Over in this thread, several people use “feminist” as a pejorative: " . . . feminists don’t like people to say this, but women do have to make choices," “I am hounded a lot by feminists who insist I must not be happy,” "That’s another thing feminists don’t really want women talking about . . . "
Now, either I have a warped idea of what a feminist is, or the above-quoted posters do. I am really shocked that some still use “feminist” as an insult. I see feminists as people (men or women) who simply want equal rights, equal treatment, for men and women.
I think Femi-nazis is the word that poster is looking for. AFAIK, feminist is still not automatically an insult. But then, the term isn’t in use as much now as it was in say, the 70’s, so maybe a lot of younger people don’t really know what feminist really means.
The problem is that “feminist” has been something of a True Scotsman almost since the conept reached the public consciousness. There have always been people talking about ‘femininists’ in the ways nmentioned int he OP.
But just as common have been people defining themselves as femininists and other people not feminists. Hence we’ve seen people saying that only lesbians can be feminists, and we’ve seen people saying that people that did or promoted behaviour X (married, were housewives, gave up a career to have children, wore bras etc) were not feminists.
Of course as usual the more outrageous the claim the more publicity it got, and over the years ‘feminist’ has become synonymous in the public mind with the vocifeorus nutters in the feminsit movement, especially those who define feminsism as only what they do and talk about “what feminists want”. Hardly surprising then that people talk about 'feminsists; in less than flattering terms.
This phenomenon isn’t new to femisinsm. It’s been felt by a great many ‘movements’ where a vociferous and radical subsection has effectively claimed the public perception of the cause.
Say “environmentalist” and most people think “long hiared hippy type Greenpeace member”. That’s not representative of most environmentalists, who are average people who care about having some natural areas left, who recycle and donate to “Save the Whales”. Yet people still talk about ‘environmentalists’ as though Greenpeace was representative rather than a squeaky wheel. And the tone of the discussion will be very similar indeed ot the abovementioned references to ‘feminists’.
Say “animal rights suporter” and peope think PETA. Say “Capitalist” and people think rich WASP. Say “Star Trek Fan” and people think 40yo living in parents basement. And so on. The list is endless. In all those cases people will freely talk about “the group” just as people talk about “feminsits”. And in all cases the group is represented in their minds by the most abberant, visble and vocal sterotype.
Is it right? Probably not. It’s certainly a form of prejudicial sterotyping. But it’s something that people can’t readily help but do. When I talk about “feminists” or “environmentalists” I use those words to represent those sterotypes because the people I talk with also know what I mean. It’s an easy, if sloppy, way of communicating.
So while the dictionary definition of feminism may be fairly bland by 2005 standards the popular image is something very different. So in that respect the defintion is changing.
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
—Rebecca West, 1913
Any definition would need to be descriptive of a contingent of people, presumably people who self-identify as feminists.
Here is the popular set of terminologies for the different types of feminism as authored by Cindy Tittle Moore of soc.feminism; I’ve been in fem theory classrooms and read introductory readers and heard public speakers and more often than not this general typology of “the feminisms” is acknowledged, even if only to depart from it in some fashion.
That it is a set of several different definitions of feminism rather than a single global one is nothing new; there have been divergent forms of feminism not only throughout this wave (i.e., the feminist movement that made baby steps in the 60s and got off to a good start in the 70s) but also in the previous wave (i.e., the various feminist movements and submovements contemporary with the push for women’s suffrage from the late 1800s throug the early decades of the 1900s).
Finding a definition to encompass the entirety of feminist thought and practice is both confining and somewhat difficult (due to not wanting to confine), but I’ve always liked the sig line about feminism being the radical notion that women are people
After a moment’s musing, I would add that all feminism begins with a critical observation, that the status quo is in some unfair and unfortunate way not good for women, that it need not be that way, and that therefore something can and should be done about it.
I had never heard someone from that time period refer to herself as a feminist, so I was surprised. If that quote was from 1913 then I guess I just learned something new. Yay learning!!!
Same as what you said. It always makes me completely confused that anyone would admit to not being a feminist. I’ll probably always believe it means you think women are just as good as men and deserve all the same rights and freedoms. I still have the idea that anyone who wants to tell me what women are like needs to go to hell. I know I’m a woman and I know what I’m like and I’m going to be a feminist until people stop trying to tell me what I am and what men are because I will never want any part of that backwards stuff. The way I feel about it, that’s all feminism is about. It really doesn’t matter to me if someone says it’s something different. I’m not going to invent a brand new word to dissasociate myself. I’ve thought about it and I don’t care what any crackpot says.
To be fair, the word “feminist” is not well suited for meaning “equality.” Your definition, in which you place equal emphasis on men and women, is especially incongruous with the title.
Likewise, “Americanist” is not well suited for someone wishing to promote their belief that other nations are equal to the USA.
Or “Republicanist” to describe someone who believes Democrats and Republicans have equal value.
That’s a very good question, Eve, because few words in modern popular discourse in this country have gone through an equivalent connotative rollercoaster ride as has “feminist.”
It’s a word which, today, means little–if anything–unless you know exactly the socio-political stance of the person who utters it.
Was Betty Fridan a “true” feminist (after criticizing “second stage” feminist for ignoring the “maternal call”?
What about Camille Paglia? She has claimed to be a “feminist,” but also has said things like: “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
Phillis Schlafley (sp?)?
“Feminist” is like the word “I”: It refers to a different thing, every time a different person says it.
Eve, have you read Backlash, by Susan Faludi? Though it was written in the early 90s, it pretty much predicted how your concerns of today were about to come about.
For me (to answer your question), “feminism” is the practice of recognizing how the historical social and political power which men have held over women shapes the way in which society and politics are viewed and percieved. This, in turn, also has very real ramifications for the social and political reality women face.
To be a “feminist” is to consider these things, in a sincere way.
I think this is the big deal, leading to a schism between “believes in equal treatment of the sexes” or whatever phrasing one’s using for ‘what feminism means’ and identifying as such.
I’ve seen people burned by this in a lot of different ways, and what it often seems to come down to is, “I’m all in favor of the ideas, but the label kicked me out.” And for people who have had the ‘the label kicked me out’ thing, that’s likely an emotional response that isn’t going to be responsive to “but that’s not the dictionary definition”.
OK, how 'bout that much-ballyhooed dictionary definition?
This is the from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. (2000):
fem·i·nismn. 1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief.
fem·i·nistn. A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
Can we all begin by agreeing on this? Or not?
I’m currently reading Backlash myself, and the reason I picked it up is precisely because I personally feel the backlash right in my face almost every time I speak out for feminism these days. I feel the antifeminist reactionaries are emboldened to halt or even reverse our progress, and I’m very concerned about it.
The term itself confuses a bit. Back when (I was raised during the 2nd wave I think, or was it the 3rd?), I learnt this distinction:
feminism promotes the rights of … females. This is a good thing in times and areas where the rights of females are (much) less than that of males.
However, in that (2nd or 3rd) wave, discussion shifted to equal rights in general, and we started talking about emancipation in more general terms, applying to both men and women.
The problem with any successful liberation is that in the middle of the ongoing successful transition, the original description of the problem ceases to apply 100%.
If that were not so, it could not be so that they were getting anywhere.
It is useful, when speaking of feminism, to speak also of patriarchy. Patriarchy, as an objective, historical fact.
The context of feminism is not a hypothetical generic world that has, at certain “times and areas”, been unfair to women, while in other “times and areas” has worked to the benefit of women. Nope. The context of feminism is approximately 10 millennia of official statutory ownership and control of women by men.
In today’s world, and today’s world alone, a person can point to “times and areas” where men get the shitty end of the sexism-stick and women have both opportunities and privileges available to them and claim that the grass sometimes looks greener on the female side of the genderfence without looking like a complete and total idiot in the process.
Look, of course we all want equality and fairness for everyone, but if you find some instance of categorical oppression — where some category of people are treated unfairly and controlled because of their membership in that category — you can’t call attention to it if you’re not allowed to be vocal about the problem. Shouting about freedom and egalitarianism won’t do it, you have to say “Look over here, here’s a place where freedom and egalitarianism ain’t working!”.
In my personal experience, feminist has become less and less of a positive term as I’ve spent more time in college. The gender equality group on campus lost my respect last year after kicking out a reporter from a Take Back the Night event and then being completely ridiculous about their arguments as to why they did so. They even started their own pamphlet because, although we ran every letter they sent, they felt their views weren’t being expressed. Basically, they wanted a story written about how many people turned out (not many) and all the work that went into creating the event without letting us talk to anyone who had a personal story that they would have been willing to share and make a powerful point.
This year, they’re hosting a self-defense class, but they don’t want us to take pictures or talk about what they will teach, for fear that men will find out how to overcome their tactics. It’s ridiculous shit like that that makes me think of “feminist” as “member of a group that sits around and complains about theories and possibilities without doing anything constructive or useful to empower women.”
And I’d like to call myself a feminist. But if I ran their little group, I’d be raising money to get women in third-world countries schooling and education on family planning.
Which groups or individuals do you consider to be “anti-feminist,” that is, explicitly opposed to social/political/ecnomic equality between the sexes? I can think of a lot of groups that support policies that I think would be ultimatly harmful to women, but for almost all of them, that’s a disagreement over the ultimate outcomes of their goals. I can’t think of a single non-fringe group that actually promotes sexual inequality.
I think alot of the problem comes from very elitist feminists who seem to have swapped the old patriarchy for a NEW controlling entity. You aren’t good enough if you like to dress girly, or because you date men, or because you shave your legs, or like porn.
And naturally, most of the attention goes to the nuts like these, because hey, they’re more interesting than the normal, sane feminists.
Equivocation isn’t just a trick used in dishonest discourse, it’s also a mistake that is easily and honestly made. I see it happen all the time in my work. Because feminist has so many nuances and shades of meaning, the term itself is well nigh useless sans a more descriptive explanation. You see a feminist as one who wants women & men to be treated equally; however, another who uses the term may see it used as a guise to defend sexist notions. For example, I’ve heard the term “gender feminism” which basically emphasises the differences inherent between the sexes and then uses these alledged differences to put women on a pedestal. IIRC, Katha Pollit’s Reasonable Creatures was a pretty outrageous example of this; if we extrapolated her sexist reasoning, no adoptive mother is a legitimate mother. (It is one of the few books I’ve put down for being so offensive.)
So, I guess to answer the question, a feminist is a nonentity because the term is not viably connected with any meaningful definition. Or rather, a feminist is one who is in a class of individuals who subscribe to one or more of the myriad subsets of feminism; some of those ideologies are mutually exclusive with others.
