• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Can a person be a feminist and not subscribe to patriarchy theory?

 
 
 
repoman

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
8,617
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Not trying to be a conspiratorial dickhead, but is feminism sort of like some religions (Scientology) where they say that there beliefs are very simple but when you get in further do you find a bunch a rules and tenets that were not mentioned in the pitch?

Patriarchy seems to be one of those, unless a person came into feminism through college coursework.
 
I'm a feminist, and I'm not familiar with patriarchy theory. Therefore, it is possible to be a feminist without subscribing.
 
What's "a feminist"?

If I believe women should be treated equally under the law is that sufficient?
 
Yes, of course. You can also be a libertarian and think that elevator inspectors are a good idea or be a communist and believe something that isn't just completely batshit crazy.

You don't need to subscribe to every tenent of a philosophy in order to be a follower of that philosophy.
 
But is the belief in patriarchy a core tenet of the majority of feminist or academic feminists?

after about 25 seconds of swearing patriarchy is mentioned:

 
repoman said:
Not trying to be a conspiratorial dickhead, but is feminism sort of like some religions (Scientology) where they say that there beliefs are very simple but when you get in further do you find a bunch a rules and tenets that were not mentioned in the pitch?

Patriarchy seems to be one of those, unless a person came into feminism through college coursework.
Click to expand...

What exactly is patriarchy theory?
 
"feminist" is a word that is almost exactly like "atheist", wherein the word itself is referring to something extremely basic and simple, but then people attach all sorts of contextual meaning to it that has nothing to do with the term in and of itself.

you can be a feminist and not subscribe to the patriarch theory the same way you can be an atheist and not think all catholics are child raping serial killers.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Well, it depends on the definition of "feminist". And while you will get people willing to give some definitions, you won't find people willing to answer my rather simple question on the subject.

Is the Femitheist a feminist?
Click to expand...

She can be anything she wants to be. She has as much right to call herself what she will as anyone else. she is more than able to introduce an entire new school of feminist thought. Now will her ideas inspire a large following and acceptance as feminist? That is another question. That depends on the ideas.
 
I think the point is that I also have to know what Patriarchy means to the people who use the term with frequency - and some do use the term a lot.

I can understand what biological evolution is or what the rules of trigonometry are because those are objective matters of knowledge. Patriarchy is more tricky - which is not to say it is not valid at all.

But I think that going from a point of view of looking at power structures in society that damage people, patriarchy is more of a symptom of people in power being rapacious than a cause of problems.

I think that the use of patriarchy as a catch-all reason why people think/feel things automatically without even understanding them is what annoys me.
 
AthenaAwakened said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Well, it depends on the definition of "feminist". And while you will get people willing to give some definitions, you won't find people willing to answer my rather simple question on the subject.

Is the Femitheist a feminist?
Click to expand...

She can be anything she wants to be. She has as much right to call herself what she will as anyone else. she is more than able to introduce an entire new school of feminist thought. Now will her ideas inspire a large following and acceptance as feminist? That is another question. That depends on the ideas.
Click to expand...

So ...

Either she is because she calls herself one, meaning that the term means nothing since anyone can call oneself a feminist, or her views do not fit into any reasonable definition of feminism.

Sure she CAN be anything she wants to be, but do the views she expressed on the other side of the links I provided anything within the definition of feminism? Not anything theoretical about how she can change her views, but based on the views expressed.
 
repoman said:
Not trying to be a conspiratorial dickhead, but is feminism sort of like some religions (Scientology) where they say that there beliefs are very simple but when you get in further do you find a bunch a rules and tenets that were not mentioned in the pitch?

Patriarchy seems to be one of those, unless a person came into feminism through college coursework.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time there was a brilliant concept called "women's liberation", being spread about by people called women's libbers. The great deficiency of this concept, apparently, was that it wasn't an "ism" -- all it was was liberating women. So it was necessary to add something, perhaps beliefs or rules or tenets, perhaps something else, whatever it takes to ismize what would otherwise be nothing but a damn good idea. So to those who subscribe to feminism but not to patriarchy theory, what is it you subscribe to instead, that makes feminism an "ism"?
 
This is an example of the divide between hard and soft subjects. I think that soft subjects by their nature afford more leeway for a person defining themselves. How much leeway is where the skirmishes start.

A scientist could call himself an evolutionary scientist and be a Lamarckist, but no one would respect him professionally and it would cast a pall over otherwise good work he would do.
 
nice post Bomb#20,

I think that this is the trickle down in society from academia where people get tenured, published and notoriety from having clearly defined (and often overreaching) theories in the social sciences.

Then you get all their disciples mouthing their scriptures to the masses.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
AthenaAwakened said:
She can be anything she wants to be. She has as much right to call herself what she will as anyone else. she is more than able to introduce an entire new school of feminist thought. Now will her ideas inspire a large following and acceptance as feminist? That is another question. That depends on the ideas.
Click to expand...

So ...

Either she is because she calls herself one, meaning that the term means nothing since anyone can call oneself a feminist, or her views do not fit into any reasonable definition of feminism.

Sure she CAN be anything she wants to be, but do the views she expressed on the other side of the links I provided anything within the definition of feminism? Not anything theoretical about how she can change her views, but based on the views expressed.
Click to expand...

Which feminism are you talking about? Domestic, Liberal, Radical?

Here is list from WIKI

1 Movements and ideologies
1.1 Liberal
1.2 Anarchist
1.3 Socialist and Marxist
1.4 Radical
1.5 Cultural
1.6 Separatist and lesbian
1.7 Black and womanist
1.8 Chicana
1.9 Asian American
1.10 Native American
1.11 Multiracial
1.12 Postcolonial
1.13 Third-world
1.14 Standpoint
1.15 Libertarian
1.16 Post-structural
1.17 Postmodern
1.18 French
1.19 Environmental
1.20 Transfeminism

are you asking about the woman herself or about what is the core nature of feminism? Are you asking if feminists can disagree and still each be a feminist? Are you trying to play a game of GOTCHA?

BTW, if the idea is to get me to play your game on your court by your rules, that will not be happening :)
 
repoman said:
This is an example of the divide between hard and soft subjects. I think that soft subjects by their nature afford more leeway for a person defining themselves. How much leeway is where the skirmishes start.

A scientist could call himself an evolutionary scientist and be a Lamarckist, but no one would respect him professionally and it would cast a pall over otherwise good work he would do.
Click to expand...

Is is a historical fact that women across cultures and continents been denied equal rights under the law?
 
AthenaAwakened said:
repoman said:
This is an example of the divide between hard and soft subjects. I think that soft subjects by their nature afford more leeway for a person defining themselves. How much leeway is where the skirmishes start.

A scientist could call himself an evolutionary scientist and be a Lamarckist, but no one would respect him professionally and it would cast a pall over otherwise good work he would do.
Click to expand...

Is is a historical fact that women across cultures and continents been denied equal rights under the law?
Click to expand...

Yes certainly - though here have been instances where they have been treated better as well. For example, not having been conscripted and sent to die by the millions in foreign wars.

But, your last two posts raise the question: if supporting equal rights for women is what makes someone "a feminist", why are there 20 varieties of feminism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom