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

[AthenaAwakened]

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

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.

Yes because as we know, women don't live in cities and towns that are attacked in war, women are not taken as contraband of war, women don't have to live and support families after their family's breadwinner is killed in war, and women don't have husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers to worry about and mourn for as a result of war. War doesn't effect women's lives in the least.

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?

That's not all feminism is. As is evidenced by the 20 varieties.

- - - Updated - - -

So the word has no meaning, thank you.

BTW, if the idea is to get me to play your game on your court by your rules, that will not be happening

Too late.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Brer Fox said right after he threw Brer Rabbit in the briar patch.

 

[dismal]

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.

Yes because as we know, women don't live in cities and towns that are attacked in war, women are not taken as contraband of war, women don't have to live and support families after their family's breadwinner is killed in war, and women don't have husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers to worry about and mourn for as a result of war. War doesn't effect women's lives in the least.

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?

That's not all feminism is. As is evidenced by the 20 varieties.

Which is the strain that mostly involves spewing a string of unrelated grievances any time someone makes a fairly benign comment?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ok Brer Fox, I mean Athena Awakened, let us analyze your non-answer.

You gave 20 varieties of feminism.

Either there is some common element to those 20 varieties, and that is what is meant by the word "feminism", or there is no common element to those 20 varieties and therefore "feminism" has no meaning.

If there is some common element, and therefore that is what the word "feminism" means, that is the meaning I am referring to when I ask if the Femitheist is a feminist.

That's not hard, but I understand why you don't want to answer the question.

I'm not saying, suggesting, or implying that feminists are not allowed to disagree with each other. I'm only asking if her views - including "national castration day" and significantly reducing the male population - fit inside the definition of feminism. The definition that is the common element of the 20 varieties you gave, if there is a common element.

You can say she is one without endorsing her proposal, but I would have to ask how one reconciles her proposal with the most common definition of feminism, that it is about achieving equality. I know that is another question that is not one that you want me to ask, so of course you'll do your best to avoid giving me sufficient grounds to ask that question.

I'm asking for simple, clear, and concise answers. According to you that is a "game" and you refuse to play it.

 

[dismal]

You gave 20 varieties of feminism.

Either there is some common element to those 20 varieties, and that is what is meant by the word "feminism", or there is no common element to those 20 varieties and therefore "feminism" has no meaning.

Think of it like Bubba from Forrest Gump listing all the different ways to make shrimp.

 

[repoman]

Those 20+ varieties are academics carving out their suzerainties.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Bingo.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ok Brer Fox, I mean Athena Awakened, let us analyze your non-answer.

You gave 20 varieties of feminism.

Either there is some common element to those 20 varieties, and that is what is meant by the word "feminism", or there is no common element to those 20 varieties and therefore "feminism" has no meaning.

If there is some common element, and therefore that is what the word "feminism" means, that is the meaning I am referring to when I ask if the Femitheist is a feminist.

That's not hard, but I understand why you don't want to answer the question.

I'm not saying, suggesting, or implying that feminists are not allowed to disagree with each other. I'm only asking if her views - including "national castration day" and significantly reducing the male population - fit inside the definition of feminism. The definition that is the common element of the 20 varieties you gave, if there is a common element.

You can say she is one without endorsing her proposal, but I would have to ask how one reconciles her proposal with the most common definition of feminism, that it is about achieving equality. I know that is another question that is not one that you want me to ask, so of course you'll do your best to avoid giving me sufficient grounds to ask that question.

I'm asking for simple, clear, and concise answers. According to you that is a "game" and you refuse to play it.

I want the question clarified.

And if you have some kind of point (do you have some point?), it would help if you had more than one person to point to. I mean, I could point to the guy in front of WalMart who talks to the baskets and when asked, is he a libertarian, he says he is. And then I can tell you that he hates the Mises institute and quotes Marx and Engels as holy writ, but he says he is a libertarian therefore you must defend him as libertarian or condemn him as a heretic. But a person talking to inanimate objects in front of WalMart doesn't call libertarianism or libertarians into question as a legitimate school of thought or people capable of thought anymore than one theistic blogger on the big wide internet calls into question feminism or feminists.

 

[Duke Leto]

I'm on record as disliking the entire concept of isms, because they have a notorious tendency to have "essences" that won't keep fucking still. "Liberalism", for example, has shifted meaning in English so much as to almost mean the opposite of itself in different regional (and temporal) usages. (Australian Liberals are American Conservatives.)

I'm also fundamentally suspicious of the characters questioning feminism in this thread, because many of them (ie. Harvestdancer) are the kinds of people who insist that ism words can only mean what they insist they mean. (ie. Screams of anger when it is pointed out that most self-identified American Libertarians are functionally identical with Republicans.) It looks like an attempt to tar people who self-identify as "feminist" with political ideas that they find unpalatable so that they can be dismissed out of hand.

As much as I dislike admitting it, I have to agree in part with Bomb #20 on this one. Most of what is actually common to all the variant forms of "Feminism" falls under a rubric that can safely be called "Women's Liberation". So it might save time to just use that term. Compare my stance on the fight over the meaning of "Racism".

As to "Patriarchy Theory"? Insofar as there has been and remains a cultural movement to make women property, basically all Feminists and Feminist sympathizers agree to that. It's where the theory part of the phrase comes in that things start getting a bit goofy. I don't think it's very likely that a conscious conspiracy exists to deprive women of legal and sexual freedom as such, at least not most of the time anyway. It's more a question of people (generally men but sometimes old women) having power that they dislike giving up, and reacting fiercely against any perceived attempts to threaten that power. They generally rationalize it away as not being about their power, "protecting traditions" or "safeguarding freedom". (Even the despicable creatures of Gamergate are, in their own minds, responding to a perceived attack. The fact that they are out of their fucking minds makes that a rather meaningless point though.)

It's when you get into the extremely academic Feminism that the "theory" gets extremely dodgy. I'm willing to go on record that Luce Irigaray is almost certainly a crank, and assert that if anything constructed from the rotten timber of post-structuralism has value, it does so only by accident.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm on record as disliking the entire concept of isms, because they have a notorious tendency to have "essences" that won't keep fucking still. "Liberalism", for example, has shifted meaning in English so much as to almost mean the opposite of itself in different regional (and temporal) usages. (Australian Liberals are American Conservatives.)

I'm also fundamentally suspicious of the characters questioning feminism in this thread, because many of them (ie. Harvestdancer) are the kinds of people who insist that ism words can only mean what they insist they mean. (ie. Screams of anger when it is pointed out that most self-identified American Libertarians are functionally identical with Republicans.) It looks like an attempt to tar people who self-identify as "feminist" with political ideas that they find unpalatable so that they can be dismissed out of hand.

As much as I dislike admitting it, I have to agree in part with Bomb #20 on this one. Most of what is actually common to all the variant forms of "Feminism" falls under a rubric that can safely be called "Women's Liberation". So it might save time to just use that term. Compare my stance on the fight over the meaning of "Racism".

As to "Patriarchy Theory"? Insofar as there has been and remains a cultural movement to make women property, basically all Feminists and Feminist sympathizers agree to that. It's where the theory part of the phrase comes in that things start getting a bit goofy. I don't think it's very likely that a conscious conspiracy exists to deprive women of legal and sexual freedom as such, at least not most of the time anyway.

Think globally and then think about this line again. Be sure to include religion.

It's more a question of people (generally men but sometimes old women) having power that they dislike giving up, and reacting fiercely against any perceived attempts to threaten that power. They generally rationalize it away as not being about their power, "protecting traditions" or "safeguarding freedom". (Even the despicable creatures of Gamergate are, in their own minds, responding to a perceived attack. The fact that they are out of their fucking minds makes that a rather meaningless point though.)

It's when you get into the extremely academic Feminism that the "theory" gets extremely dodgy. I'm willing to go on record that Luce Irigaray is almost certainly a crank, and assert that if anything constructed from the rotten timber of post-structuralism has value, it does so only by accident.

Good points. As for cranks in academia, I think there is rather large quota that must be filled.

As for those here who wish to critique the feminists in ivory towers, I suggest they go to said towers and critique. Most women who consider themselves feminists do not hide inside universities, do not wish men dead, and simply want to be treated like adult people with the right to choose the life they wish to live.

 

[repoman]

yeah, I guess that ivory tower feminists are a bit of a distraction - and the more specialized they are the moreso.

 

[Duke Leto]

Think globally and then think about this line again. Be sure to include religion.

I'm sorry to say, but it is unclear from the context which of my lines you mean here.

For the purposes of the above, I think "Religion" can safely be classified as an "-ism". It's a blanket term for a wide variety of phenomenon that doesn't really map well to any single combination of attributes. For example, Confucianism is more or less explicitly an atheistic doctrine but is (usually) considered a religion, while Soviet Marxism is also pretty clearly an atheistic doctrine but is (usually) not. Do you consider community rituals to be an attribute of religion? If so, then NFL games are religious observances.

To the extent that there is Anti-feminism (or Anti-Women's Liberation) inherent in religion, it's in those varieties of religion with an established clergy. And I was very much thinking of female clergy like the Magdalene Sisters when I talked about old women with power over female freedom.

A lot of us on here are what would have been called anti-clerical 150 years ago as opposed to anti-religion.

Sorry if the broad philosophical brush seemed to be giving aid and comfort to religious persecutors.

The crankiness in Academia issue being the result of a quota isn't far off the mark, BTW. I think the way we treat privately paid for higher education as a token of gentility in this country is part of what made academic post-structuralism so prevalent in the American Humanities. When you have hundreds of private colleges and universities all of which have to have tenured academics in the humanities teaching there, and all of them have to justify their tenure through publishing in peer reviewed journals, and you apply that model to disciplines where experimentation per se is basically impossible and original research inherently difficult, like Literary Criticism, then the end result is an ecological niche that something like post-structuralism has to evolve to fill.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ok Brer Fox, I mean Athena Awakened, let us analyze your non-answer.

You gave 20 varieties of feminism.

Either there is some common element to those 20 varieties, and that is what is meant by the word "feminism", or there is no common element to those 20 varieties and therefore "feminism" has no meaning.

If there is some common element, and therefore that is what the word "feminism" means, that is the meaning I am referring to when I ask if the Femitheist is a feminist.

That's not hard, but I understand why you don't want to answer the question.

I'm not saying, suggesting, or implying that feminists are not allowed to disagree with each other. I'm only asking if her views - including "national castration day" and significantly reducing the male population - fit inside the definition of feminism. The definition that is the common element of the 20 varieties you gave, if there is a common element.

You can say she is one without endorsing her proposal, but I would have to ask how one reconciles her proposal with the most common definition of feminism, that it is about achieving equality. I know that is another question that is not one that you want me to ask, so of course you'll do your best to avoid giving me sufficient grounds to ask that question.

I'm asking for simple, clear, and concise answers. According to you that is a "game" and you refuse to play it.

I want the question clarified.

And if you have some kind of point (do you have some point?), it would help if you had more than one person to point to. I mean, I could point to the guy in front of WalMart who talks to the baskets and when asked, is he a libertarian, he says he is. And then I can tell you that he hates the Mises institute and quotes Marx and Engels as holy writ, but he says he is a libertarian therefore you must defend him as libertarian or condemn him as a heretic. But a person talking to inanimate objects in front of WalMart doesn't call libertarianism or libertarians into question as a legitimate school of thought or people capable of thought anymore than one theistic blogger on the big wide internet calls into question feminism or feminists.

I have no idea how your non-answer relates in any way to my question to you.

Good job not answering again.

I'm not trying to define feminism in terms of the Femitheist. I'm asking if she fits within the definition of feminism that may or may not exist.

I'm also fundamentally suspicious of the characters questioning feminism in this thread, because many of them (ie. Harvestdancer) are the kinds of people who insist that ism words can only mean what they insist they mean. It looks like an attempt to tar people who self-identify as "feminist" with political ideas that they find unpalatable so that they can be dismissed out of hand.

Actually, I'm on record saying that I am not qualified to say who is or isn't a feminist or what feminism means, as I do not self-describe as a feminist. As you do not self-identify as a libertarian, your insisting it is the same as Republicanism is an excellent example of a straw-man, and a very poorly informed one at that comparable to saying "Darwin says the whole universe came from nothing."

 

[laughing dog]

I'm asking if she fits within the definition of feminism that may or may not exist.

Of course she does. Anyone fits within a definition that may or may not exist.

Actually, I'm on record saying that I am not qualified to say who is or isn't a feminist or what feminism means, as I do not self-describe as a feminist.

Since you do not self-describe as conservoprogressive or a Republican or a Democrat, you are not qualified to say who is or is not a conservoprogressive or Republican or a Democrat. But you do make such determinations. Hmmm.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So are you saying feminism does have a definition or does not have a definition?

 

[repoman]

AA, I think that the post you made (that JH most recently replied to) is very good.

I think the going back to a hard science analogy is useful, if a person claimed to believe in evolution but said that DNA did not exist then you could very easily say that he is not a "real" evolutionist. How that transfers over into the social sciences is more fuzzy.

But the fact that people are self serving and hypocritical as far as overlooking their own wackos and focusing on the other sides wackos is no surprise.

Or maybe what is more to the point is that some people have no shame in using a mentally ill/unbalanced person who claims the opponents ideology to discredit it.

Maybe there should be limits to respecting a person's self-identification as being a follower to an ideology or belief. Also to extrapolating such adherence by wackos to mentally stable adherents of that ideology/school of thought.

 

[laughing dog]

So are you saying feminism does have a definition or does not have a definition?

Wow, that one went right past you. I find your question fascinatingly silly since I used your exact wording.

So, are you going to stop determing whether someone is a conservoprogressive or Republican or Democrat or Keynesian or corporatist or all the other ists that you do not self identify with?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Does feminism have a definition?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So are you saying feminism does have a definition or does not have a definition?

Does feminism have a definition?

There is no reason for you to be ASKING that question of people here in this thread if you actually want to know. It is both faster and more efficient for you to simply google "definition of feminism" and spend fifteen minutes reading about it. The most clear answers you will get in THIS thread will, in fact, come from people who open a new browser tab and google "definition of feminism" and then either link you to their results or paraphrase the fifteen minutes of reading YOU couldn't be bothered to do.

If you're looking for Athena's honest opinion about whether or not Femitheist is representative of feminism in general, I'm pretty sure that's already been thoroughly answered. Otherwise it LOOKS like you're just trying to maneuver people into a rhetorical position you are more prepared to argue against.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does feminism have a definition?

There is no reason for you to be ASKING that question of people here in this thread if you actually want to know. It is both faster and more efficient for you to simply google "definition of feminism" and spend fifteen minutes reading about it. The most clear answers you will get in THIS thread will, in fact, come from people who open a new browser tab and google "definition of feminism" and then either link you to their results or paraphrase the fifteen minutes of reading YOU couldn't be bothered to do.

If you're looking for Athena's honest opinion about whether or not Femitheist is representative of feminism in general, I'm pretty sure that's already been thoroughly answered. Otherwise it LOOKS like you're just trying to maneuver people into a rhetorical position you are more prepared to argue against.

Ya think?

 

[dismal]

Does feminism have a definition?

There is no reason for you to be ASKING that question of people here in this thread if you actually want to know. It is both faster and more efficient for you to simply google "definition of feminism" and spend fifteen minutes reading about it. The most clear answers you will get in THIS thread will, in fact, come from people who open a new browser tab and google "definition of feminism" and then either link you to their results or paraphrase the fifteen minutes of reading YOU couldn't be bothered to do.

If you're looking for Athena's honest opinion about whether or not Femitheist is representative of feminism in general, I'm pretty sure that's already been thoroughly answered. Otherwise it LOOKS like you're just trying to maneuver people into a rhetorical position you are more prepared to argue against.

It's a fair point that if he wanted to know how the average person in the outside world defines "feminism" he could look in a dictionary.

But that is not the issue at hand. He wants to know how people in this thread define feminism before attempting to have a reasonable discussion about a topic that depends heavily on the definition of feminism.

If you have any experience here you will have observed that people here are known to come up with non-standard, non-dictionary definitions of certain words.

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me. Normally many of these same people are quite content to jam their non-standard definitions of words onto others and defend them as if life itself depended on it.