OK. Exhibit A: right to vote.
How’s that one fit, again? Long thread.
Are you actually attempting to debate, this time? After your non-answers last go 'round, I’m not thrilled at the prospect.
But as a preliminary: is it your contention that the cultural mores around, and legal status of, women were fixed and unchanging in all eras and places? Because your questions only make sense if that’s the case.
OK. Rebuttal A: do your homework. The suffragettes and suffragists fought for the right of privileged upper- and middle-class women to have the vote, leaving most men and women without it.
How does that truth fit your ideology?
Are you addressing the arguer and not the argument? I thought that was frowned on on this board (though not so much in this thread…)
Evidence please. Pro tip: despite the feminist redefinition of ‘equality’, abusing others is not the equal of argument or evidence.
No, my questions make sense in the case of UK/US mores, which most of us are talking about. If women are property in the slave sense (the real sense) elsewhere, then go there and do something about it. Berating men for spreading their legs on the subway while ignoring women occupying both adjacent seats with property (actual property, presumably most often bought with men’s money, because we ‘know’ that ‘patriarchy’ only pays women 77 cents etc ) is sexism - I don’t like sexism…regardless of which sex it impacts…because any other criticism of sexism is, well, sexist.
Here’s a thing - try and convince me to be pro-feminism again. I used to be a feminist. As previously noted, my position hasn’t changed.
We were bound to Godwin this sooner or later, so let me state:
- It’s possible to be a proud, patriotic German without being a Nazi. It’s possible to be anti-sexist without being a feminist.
- Not all feminists are vile, misandric bigots. Not all nazi party members actually murdered jews.
Oh, and necessarily, 3) No analogy is a perfect replica - if it were, it wouldn’t be an analogy. It would be an identity.
Should I have called you uneducated instead? I’m so confused now.
Evidence for me not being thrilled at the prospect of engaging with you? Well, there’s this post, and our previous exchange.
In case it was somehow unclear, I am not arguing that women in the U.S. or the UK in 2015 are considered property, legally or otherwise.
The rest of the above has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
No thanks.
Again, nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
To clarify - Are you stating that the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed all American women the right to vote, only gave that right to some American women?
Second - if you’re debating that 100 years ago right to vote advocates (clearly only some of them, see my first point) only felt that some women were entitled to vote, you could make exactly the same point about men. And how is that relevant to this thread anyway?
I think we wandered off to this point because someone had the nerve to suggest that women throughout known history have been treated as second class citizens, even property (hat-tipping aside).
Someone asked for examples. Have some. It gets depressing very fast.
The right to vote
The right not to be beaten or killed by father, family or spouse
The right to own property in their own name
The right to earn and keep their own income
The right to decide whom to marry
The right to have sex outside of marriage
The right to keep their life if they are raped or otherwise considered unpure
The right to an education
The right to live outside of their father’s household as an adult, without a husband
The right to do research and publish the results under their own names
The right to have their own names - to this day society expects that my name is patronymic. I take my father or my husband’s name. The better to know to whom I belong.
So what if upper class women got the door opened, they still didn’t get anything else. Unless their FATHER felt like indulging them with an education and some pin money. The fact that we’ve been climbing a slow hill up does not mean that you, or anyone, gets to point to something that happened relatively recently historically speaking (in the last 100-150 years) and say, “this means there were never any issues that needed to be resolved.” For that matter, the fact that things are better in the US or Europe doesn’t mean that things aren’t horrific in Africa or Asia. Crack open a history book. Do some research.
All of which brings us back to why “feminism” in all of its multi-faceted glory exists in the first place, as well as how long its been growing and developing.
Can we just move this thread to the Pit now? We’re just circling.
No, that would still be addressing the arguer and not the argument. Perhaps another example of the error would help: “You’re not very good at this, are you?”
As an aside, you’d also have been wrong.
Nope, evidence for whatever it was you claimed (“non-answers”? Was that it? I’m not keeping track, it doesn’t seem worth it).
Nor was I, although as I said, even in 2015 my instinct is still to walk on the outside of the pavement (“sidewalk”). But my examples do spring from the training boys got as to how to be men through the time of the suffragettes etc. Stop wriggling and address the way US and UK (and other white western capitalist cis hetero patriarchal oppressors) treated property (slaves) and the way they treated women.
No, you didn’t say anything about supporting feminism, you just attacked the arguer and not the argument. I introduced the challenge to re-affirm my faith in feminism - and you ducked it. I can only assume it’s because you have no way of doing it (and stretch that to suppose you cynically support an untenable hate movement because you figure it’ll get you laid more often).
Your ego aside, what I said has a lot to do with…what I said. You’re under no obligation to respond to it…which is just as well, eh? 
Indeed it is. I’m not interested in trading barbs with you, and you evidently know no other way to post.
Ah, evidence. Try some. I know many ways to post. I respond to the content of your posts. If that seems barbed, well, it takes two to tango. Oh, and as an aside, you’re still just attacking the arguer. We know that you and I have different view points. Complaining that I don’t share yours is not an actual argument.
Meanwhile, I repeat my invitation to you, and all: tell me why I should be a feminist. Hell, tell me why you’re a feminist, if that’s the best you can do, but please bear in mind the points I enumerated earlier.
Do you have any evidence of this? Any place where a suffragette expressed a desire for women to be given the right to vote and simultaneously expressed a desire to see property used as a gatepost to voting?
Your argument is that the only way to view human property is through the lens of slavery. It is not.
Labor property is slavery. Honor and decorative property does not have to conform to the practices of slavery.
I find it a handy rule of thumb to suppose that any response, to anything or anyone, that begins “Are you saying […]?” always demands the answer “No, of course not, why would I be playing into your strawman?”
I’m not american, nor did I mention the 19th amendment. I did mention the suffragettes and suffragists, who fought for the ‘right’ of some women to vote while ignoring the voting rights of most men and most women. Address that, it would make you look so much clever than your tawdry little strawman.
“If”. See above.
No, hat-tipping and standing up and walking on the outside etc doesn’t get to be put aside (unless your argument is “Facts aside…”) We know what it is to make humans the property of other humans - it happened to men and women alike in many different ways around the world throughout history.
We just covered the right to vote - once we had monarchs, with absolute rule (kings * and* queens). Along the way we had suffragettes arguing for some women to get the vote and most men (and women) not to.
Really, I’m not going to waste my time on a ‘knowledge’ of history derived from tumblr feminism. It’s all been a history of extending privilege, which was sometimes held by women at the expense of most men. That you rely on men thinking what they had is more important than what women had is effective, I grant you. I’ve been a primary caregiver - a stay-at-home dad. I valued it more than any job and any amount of money I’ve ever had…at least until that marriage ended and I realised I was doubly ******.
The point was, they clearly weren’t property. Try to keep up.
I thought it was because patriarchy damaged both genders? Did I get that wrong too, or did you just forget to mention one?
We could be moving forward - I invited arguments as to why I should be a feminist again. Nobody seems to have any. Let’s just pit people who disagree with our treasured ideologies, that sounds like progress…
Hey, I’m evidently a glutton for punishment, so I’ll take one final stab at this in good faith in the hope that you’ll return it. If it goes well, maybe we can back up and actually discuss the issues here.
To answer your questions in reverse order:
I’m a feminist because I believe in gender equality. Due to the historical power imbalance between the genders, more often that not the inequality causes more harm to women than to men. But, to reiterate: traditional gender norms and social structures hurt women and men alike.
For example: I am a Southerner. There’s a concept in Southern culture, likely brought over by the Scots-Irish, that dishonor must be repaid with violence.. This affects white and black Southerners alike, and is to blame for at least a portion of the elevated homicide rate in the South and among Southern diaspora.
That more, that dishonor must be repaid with violence? It only applies to men. Women are exempt from the expectation that they fight or kill to preserve their reputation. Instead, women have their own, parallel, system: gossip and shaming.
This system is objectively worse for men than it is for women. Women end up ostracized; men end up dead or in prison. To the extent I have any influence over it at all (which isn’t much), I try to break the cycle of this system being transmitted to the next generation.
To your next question: why should you be a feminist? Because it’s a movement that, fringes aside, seeks gender equality, and has shown the ability to make real strides toward that equality. Are there vapid feminist ideas? Of course; there are millions of feminists. Is it possible to believe in and work toward gender equality outside a feminist framework? Sure, I imagine so. Opposition to feminist isn’t always based in sexism.
What a tempting invitation. Your hoops are just lovely, and made of solid impenetranium at that! Gosh!
Pretty poorly. Why?
Now, I’m a very dumb person, but I was under the impression that the proposition at issue was whether or not patriarchy has historically acted on behalf of the imperative to protect women at the expense of men. Why were suffragettes/ists necessary in the first place?
I still question your concept of ‘evidence’, but ok…
Failed already. I believe in gender equality (I practise it, too). And yet I’m not a feminist. Feminism doesn’t have the monopoly.
The ‘fringes’ of misandry and violent hatred and suppression of free speech and opposing viewpoints, can’t be so casually tossed aside. It’s not even ‘fringe’, it’s right there at the heart and root of the ideology.
So I should be a feminist because you are? At the risk of taking your lead (and attacking the arguer not the argument), that don’t sway me.
So, this position of believing and practicing gender equality - is there a word to describe that?
Actually, as is to be expected in a thread with as wide-ranging a title as ‘anti-feminism’, there’s plenty of propositions to get a hold of here. I’ve not engaged with the one you mention, but I can see how easily an ideologue might blur their opposition into a single mishmash of blurry indistinguishable enemies. It’s so much easier that way.
If it helps, I’m the one who asked for positive reasons to be a feminist (with the caveat that I ruled out some go-to choices that are insufficiently robust). Have a crack at that, if you like.
While you’re here, we’ve established that suff’s (let’s save some typing) were ‘necessary’ (for a definition of necessary that is as inaccurate as a feminist definition of equality) because some women wanted to have more power than other women and men. What of it?
Egalitarianism, with the bonus that it covers a whole bunch of other accidents of birth too.
Oh, and there was me thinking I might get a halfway decent answer from you at least. Why should I be a feminist, jsgoddess? Bearing in mind that I can be pro-gender-equality without it, and that I don’t care to be even accidentally associated with all the evil done in its name?