4 ms·

Maybe people should choose better terminology to identify themselves then. Personally I'm a believer in equal rights regardless of gender, colour, beliefs or p

Maybe people should choose better terminology to identify themselves then. Personally I'm a believer in equal rights regardless of gender, colour, beliefs or passion for collecting garden gnomes. The term "feminism" implies that it pertains specifically to female rights. Perhaps "social egalitarian" is a more apt description for someone wanting equal rights for all, to clarify any difference. Now, excuse me while I go and barricade myself into this hut in the woods before the pitchforks arrive.

camel_Snake 8y ago
I use to think this way myself - I'd like to explain how my thinking has changed (sans pitchforks) to the best of my ability. My understanding is that "feminism" doesn't imply more rights for females, but rather highlights where they believe inequalities lie. Same reason people have adopted the phrase "Intersectional Feminist" so as to draw attention to where equality (even among women) is lacking - to those of color or less economic privilege. Just like saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't imply that African Americans lives matter more than others, you are using specific words to focus the application of a general idea (lives matter, equality is good, etc.) to a where you may think it is lacking.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  There's a problem with this. Imagine you take group A, and you find every spot where they fall behind group B. And you manage, through whatever, means to rectify this. In the end you have not created equality, but almost certainly made group A vastly superior to group B, as you ignore the spots where group A was already ahead. To take things out of the abstract, consider 'women in STEM'. In college girls do not enroll in STEM with anywhere near the rate boys do. And this receives immense media attention and coverage. However, there has been a sharp and increasing imbalance in girls:boys in college enrollment as a whole. In 1979 they became the majority. And the share of that majority has constantly increased. We're starting to push towards girls outnumbering boys in college by 2:1. And some education is, in general, leagues ahead of none. Yet this receives next to no media attention. And when it's mentioned the person is immediately pegged as some sort of a bigot or extremist as the connotation implied by labels such as men's rights activists. And for what it's worth, I don't think there should be focus on this, but neither do I think there should be a focus on getting any gender/race/group/age or whatever into anything. I am an egalitarian and I think we should focus exclusively on providing equal opportunity so much as possible, but without pushing people into things. Norway is arguably the most gender-equal nation in this world, and one of their findings was when they directed girls towards fields girls did not regularly participate in, there was a mild but constant increase. Practically as soon as that push was relinquished, the numbers diminished to 'pre-push' times. On a smaller scale, like a good egalitarian I also pushed my wife into pursuing computer science over her previous interest in sociology during university. She excelled, as did I. Now years after that when we both have really our choice of whatever we want to do, she works with people -- and I work with code. I have no regrets bringing her into computer science, but it does make one wonder if it was truly the best decision. People are pliable enough that you can fit square pegs into round holes, but we also tend to be like sponges and after all that contorting that square peg contorted to fit into that round hole is eventually going to go back to being a square because that's what it wants to be. [1] - https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.a...
- headmelted 8y ago
  I see your point, but if I may nitpick: The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is Ronseal. Which is to say that "it does what it says on the tin" - in the sense that the phrase exactly explains what you're campaigning for - equal consideration and rights for black lives. The phrase "feminism" implies female rights, and (at least linguistically) nothing more. Now, it may be that feminists and non-feminists don't see the phrase as meaning that, which I understand to be your point, but I think that's where this becomes much more nuanced. Anecdotally I have known self-described feminists who were very much about equal rights - but I have also encountered several (admittedly fewer) who were openly pro-female and anti-male. Edit: removed anecdotal stories as they're just that: anecdotal. I think there's a bigger discussion to be had here for all of us, and I really hope getting confronted with stories like this has the silver lining of bringing it about.
staticautomatic 8y ago
A) I think it's also incumbent upon anyone who wants to have a discussion with someone who proclaims themselves simply a "feminist" to ask what sort of feminist they are. Otherwise the conversation is likely to end up suffering from the sort of definitional confusion we're talking about here. B) In what way does "more rights" inhere in the term "feminism"?
- headmelted 8y ago
  B) is a fair point, and not exactly what I meant either - I'll update the parent.
UncleMeat 8y ago
The term "computer science" is also largely crappy but we have it for historical reasons. Criticism of the name is about as shallow as it gets, especially since it is clear that a very large portion of gender oppression is directed against women. There is almost certainly a more accurate name. But changing the name would accomplish so little that sparring over the name feels like a distraction rather than progress.
- headmelted 8y ago
  I can see your point. What I'm saying is rather that the term itself encompasses a broader array of views than we're discussing here. I think to simplify it to "equal rights" isn't exactly congruent to what every adherent to the term holds as it's sole meaning.
KirinDave 8y ago
If you actually prioritized these rights then you'd recognize that specific groups who are especially disadvantaged by historical racist and sexist precedents would obviously have the most incentive to speak on societal reform, and therefore obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some group other than rich white men? That it is named "feminism" in this specific incarnation is an ephemeral and uninteresting detail. If this is genuinely your only sticking point, then call yourself a social egalitarian and stop demanding other folks conform to your private nomenclature. If, as it seems is more likely, this is a fig leaf to push back against what you see as the loss of privileges held by white men in society? Too bad: you're assuredly losing these, as they come at a high cost to everyone else.
- headmelted 8y ago
  This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. "obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some group other than rich white men?" I'm not rich. I never said I was white (as it happens I am, but that's neither here nor there - why are you trying to start a racial argument?) And why is your statement obviously correct as you put it? "stop demanding other folks conform to your private nomenclature" I didn't demand anything at all. Did you even read what I wrote? My point was the term is applied ambiguously, making the meaning unclear. "this is a fig leaf to push back against what you see as the loss of privileges held by white men in society? Too bad: you're assuredly losing these, as they come at a high cost to everyone else." This is a dramatic, well-crafted response.. to something that was never said in the first place. None of this is even the most ridiculous part of your comment, which is surely the over-arching notion that any opinions you feel over your own privileges and how you've arrived at them are shared by everyone else on the internet who you assume is of the same skin colour and gender. I believe very strongly in actual equality, as do most people describing themselves as feminists that I've spoken to, as I stated. In short - please don't misconstrue my statements in an effort to make me look intolerant and bigotted. It debases a valid discussion, and I personally find it deeply offensive. Now as I don't like to be confrontational about something so serious I would like to end by saying something kind; I'm proud of you that you used the words intersectional, ephemeral and nomenclature correctly in your post.

camel_Snake 8y ago

I use to think this way myself - I'd like to explain how my thinking has changed (sans pitchforks) to the best of my ability. My understanding is that "feminism" doesn't imply more rights for females, but rather highlights where they believe inequalities lie. Same reason people have adopted the phrase "Intersectional Feminist" so as to draw attention to where equality (even among women) is lacking - to those of color or less economic privilege. Just like saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't imply that African Americans lives matter more than others, you are using specific words to focus the application of a general idea (lives matter, equality is good, etc.) to a where you may think it is lacking.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
There's a problem with this. Imagine you take group A, and you find every spot where they fall behind group B. And you manage, through whatever, means to rectify this. In the end you have not created equality, but almost certainly made group A vastly superior to group B, as you ignore the spots where group A was already ahead. To take things out of the abstract, consider 'women in STEM'. In college girls do not enroll in STEM with anywhere near the rate boys do. And this receives immense media attention and coverage. However, there has been a sharp and increasing imbalance in girls:boys in college enrollment as a whole. In 1979 they became the majority. And the share of that majority has constantly increased. We're starting to push towards girls outnumbering boys in college by 2:1. And some education is, in general, leagues ahead of none. Yet this receives next to no media attention. And when it's mentioned the person is immediately pegged as some sort of a bigot or extremist as the connotation implied by labels such as men's rights activists. And for what it's worth, I don't think there should be focus on this, but neither do I think there should be a focus on getting any gender/race/group/age or whatever into anything. I am an egalitarian and I think we should focus exclusively on providing equal opportunity so much as possible, but without pushing people into things. Norway is arguably the most gender-equal nation in this world, and one of their findings was when they directed girls towards fields girls did not regularly participate in, there was a mild but constant increase. Practically as soon as that push was relinquished, the numbers diminished to 'pre-push' times. On a smaller scale, like a good egalitarian I also pushed my wife into pursuing computer science over her previous interest in sociology during university. She excelled, as did I. Now years after that when we both have really our choice of whatever we want to do, she works with people -- and I work with code. I have no regrets bringing her into computer science, but it does make one wonder if it was truly the best decision. People are pliable enough that you can fit square pegs into round holes, but we also tend to be like sponges and after all that contorting that square peg contorted to fit into that round hole is eventually going to go back to being a square because that's what it wants to be. [1] - https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.a...
headmelted 8y ago
I see your point, but if I may nitpick: The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is Ronseal. Which is to say that "it does what it says on the tin" - in the sense that the phrase exactly explains what you're campaigning for - equal consideration and rights for black lives. The phrase "feminism" implies female rights, and (at least linguistically) nothing more. Now, it may be that feminists and non-feminists don't see the phrase as meaning that, which I understand to be your point, but I think that's where this becomes much more nuanced. Anecdotally I have known self-described feminists who were very much about equal rights - but I have also encountered several (admittedly fewer) who were openly pro-female and anti-male. Edit: removed anecdotal stories as they're just that: anecdotal. I think there's a bigger discussion to be had here for all of us, and I really hope getting confronted with stories like this has the silver lining of bringing it about.

staticautomatic 8y ago

A) I think it's also incumbent upon anyone who wants to have a discussion with someone who proclaims themselves simply a "feminist" to ask what sort of feminist they are. Otherwise the conversation is likely to end up suffering from the sort of definitional confusion we're talking about here. B) In what way does "more rights" inhere in the term "feminism"?

headmelted 8y ago
B) is a fair point, and not exactly what I meant either - I'll update the parent.

UncleMeat 8y ago

The term "computer science" is also largely crappy but we have it for historical reasons. Criticism of the name is about as shallow as it gets, especially since it is clear that a very large portion of gender oppression is directed against women. There is almost certainly a more accurate name. But changing the name would accomplish so little that sparring over the name feels like a distraction rather than progress.

headmelted 8y ago
I can see your point. What I'm saying is rather that the term itself encompasses a broader array of views than we're discussing here. I think to simplify it to "equal rights" isn't exactly congruent to what every adherent to the term holds as it's sole meaning.

KirinDave 8y ago

If you actually prioritized these rights then you'd recognize that specific groups who are especially disadvantaged by historical racist and sexist precedents would obviously have the most incentive to speak on societal reform, and therefore obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some group other than rich white men? That it is named "feminism" in this specific incarnation is an ephemeral and uninteresting detail. If this is genuinely your only sticking point, then call yourself a social egalitarian and stop demanding other folks conform to your private nomenclature. If, as it seems is more likely, this is a fig leaf to push back against what you see as the loss of privileges held by white men in society? Too bad: you're assuredly losing these, as they come at a high cost to everyone else.

headmelted 8y ago
This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. "obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some group other than rich white men?" I'm not rich. I never said I was white (as it happens I am, but that's neither here nor there - why are you trying to start a racial argument?) And why is your statement obviously correct as you put it? "stop demanding other folks conform to your private nomenclature" I didn't demand anything at all. Did you even read what I wrote? My point was the term is applied ambiguously, making the meaning unclear. "this is a fig leaf to push back against what you see as the loss of privileges held by white men in society? Too bad: you're assuredly losing these, as they come at a high cost to everyone else." This is a dramatic, well-crafted response.. to something that was never said in the first place. None of this is even the most ridiculous part of your comment, which is surely the over-arching notion that any opinions you feel over your own privileges and how you've arrived at them are shared by everyone else on the internet who you assume is of the same skin colour and gender. I believe very strongly in actual equality, as do most people describing themselves as feminists that I've spoken to, as I stated. In short - please don't misconstrue my statements in an effort to make me look intolerant and bigotted. It debases a valid discussion, and I personally find it deeply offensive. Now as I don't like to be confrontational about something so serious I would like to end by saying something kind; I'm proud of you that you used the words intersectional, ephemeral and nomenclature correctly in your post.