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

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

 

[dismal]

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.

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

Look at the title of this thread. Explain how this can be discussed intelligently with people who are unwilling to state what they mean when they say "feminism".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

Look at the title of this thread. Explain how this can be discussed intelligently with people who are unwilling to state what they mean when they say "feminism".

Because the question "What does feminism mean" is the entire point of the fucking thread. So you kind of have your pointers reversed on this one: the question that needs to be answered is:

CAN A PERSON BE A FEMINIST AND NOT SUBSCRIBE TO PATRIARCHY THEORY?

This question doesn't depend on the definition of feminism. The definition of feminism depends on this question.

 

[dismal]

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

Look at the title of this thread. Explain how this can be discussed intelligently with people who are unwilling to state what they mean when they say "feminism".

Because the question "What does feminism mean" is the entire point of the fucking thread. So you kind of have your pointers reversed on this one: the question that needs to be answered is:

CAN A PERSON BE A FEMINIST AND NOT SUBSCRIBE TO PATRIARCHY THEORY?

This question doesn't depend on the definition of feminism. The definition of feminism depends on this question.

OK, please provide me an answer to the question that does not depend on a definition of feminism.

Would it be something like "orange" or "Gibraltar"?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

Look at the title of this thread. Explain how this can be discussed intelligently with people who are unwilling to state what they mean when they say "feminism".

Because the question "What does feminism mean" is the entire point of the fucking thread. So you kind of have your pointers reversed on this one: the question that needs to be answered is:

CAN A PERSON BE A FEMINIST AND NOT SUBSCRIBE TO PATRIARCHY THEORY?

This question doesn't depend on the definition of feminism. The definition of feminism depends on this question.

OK, please provide me an answer to the question that does not depend on a definition of feminism.

How about "Yes"?

Would it be something like "orange" or "Gibraltar"?

The OP asks what is essentially a yes or no question with invitation for discussion supporting that reasoning and you answer "gibraltar..."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

Really? It's that easy? Um, no.

And the reason it isn't that easy is the exact same reason AthenaAwakened won't answer the question when I put it to her.

 

[Unbeatable]

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.

If so, that's unsurprising. You're not asking in the spirit of inquiry, after all. You're playing a rhetorical game, and you know that people know that. That's why you emphasize the simplicity of your question in an attempt to goad people into answering you by challenging their egos. There's no good will here. People expect, rightly, to be punished for answering questions here, so the best tactic you can come up with is to tempt them with the possibility that by answering, they can show you up. But they know you have an agenda, so for them to take that bait, they have to be willing to deal with whatever follow-ups you're hiding behind your question.

Every time you ask a rhetorical question in order to spring a "gotcha" on another poster, you contribute to this environment, where people are unwilling to answer simple questions, because they distrust the underlying motives of the questioner. People around here have been asking rhetorical questions in order to spring "gotchas" on each other for over a decade.

Is the Femitheist a feminist?

I'm not one of the posters you're trying to goad, so my answer is probably worthless to you, but here it is anyway, in case there's anyone here whose curiosity hasn't died yet: The Femitheist advocates some sort of matriarchal utopia/dystopia. That's apparently not unprecedented among feminists. It's just sufficiently radical that it's not particularly popular. The loudest feminists these days are vehemently egalitarian.

Now let's move on to the next part of the agenda that everybody knows is behind your question. What is your next move?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I take issue with the very word "Feminist". It is a sexist term on the face of it. What is so wrong with "Egalitarian"? Gender egalitarian in this case? When I see somebody calling themselves a "feminist" I suspect they want something other than fair treatment for women. They want special and better treatment for women, at the expense of men. I would think the same if people against racism started calling themselves "blackists" or "asianists", etc.

 

[dismal]

I

But see, it's not a reasonable discussion topic that DEPENDS on the definition of feminism. It's reasonable to DISCUSS the definition of feminism by giving examples of what it does and does not espouse, what tenets are more productive and which ones are less, what it hopes to accomplish, and what feminist thinkers are doing a good/bad job of embodying those principles.

Are we getting ready to have a discussion about whether or not Femitheist espouses constructive feminist social justice theories? Or is Jason getting ready to spin a maze of circular logic based on a narrow definition of feminism and then masturbate to Athena's vain attempt to navigate through it?

Why there is such resistance to defining this particular word for use in this particular thread is a bit of a mystery to me.

When is the last time someone insisted on coming up with a definition of "conservative" as a pre-condition to beginning a political discussion?

You know perfectly well that's not a thing that normal people do unless they're going for a rhetorical angle.

Look at the title of this thread. Explain how this can be discussed intelligently with people who are unwilling to state what they mean when they say "feminism".

Because the question "What does feminism mean" is the entire point of the fucking thread. So you kind of have your pointers reversed on this one: the question that needs to be answered is:

CAN A PERSON BE A FEMINIST AND NOT SUBSCRIBE TO PATRIARCHY THEORY?

This question doesn't depend on the definition of feminism. The definition of feminism depends on this question.

OK, please provide me an answer to the question that does not depend on a definition of feminism.

How about "Yes"?

Would it be something like "orange" or "Gibraltar"?

The OP asks what is essentially a yes or no question with invitation for discussion supporting that reasoning and you answer "gibraltar..."

Keep in mind I'm trying to imagine what a person would say who is in the act of defending people who refuse to answer what they think "feminism" means (and has told someone to look "feminism" up in the dictionary if they want to know what it means) while acknowledging the thread is essentially a discussion about what "feminism" means.

 

[Nexus]

There's no good will here. People expect, rightly, to be punished for answering questions here, so the best tactic you can come up with is to tempt them with the possibility that by answering, they can show you up. But they know you have an agenda, so for them to take that bait, they have to be willing to deal with whatever follow-ups you're hiding behind your question.

I agree with your assessment however I would argue its silly to fear answering a question. It's essentially a Socratic method. Asking people "gotcha" questions can demonstrate their thinking is flawed or perhaps your thinking is flawed if they successfully counter. If your reasoning is solid it can stand the scrutiny of questions, instead here we often have people recite their personal talking points past each other rather than a discussion.

 

[ronburgundy]

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?

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.

If I call myself a unicorn, am I a unicorn? No, objectively, no. Not in any sense in which the word unicorn conveys semantic meaning. If people are in fact whatever label they attach to themselves, then the labels are devoid of any meaning and convey nothing about the person whatever. Unless someone can predict (with minimal accuracy) various features of your physique, thoughts, values, or actions based upon the label you attach to yourself, then you are not in fact that thing any more than a dog is a cat just because a toddler mistakenly refers to one that way.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

If I call myself a unicorn, am I a unicorn? No, objectively, no. Not in any sense in which the word unicorn conveys semantic meaning. If people are in fact whatever label they attach to themselves, then the labels are devoid of any meaning and convey nothing about the person whatever. Unless someone can predict (with minimal accuracy) various features of your physique, thoughts, values, or actions based upon the label you attach to yourself, then you are not in fact that thing any more than a dog is a cat just because a toddler mistakenly refers to one that way.

Unicorns are mythical creatures. Feminists are not. Feminists and feminist thought are not monolithic. The ideas are broad, the history deep. And anyone truly interested in discussing feminism would first do at least some cursory investigation on the subject. Instead what happens time and time again and now for a decade of my life, is people of a certain mind, try to impose their idea of feminism on the rest of us and then shoot down their idea. That is called building and knocking down a straw man and I'm tired of it.

If anyone wants to discuss feminism, find an actual piece of scholarship, present it in a manner that bespeaks more than a random cut and paste (you know, like you really read up on the subject) and then we can have a discussion. If you aren't up for that, don't ...


Just don't.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If I call myself a unicorn, am I a unicorn? No, objectively, no. Not in any sense in which the word unicorn conveys semantic meaning. If people are in fact whatever label they attach to themselves, then the labels are devoid of any meaning and convey nothing about the person whatever. Unless someone can predict (with minimal accuracy) various features of your physique, thoughts, values, or actions based upon the label you attach to yourself, then you are not in fact that thing any more than a dog is a cat just because a toddler mistakenly refers to one that way.

Unicorns are mythical creatures. Feminists are not.

At this point we're not sure of that.

Feminists and feminist thought are not monolithic. The ideas are broad, the history deep.

And without even the most minimal amount of common thought between all the various branches that you are hiding behind, then it means nothing. Either there is something in common between all the branches (and that something is the definition of feminism) or there is nothing in common between all the branches (and there is no definition of feminism).

And anyone truly interested in discussing feminism would first do at least some cursory investigation on the subject. Instead what happens time and time again and now for a decade of my life, is people of a certain mind, try to impose their idea of feminism on the rest of us and then shoot down their idea. That is called building and knocking down a straw man and I'm tired of it.

So if I ask you "what is feminism?" then I am imposing an idea on you. I though it was "I'm telling you what feminism is" but apparently I was wrong about that.

 

[Arctish]

Here, let me try:

Can a person be a feminist (a person who supports and/or espouses feminism) and not subscribe to patriarchy theory? Yes. A person can believe men and women should be treated as equals in society without having any particular belief as to why they are not. In fact, a person can be a feminist and believe that men and women already are treated equally.

Is the Femitheist a feminist? Based on this, the answer is no. Feminism is founded on the belief that males and females should be treated equally. The Femitheist has argued in favor of removing the gonads of one gender but not the other, therefore she advocates highly unequal treatment. The fact her suggested course of action would benefit certain women in certain situations is irrelevant. It's discrimination based on gender, therefore it is incompatible with the effort to erase gender based discrimination.

I wonder. If someone argued in favor of forcing males to undergo estrogen treatments and forcing females to be treated with testosterone, would anyone here confuse such a person with a gay-rights advocate? Or would they think the very idea of forcing hormone therapy on people is a violation of their rights, and therefore the opposite of what a rights advocate would support?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you Arctish.

 

[bigfield]

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

Not subscribing to patriarchy theory means that one is not a radical feminist.

 Radical_feminism

Google 'kyriarchy' and you see that at least some feminists have eschewed the concept of a patriarchy -- men oppressing women -- in preference for the concept of kyriarchy -- those in power oppressing those without power -- which encompasses many more dynamics.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There's no good will here. People expect, rightly, to be punished for answering questions here, so the best tactic you can come up with is to tempt them with the possibility that by answering, they can show you up. But they know you have an agenda, so for them to take that bait, they have to be willing to deal with whatever follow-ups you're hiding behind your question.

I agree with your assessment however I would argue its silly to fear answering a question. It's essentially a Socratic method. Asking people "gotcha" questions can demonstrate their thinking is flawed or perhaps your thinking is flawed if they successfully counter. If your reasoning is solid it can stand the scrutiny of questions, instead here we often have people recite their personal talking points past each other rather than a discussion.

Which overlooks the fact that a lot of the people who are using this discussion board aren't coming here for the purpose of engaging in some complicated match of rhetorical jujitsu with somebody who is going to quickly change stances from moment to moment just to score rhetorical points. It's fucking annoying; it's like your friend inviting you over to play chess and you get there, setup the board, sit down and make your first move just to see him whip out a nerf gun and shoot you in the face.

"Yes. Ambush. Well played, Steve. You got me. Totally wasn't expecting that... now can we get back to the chess game or was this all a giant waste of my time?"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Here, let me try:

Can a person be a feminist (a person who supports and/or espouses feminism) and not subscribe to patriarchy theory? Yes. A person can believe men and women should be treated as equals in society without having any particular belief as to why they are not. In fact, a person can be a feminist and believe that men and women already are treated equally.

Is the Femitheist a feminist? Based on this, the answer is no. Feminism is founded on the belief that males and females should be treated equally. The Femitheist has argued in favor of removing the gonads of one gender but not the other, therefore she advocates highly unequal treatment. The fact her suggested course of action would benefit certain women in certain situations is irrelevant. It's discrimination based on gender, therefore it is incompatible with the effort to erase gender based discrimination.

I wonder. If someone argued in favor of forcing males to undergo estrogen treatments and forcing females to be treated with testosterone, would anyone here confuse such a person with a gay-rights advocate? Or would they think the very idea of forcing hormone therapy on people is a violation of their rights, and therefore the opposite of what a rights advocate would support?

I'm tempted to point out the possible "No True Scottsman" issue here, but I actually think a very convincing case has been made recently that Jihadist organizations cannot and should not be described as "Islamic" given the extreme tangents the ideology is prone to jumping to that do not reflect anything resembling conventional Islamic tradition; Jihadism has become a distinct spinoff religion unto itself, it seems to me.

The same is probably true of femitheist and others like her. It's not "feminist" so much as "misandrist".

 

[Nexus]

Thank you Arctish.

You forgot your follow up gotcha questions.

 

[arkirk]

Here, let me try:

Can a person be a feminist (a person who supports and/or espouses feminism) and not subscribe to patriarchy theory? Yes. A person can believe men and women should be treated as equals in society without having any particular belief as to why they are not. In fact, a person can be a feminist and believe that men and women already are treated equally.

Is the Femitheist a feminist? Based on this, the answer is no. Feminism is founded on the belief that males and females should be treated equally. The Femitheist has argued in favor of removing the gonads of one gender but not the other, therefore she advocates highly unequal treatment. The fact her suggested course of action would benefit certain women in certain situations is irrelevant. It's discrimination based on gender, therefore it is incompatible with the effort to erase gender based discrimination.

I wonder. If someone argued in favor of forcing males to undergo estrogen treatments and forcing females to be treated with testosterone, would anyone here confuse such a person with a gay-rights advocate? Or would they think the very idea of forcing hormone therapy on people is a violation of their rights, and therefore the opposite of what a rights advocate would support?

The idea of estrogen treatments for men...maybe they could take on some of the nursing duties once their breasts developed.

Now THERE'S A NOVEL IDEA. Let's keep it in novels and not in the world at large.