in France in the 19th century, at a time when equality for women (at least the way we understand it today) wasn't even imagined.
This woman, Hubertine Auclert, was mainly working toward suffrage (ie, women being allowed to vote), and also wanted divorce laws that would allow women to keep their property. While the rights she wanted were equal to men's rights in those spheres, she wasn't looking for total equality, nor were many women activists at that time--there was still a lot of general opinion that men and women were essentially different and that we wouldn't even _want_ the same things in a lot of other spheres.
Anyway, that's how the name was coined. Continuing to apply it today--especially considering the multiple and contradictory viewpoints it's applied to--is, I agree, problematic for a lot of people.
I think it should belong to the essentialists, who believe men and women are quite different by nature and that women have something unique to offer.
I (surprise, surprise) am egalitarian, believe we're essentially the same and should have the same rights and responsibilities. I'm comfortable calling myself a feminist, because ideologically I still share a lot with Hubertine, but I feel the need to define what I mean whenever I say it, which is pesky.
However, the alienation you're talking about does not only come from the semantics of the word "feminism"--it's also caused by the current fashion for conservative straw-man political commentary, which defines key words in ways that are most likely to alarm the listener and create fear and outrage. People who had a lot to lose by simple, fair egalitarianism have historically protected their turf by characterizing feminism as a movement of screaming banshees castrating men and hating sex and being commies, or whatever.
Wow, I wrote a novel. Sorry.
No need to apologize; that was insightful and educational. Thanks for contributing!
Post a Comment
<< Home