I may be taking something of a step back here.
I’ve talked about feminism a few times before, what it means to me, what it means to someone else, and how it relates to skepticism or men’s rights. It’s been an important theme to much of my engagement with the rest of the internet, and something I’ve argued about on a number of occasions with some degree of passion and interest.
Now I’m wondering if I even know what it means.
I haven’t suddenly shifted my views on anything real, or not all that much. But I think my interpretation of the term “feminism” itself bears some examination.
I wanted to talk about this even before I read Holly’s post on Imaginary Feminism and recognised so many infuriating factors of certain critiques of “feminism” that I keep encountering. I slightly take issue with the word “imaginary”, because it’s sadly not true that the kind of feminism she’s describing doesn’t exist. The examples she cites – Valerie Solanas, Phyllis Schlafly, and the rest – are all real people, who really believed the things they said, and continue to have supporters.
It’s the way it’s all lumped together that’s the problem. As Holly says, one of the primary straw-man claims about feminism is that it’s monolithic. Solanas et al. were feminists, and so it’s assumed that anyone else who identifies as a feminist, or writes from a feminist perspective, or promotes an agenda of empowering women and calls it feminism, can’t possibly also believe in things like sexual positivity, and must be seeking to actively disempower men.
A big part of the problem is people who insist on seeing feminism this way. I know people who look at this extreme bloc of thinkers – and more contemporary writers like Bidisha and Kat Banyard – and think that’s what feminism is. And while ideas like theirs certainly deserve to be criticised, turning it into a deliberate effort at feminist-bashing might well alienate people who would otherwise agree with you, if they identify as feminists themselves but mean something very different by it.
But I think a lot of the problem comes from the word itself.
Since so many different feminists have such different ideas on what it means, is it too vague a term to really mean anything? There are no doubt some feminists who do hate men, and for whom that is a defining part of their idea of feminism. But even aside from this extreme minority, there are various conflicting ideas on how to work for equality, and what equality means, and where things like sex work and men’s rights fit into that equality.
As well as a (possible) feminist, I’m an atheist, and there’s a degree of disagreement within the atheist community about what that label means as well. But there isn’t the same wild variety of opinions within atheism as in feminism – or rather, opinions only tend to vary on unrelated subjects, or peripheral details like the tone of atheists’ public engagement. What it means to not believe in God is one of the more straightfoward aspects.
It’s less straightforward to believe the radical notion, as the bumper sticker goes, “that women are people”. This was a definition of feminism pinned to the bedroom wall of one of my ex-housemates, and is less than helpful in explaining things. You’d have to go a long way to find someone who’ll disagree that women are people, in any literal, biological sense. But if it’s meant to be taken in a more nuanced, metaphorical way, then it doesn’t help resolve the many disagreements over how this should be done.
Similarly, everyone who’s not dangerously insane would agree that men should have rights. That’s not the same as saying women shouldn’t have rights, or that men particularly need to defend their rights against a horde of angry women who want to strip them all away. And yet the “Men’s Rights Movement” has an unfortunate tendency to be a mess of bitterness and misogyny. The equivalent of certain brands of misandrist feminism, I suppose.
But because there are so many differing views under the massive “feminist” umbrella, the opposition to feminism is necessarily just as disjointed and scattered in what it thinks it’s against.
The flavours of anti-feminism that I’ve generally encountered before (as regular readers may recall) have tended to be sophisticated and progressive. It’s dead set against things like the stereotyping of gender and sexuality roles, victimisation of women, and downplaying or ridiculing of men’s rights, which it often observes in mainstream feminism.
And it’s true that all those things are present in feminism to some degree, and I support anyone taking a stand against them. But going after the whole feminist movement, or all feminists, for these particular transgressions means you’re liable to frustrate and alienate a lot of potential allies.
They forget that the more historically prevalent kind of “anti-feminism” has wanted women to stay in the kitchen all day, looking after the children, not bothering their husbands with any domestic chores or having any vocational aspirations of their own, and not worrying their pretty heads over any silly things like being allowed to vote.
This is what most feminists are opposed to. They’re usually not against the idea of respecting men, or acknowledging and respecting people’s complex and nuanced decisions on gender identity and sexuality. Even those feminists who are against the very existence of strip clubs or pornography or prostitution are often attempting to express a compassionate notion of liberalism, not crushing people’s rights for their own convenience.
Being an “anti-feminist” these days may mean that you endorse and support ideas wholly compatible with many people’s idea of feminism.
So I have to wonder whether the terminology’s that much use to me.
feminists love the word ‘straw man’ or ‘straw woman’ or ‘straw feminist’
I don’t know what the fuck that is. I do know that my actual regular and recent encounters with a variety of feminists/isms, have all left the same bitter taste in my mouth, and have often led to me being banned from websites and blogs and twitters, including the lovely Kat Banyard and Bidisha’s.
I am sticking to my ‘anti-feminist’ stance. I don’t really care what you call yourself. But feminism is no friend of men. That is my honest belief.
I wrote about the “straw man” fallacy here. Basically, it involves arguing against all these terrible things which your opponents supposedly believe, but which don’t actually represent their position.
“I don’t believe in God.” “Your claim that every Catholic priest is a pedophile is offensive and misinformed.”
That kind of thing. It’d be similar in a discussion that went:
“I’m a feminist.” “Why do you hate men?”
That’s a frustrating conversation to be in, because I know many people who identify as feminists and who don’t hate men. Having said that, there are those who do, and decrying misandry is absolutely a justified thing to do. It only becomes a fallacy when you start ascribing positions to all feminists which they just don’t hold.
I can totally understand your being entirely soured to the whole thing by people like Banyard and Bidisha. If I thought that’s what feminism was, I might be an anti-feminist myself. But their branch hasn’t been a big part of my own experience with feminism as a whole.
I’m not saying I think you’d change your mind about anything substantial if you just saw things my way, incidentally. I don’t mean to dismiss your opinions themselves as a product of bitter experiences, I just think it’s unfortunate the extent to which other largely benign feminists are getting swept up in things that don’t relate to them.
Saying “feminists disregard men’s rights” seems sort of like saying “Muslims blow themselves up” or “priests rape children” or “scientists hate religion” or “anti-feminists disregard women’s rights”. The subsection for whom it’s true are worth opposing; the rest are more likely to be alienated by the generalisation.
My point was really that the terms “feminism” and “anti-feminism” mean such varied things, and require so much clarification before you can pin down what a feminist or an anti-feminist actually thinks, that they might not be much use.
just read Holly’s post. didn’t like it. Can’t really say much more than that except one massive problem of ALL feminists including you,dear, is that you just can’t see why ANYONE would disagree with you, on a basic philosophical level.
It’s ARROGANT!
Like people who argue with feminism do so because they have MISUNDERSTOOD or only seen ONE aspect or are being NASTY or STUPID.
I have been in feminism all my life. I get it.
You’re doing it again James. You are making out I dismiss feminism because I just ‘don’t understand’.
and this is not true. The fact is I know a lot more about feminism than you do. How can I not? I was brought up by pioneering feminists in the 1970s. I have done a pHD in gender studies. I have run women’s organisations. I went to Greenham in the 1980s, I demonstrated against Alton’s anti-abortion bill. I campaigned against Victoria Gillick. I’ve read Natasha Walters and Dale Spender and Germaine Greer and bell hooks.
I don’t know what to say. I respect your views but please stop patronising me. I know that Bidisha is like an ‘attack dog’ for the Guardian feminists to make the other writers look more ‘reasonable’ but they all come out with the same shit day in day out, that I analyse on Graunwatch and my own blog. I have clarified my position over and over.
It is not a ‘straw man’ (which I do know what that word means I am just saying I don’t think it is an actual ‘thing’) that I am talking to/about it is the actual substance of feminism across the board.
If someone tells me they are feminist I do not say ‘why do you hate men’. But if a feminist uses misandry in an argument I point that out when I see it.
I had tried to explain that that’s not what I’m saying, and I apologise if it didn’t work. I didn’t actually say that you “don’t understand” anything, and I don’t doubt that your knowledge of the ideas that have shaped and surrounded feminism is thorough.
But what I mean by feminism (if I even use the word to refer to one particular thing) is clearly different from what you mean by it. And one result of this is that, when you talk about the problems of feminism and the various things that feminsts do, I may feel like I’m being unfairly caught up in this fight, not because of any objectionable views I hold, but because of the label I’ve found it most useful to describe them.
It may in fact turn out that the overwhelming majority of feminists do take the positions you find abhorrent, and I’ve only ever paid attention to a very small sect who find Bidisha about as objectionable as you do, but I’d be surprised if my sense of proportion has been that way off. I’m pretty sure there’s a sizeable proportion of self-identifying feminists who, like me, would potentially accept a lot of the points you make against many standard feminist refrains, but are turned off from hearing them by the way it’s turned into a crusade against all feminism and feminists.
Ok I will try once more!
This is why I reject ALL feminisms.
1) Feminism is based on an assumption that overall, men as a group hold power in society and this power, damages women as a group.
2) The above assumption, no matter what feminists say, relies on a belief in and a reinforcement of the essentialist binary view of gender (i.e. that male v female men v women masculine v feminine are real and important distinctions)
3) This means that in order to present these assumptions as ‘fact’, men are demonised by feminism as a whole. Feminism is, by its very nature, misandrist. e.g. concepts such as ‘rape culture’ and ‘rape’ and ‘patriarchy’ and ‘the male gaze’ and ‘objectification’ rely on making out men are not decent people
4) The focus on men’s power of women in ‘patriarchal’ society ignores other divisions between people and is essentially, ‘heteronormative’. It makes out the role of heterosexual men and women is the one that is dominant in society.
5) Feminism does not allow for these above challenges to be made to it without it having a hissy fit or banning its critics from websites/fora or saying ‘but you don’t understand’ or ‘feminism is not monolithic’.
If you reject all the numbered points that I attribute to feminism, then I respectfully suggest that you are not a feminist. If you don’t reject them, then I reject your feminism.
OK I am going to take it then that you do identify as feminist according to my definition and therefore I reject feminism outright. Unless I hear otherwise!
Thanks.
[…] https://cubiksrube.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/fem-vs-fem/#comments […]
The following website, if you haven’t seen it yet, explains quite a bit from the “anti” side:
http://gynotheory.blogspot.com
I would add, that the growing consensus in the non-feminist community is to stigmatize all use of the word feminist as a label. In other words, if somebody claims the word “feminist” as a self-descriptor — regardless of what THEY think the word means — then they should be prepared to take some heat for it.