No, it isn’t. The whole point of humanism is that there’s no division and that there should be a rational basis for the treatment of all people. This rational basis doesn’t change if you have a Y chromosome or not. Once you begin to segregate groups out, and explicitly say that your agenda doesn’t even consider billions of humans on the planet, then you can’t call yourself a humanist.
Your argument is a bit like saying that a campaign solely directed at providing affordable health care to coal miners is really a “universal health care philosophy”. It’s not. Neither is feminism a humanist philosophy.
If you believe that everybody deserves equality under the law and equal pay for equal work, then you’re a humanist. If you can’t be bothered with the rest of humanity, and only want to make sure that women get a good deal, then it’s disingenuous to cast that as a humanist philosophy.
And as well, enough social pressure applied relentlessly enough can produce quite “un-natural” behavior. The fact that so many people in countries where they can get away with non-standard gender behavior still prefer that behavior implies a fair amount of hardwiring. Freedom and opportunity tends to produce more genetically determined behavior, by removing other factors.
You’re oversimplifying, and being a bit disingenuous. People can, and are, both feminists and humanists. Misogyny is real, and acting against it is feminism. It is part of the broader work for equalism.It’s not an either/or proposition.
I had no qualms putting ‘girl’ clothes on my son when he wasn’t out in public. He was just going to throw up, pee, or poop on 'em anyway. Baby clothes, I mean.
I don’t think I’m quite understanding, sorry. Do you mean that conservative men generally won’t agree with feminists?
Also: feminism isn’t about making men happy, ok - but surely part of it is about fitting mens’ and women’s lives together in a meaningful way, without subjugating either one to the other?
Sure it is. But if the main people who are pleased with your “feminism” are men who like strict gender roles in society, well, you need to think about why that is. I don’t think conservative men generally do agree with feminists (duh), and if they mainly agree with your interpretation of feminism, then you probably don’t fit under the umbrella of modern feminist thought. Or you aren’t expressing yourself so people understand what you mean. Or Something. It’s something to look at if you are, like the OP, thinking about how your views fit in with what is generally regarded as feminism.
Feminism isn’t about making men happy, but it isn’t about making them unhappy either. It’s about ending misogyny and securing equal rights for all women. It really isn’t about men at all. (Although, as I said, there is certainly a place for men in the conversation)
ETA: I’m not really talking about Sarafeena in the first part of this. It’s a general concern, not one I think she necessarily falls into.
Just a couple of comments about what you have said in this post. I want to make it clear that I do not have a background in the academic study of feminism, but have come to my opinion about it mostly through my own personal life experiences and ideas. Also, I am not concerned with what men–conservative, liberal, or otherwise–think about what I believe. Or, really, women, for that matter. If they agree or are happy about it, fine, if not, that’s fine, too. I don’t hold any opinion with the intention of satisfying anyone other than myself.
Come to think of it, I also dispute that conservatives–men and women–can’t be feminists. I am a political conservative/libertarian type, and so is my husband (more so than I am). He supports me 100% and is as thoroughly feminist as anyone when it comes to my points about gender equality, equal opportunities, etc.
Conservatives, by definition, want things to stay the same. Feminism is about changing women’s opportunities in society. They are naturally at odds with one another. But conservatives =/= Republicans. Conservatives =/= people of faith. I mean it in a more “textbook definition” sense of the term.
You do care, because you started a thread on it. Any commentary or criticism I offered was meant in the context of this thread, not as some overall critique of your life. You asked what feminism was, and if you are a feminist. I was trying to answer as someone who identifies with the movement.
Well, as I said to WhyNot, I think the important thing is that we encourage our children’s interests and talents, and not label them according to their sex. On the other hand, I think it’s important to support women who choose the role of, say, homemaker, or even a traditionally feminine career (like teacher! I remember saying to my mother when I was a small child that I wanted to be a nurse. She said, “no, be a doctor!” While I get now what she was trying to do, I think that some women, you know, want to be nurses, and that’s great. In my mother’s day, that might have been a substitute for going to medical school, but if it’s a person’s true vocation, then that’s what they should do, regardless of their sex.
I get what you’re saying, but in the case of pursuing interests, I’m not sure it’s the same. If we expose our children to all kinds of interesting things, and they choose some they particularly like, then I think it’s wise to help them develop those interests, regardless of what it might be.
I don’t disagree with any of that, thank you for making the point.
Yes, you and I are working with different definitions of conservativism. To my way of thinking, conservatives wnat society to progress through the freethinking efforts of the individual, not through government intervention. Therefore, to me, conservativism is not at all at odds with feminism, but indeed supports it.
Well, I care in the sense that I’m interested in what you think, not in the sense that I’m going to change my mind if you don’t like it! I see your point, but I respectfully disagree with it. I think you are right that feminism isn’t about making men happy, but I’m not going to change my ideas about it based on what men think…if they like it, fine. If they don’t, that’s fine, too. As you say, it’s not about me.
I don’t think you should change your mind and I was careful not to say that. What I was saying is that it’s something you should think about. There is a strand of faux-feminism that seeks mainly to reassure and please men. It’s exemplified by groups like Concerned Women for America. Now, they may have a few ideas that feminists would agree with, but as a whole they exist to co-opt feminist language in order to opress women.
Now this is a sticky debate, because, you know, what is a real feminist? If Concerned Women for America say they are feminists, what right do I have to say they aren’t? There’s a pretty long debate to be had about that, but I understood your question to be about mainstream, modern feminist thought.
Also, about being a homemaker. Or a Republican. Or a sex worker. Or pro-life, or whatever. I can’t say there aren’t women who will tell you you aren’t a feminist if you hold these ideas. There are. But I think for most feminists, it’s about informed choice. If they have a problem with homemaking, it’s not the individual women staying at home with their kids. It’s about questioning the role of motherhood in society, and whether that is valued properly, and whether women are really able to make these choices, from an economic standpoint and from the standpoint of societal expectations. It can be really hard when a personal choice you make is deemed “unfeminist”, it can feel like an attack. But I think it’s really important to understand in most of these situations its an attack on society, not on individual women making choices the best they know how. And I think a lot of women hear these discussions, and feel maligned, and step away, when what we need to do is all talk together about the decisions we make, and why. It’s an ongoing discussion, and I think every one should be a part of it.
This is what I don’t quite understand about femimism. What, today in the US in 2008, is there left to change about women’s opportunities? Things unique to women, that is, not to poor people.
I don’t consider myself a feminist. I think they did a great job in the past, but I don’t see much left to fight for that would level the playing field rather than give us an advantage.
Some of her research is controversial but not all of it is. The main controversy I’m aware of in regards to Mead’s work has to do with Samoa and not her studies in New Guinea. At any rate she is still respected for her pioneering work.
As to your first point I would have to agree but then we have to figure out what is natural and unnatural behavior. The thrust of Mead’s research indicates that gender roles are largely determined by culture and not some sort of biological imperative.
Your second point is unsupported and a bit vague. Just because people widely adhere to the socially accepted gender roles when they can “get away” with bucking them does not prove it is just the natural way the sexes behave. If an individual has been taught from day one that boys do this and girls do that it might not occur to a girl to even try to do what a boy does. Also, what exactly do you mean by “get away” with regards to behavior. Nobody gets away scot free from bucking social conventions. It will generally affect them in some way, shape, or form.
What behaviors do you see that provide evidence for genetically determined behavior among the sexes?
Except that being a political conservative doesn’t really mean you want things to stay the same. Many political conservatives want abortion to be illegal which would be a change from the current status. So the appellation of conservative has a bit more meaning than wanting things to stay the same.
That’s a really interesting point. So, you think that the more free we are to choose our own path, the more we will tend to follow a kind of “biological destiny,” so to speak? That does make sense to a certain degree, although I think that many feminists would not appreciate that analysis!
Abortion was a change from the status quo that conservatives want to roll back. Progressivism, as a whole, is about society evolving in a way it never has before.
I’m not in love with these terms; if anyone knows a better, more accurate name, I’m all for it. I think I’m describing a phenomenon we know and understand, and I’m not interested in arguing semantics, If you knew or prefer a different name for this philosophy, I’m all for it. How about Traditionalist? Maybe that better conveys what I mean.
Firstly, just because women are equal under the law in the US, that doesn’t mean there isn’t still a lot of work to be done on achieving that worldwide. Feminism is a global movement, and many American feminists do a lot of wonderful work around the world.
Secondly, there is still a lot of lingering misogyny in American society, from unrealistic standards of beauty, to the low prosecution rates for rape. Feminism works to eliminate these problems.
If you don’t think there’s any bias against women anywhere in America, or that women have achieved equality all over the world, well, I have to disagree. But if you do see this, and you are against it, then you understand the need for feminism.
His point would be a lot more interesting if it had any basis in reality. But it doesn’t.
For example, in every country when women have the right to control their fertility, they overwhelmingly choose to delay having children, and to have less of them. If it were true that more choice resulted in more people choosing their “biological destiny”, wealthier women would have more children than poorer women, but in fact the opposite is true. The more choices a woman has, the more likely she is to rebel from her biology and limit her offspring.
True, but most women still do not choose to have no children at all. So, they are still satisfying their maternal drive, but with less hardship. This is not what I would consider truly overthrowing biology, but rather trying to control it to some degree.
Any commentary or criticism I offered was meant in the context of this thread, not as some overall critique of your life. You asked what feminism was, and if you are a feminist. I was trying to answer as someone who identifies with the movement.
I remember saying to my mother when I was a small child that I wanted to be a nurse. She said, “no, be a doctor!” While I get now what she was trying to do, I think that some women, you know, want to be nurses, and that’s great. In my mother’s day, that might have been a substitute for going to medical school, but if it’s a person’s true vocation, then that’s what they should do, regardless of their sex.
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree with it. I think you are right that feminism isn’t about making men happy, but I’m not going to change my ideas about it based on what men think…if they like it, fine. If they don’t, that’s fine, too. As you say, it’s not about me.