The two types of Feminism

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name. I strongly support the one and strongly oppose the other, but I don't know what label to call each of them to distinguish them.

First there is the notion that women should have all of the legal rights that men should have and should not be discriminated against because of gender. This is about equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender. This is the notion that women can work, or stay home and be housewives, or be the sole breadwinner with house husbands, can have casual sex to whatever degree they wish or remain virgins forever, and can go wear hijab or go topless if they like. It is about freedom. I can get 100% behind this kind of feminism. Women should not be discriminated against for being a woman. There should be no barriers to women becoming doctors, lawyers, C.E.O.s and any other job they seek and win by merit. And they should not be patronized or treated paternally. Nor should their agency be taken from them or should they be held less responsible due to their gender. Women are to be treated as individuals with their gender being irrelevant when it comes to anything not specifically tied to it (issues such as abortion, etc).

This sort of feminism/egalitarianism is what I consider basic human fairness, but is lacking in much of the world to various extents, and political battles need to be won to win it. Usually but not always the enemy is religion. Sometimes, ironically, the enemy is the second type of feminism's demanding attention be drawn away from this.

The second of feminism, that is very much the opposite of the above, pushes for rather than against gender bias and double standards. It doesn't push for individuals to be treated equally regardless of gender, but instead for people to be treated according to the gender group they are identified with. It is paternalistic towards women, treating them as fragile and demanding they be seen through a lense of victimhood, and in many situations as without having equal agency. Yet ironically it rails against "the patriarchy". This ties into the marxist ideas of oppressor group (here all men) and oppressed group (here all women).

I believe the second type of feminism gives the word "feminism" a bad connotation. So I would like to clearly distinguish between the two types and I don't know the labels to do that. What do you call the first type? What do you call the second type? And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

 

[Arctish]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name. I strongly support the one and strongly oppose the other, but I don't know what label to call each of them to distinguish them.

First there is the notion that women should have all of the legal rights that men should have and should not be discriminated against because of gender. This is about equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender. This is the notion that women can work, or stay home and be housewives, or be the sole breadwinner with house husbands, can have casual sex to whatever degree they wish or remain virgins forever, and can go wear hijab or go topless if they like. It is about freedom. I can get 100% behind this kind of feminism. Women should not be discriminated against for being a woman. There should be no barriers to women becoming doctors, lawyers, C.E.O.s and any other job they seek and win by merit. And they should not be patronized or treated paternally. Nor should their agency be taken from them or should they be held less responsible due to their gender. Women are to be treated as individuals with their gender being irrelevant when it comes to anything not specifically tied to it (issues such as abortion, etc).

This sort of feminism/egalitarianism is what I consider basic human fairness, but is lacking in much of the world to various extents, and political battles need to be won to win it. Usually but not always the enemy is religion. Sometimes, ironically, the enemy is the second type of feminism's demanding attention be drawn away from this.

The second of feminism, that is very much the opposite of the above, pushes for rather than against gender bias and double standards. It doesn't push for individuals to be treated equally regardless of gender, but instead for people to be treated according to the gender group they are identified with. It is paternalistic towards women, treating them as fragile and demanding they be seen through a lense of victimhood, and in many situations as without having equal agency. Yet ironically it rails against "the patriarchy". This ties into the marxist ideas of oppressor group (here all men) and oppressed group (here all women).

I believe the second type of feminism gives the word "feminism" a bad connotation. So I would like to clearly distinguish between the two types and I don't know the labels to do that. What do you call the first type? What do you call the second type? And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

You're in favor of equality between individuals. You disapprove of group identities. That pretty much covers it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

People have taken to acting as if there being two types of (insert group here) where one is a more extreme, less reasonable version of the other as if it's a new thing. You can do this with virtually any group out there. Republicans? Democrats, Feminists, gay rights activists, college students, etc. I think this has less to do with more people in those extreme groups and more to do with message amplification via social media, and especially with members that oppose those groups using those less reasonable members in order to attack ALL members of that group. I have noticed this is a favorite alt right tactic, where FOX news is the enabler supreme. There are some groups that have gotten more extreme over time of course, the GOP and the rise of the tea party and the alt right comes to mind.

I think in a world of social media what has been lost is nuance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup, which explains the very different reactions to feminism.

The people who are defending it are generally defending the first time, the people opposing it are generally opposing the second type.

Unfortunately, there are those who favor the second type and pretend the first type is what they are after.

 

[Hermit]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name. I strongly support the one and strongly oppose the other, but I don't know what label to call each of them to distinguish them.

First there is the notion that women should have all of the legal rights that men should have and should not be discriminated against because of gender. This is about equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender. This is the notion that women can work, or stay home and be housewives, or be the sole breadwinner with house husbands, can have casual sex to whatever degree they wish or remain virgins forever, and can go wear hijab or go topless if they like. It is about freedom. I can get 100% behind this kind of feminism. Women should not be discriminated against for being a woman. There should be no barriers to women becoming doctors, lawyers, C.E.O.s and any other job they seek and win by merit. And they should not be patronized or treated paternally. Nor should their agency be taken from them or should they be held less responsible due to their gender. Women are to be treated as individuals with their gender being irrelevant when it comes to anything not specifically tied to it (issues such as abortion, etc).

This sort of feminism/egalitarianism is what I consider basic human fairness, but is lacking in much of the world to various extents, and political battles need to be won to win it. Usually but not always the enemy is religion. Sometimes, ironically, the enemy is the second type of feminism's demanding attention be drawn away from this.

The second of feminism, that is very much the opposite of the above, pushes for rather than against gender bias and double standards. It doesn't push for individuals to be treated equally regardless of gender, but instead for people to be treated according to the gender group they are identified with. It is paternalistic towards women, treating them as fragile and demanding they be seen through a lense of victimhood, and in many situations as without having equal agency. Yet ironically it rails against "the patriarchy". This ties into the marxist ideas of oppressor group (here all men) and oppressed group (here all women).

I believe the second type of feminism gives the word "feminism" a bad connotation. So I would like to clearly distinguish between the two types and I don't know the labels to do that. What do you call the first type? What do you call the second type? And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

You're thinking about feminism like this:


The reality looks something like this:


Since women have attained formal equality in law in quite a number of countries, it has become obvious that they are still disadvantaged in many ways. Two examples: 1) After controls have been made for experience, competence, years of service and other variables women are still paid less than man for doing the exact same job. They are also less likely to get the same job they are equally qualified for if they are competing for it against men. 2.) The vast majority of rapes are committed by males and the vast majority of the victims are females. I am sure you can think of other examples of women being disadvantaged because they are women despite the fact that as far as the law is concerned they are equals.

Feminism is a gradual shading from feminists who consider formal equality, that is legislation which puts males and females on an equal judicial footing, through feminism that realises the inadequacy of formal equality to feminism that advocates discrimination against men, and in some cases actually hates them. Your black and white view is singularly unhelpful.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yup, which explains the very different reactions to feminism.

The people who are defending it are generally defending the first time, the people opposing it are generally opposing the second type.

Unfortunately, there are those who favor the second type and pretend the first type is what they are after.

And visa versa, ipso facto, e plurbus unim.

 

[RVonse]

Its a matter of evolution, asking for an inch and then going for a mile.

First the feminist wanted pure equality but in the process got pissed off so then decided to stereotype, group identify, and man hate.

 

[Hermit]

First the feminist wanted...

The feminists? Feminists are not one homogeneous group of people.

 

[rousseau]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name. I strongly support the one and strongly oppose the other, but I don't know what label to call each of them to distinguish them.

First there is the notion that women should have all of the legal rights that men should have and should not be discriminated against because of gender. This is about equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender. This is the notion that women can work, or stay home and be housewives, or be the sole breadwinner with house husbands, can have casual sex to whatever degree they wish or remain virgins forever, and can go wear hijab or go topless if they like. It is about freedom. I can get 100% behind this kind of feminism. Women should not be discriminated against for being a woman. There should be no barriers to women becoming doctors, lawyers, C.E.O.s and any other job they seek and win by merit. And they should not be patronized or treated paternally. Nor should their agency be taken from them or should they be held less responsible due to their gender. Women are to be treated as individuals with their gender being irrelevant when it comes to anything not specifically tied to it (issues such as abortion, etc).

This sort of feminism/egalitarianism is what I consider basic human fairness, but is lacking in much of the world to various extents, and political battles need to be won to win it. Usually but not always the enemy is religion. Sometimes, ironically, the enemy is the second type of feminism's demanding attention be drawn away from this.

The second of feminism, that is very much the opposite of the above, pushes for rather than against gender bias and double standards. It doesn't push for individuals to be treated equally regardless of gender, but instead for people to be treated according to the gender group they are identified with. It is paternalistic towards women, treating them as fragile and demanding they be seen through a lense of victimhood, and in many situations as without having equal agency. Yet ironically it rails against "the patriarchy". This ties into the marxist ideas of oppressor group (here all men) and oppressed group (here all women).

I believe the second type of feminism gives the word "feminism" a bad connotation. So I would like to clearly distinguish between the two types and I don't know the labels to do that. What do you call the first type? What do you call the second type? And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

You're thinking about feminism like this:
View attachment 14408

The reality looks something like this:
View attachment 14410

Since women have attained formal equality in law in quite a number of countries, it has become obvious that they are still disadvantaged in many ways. Two examples: 1) After controls have been made for experience, competence, years of service and other variables women are still paid less than man for doing the exact same job. They are also less likely to get the same job they are equally qualified for if they are competing for it against men. 2.) The vast majority of rapes are committed by males and the vast majority of the victims are females. I am sure you can think of other examples of women being disadvantaged because they are women despite the fact that as far as the law is concerned they are equals.

Feminism is a gradual shading from feminists who consider formal equality, that is legislation which puts males and females on an equal judicial footing, through feminism that realises the inadequacy of formal equality to feminism that advocates discrimination against men, and in some cases actually hates them. Your black and white view is singularly unhelpful.

Yea, this.

Arguments about 'feminism' are almost always way too simplistic. Feminists get a lot of visceral reactions due to the subset of their group who are legit aggressive and not entirely rational about their arguments, but those people don't paint the complete picture. This phenomenon is not too different from doing something like painting all liberals in the same colour based on university students who are obsessed with Marx, or Conservatives who support Trump.

I've known a lot of feminists in my life, and they are a diverse bunch. For my part I can get down with their general intent, but I tend to believe that almost everyone with any kind of serious allegiance to any particular thing is usually biased and viewing the world through a particular set of glasses. Meaning their views are necessarily incomplete.

 

[marc]

I've heard the more extremist feminist referred to as 'third wave feminists', but I doubt any call themselves that.

Yea, there are some that seem to not actually want women to be free and equal, but bound to a different set of rules. Rules that are anti-male, or anti-perceived male. One example I saw was an article about a woman who started a website on a particular sexual fetish she enjoyed. A 'feminist' was against the website because men like porn. It's weird to realize that the Taliban and some extreme 'feminists' both think women shouldn't wear sexy outfits for very similar reasons (because it excites men).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are at least 31 types of feminism. The ones of the top of my head are banal, mild, inert, fish, extreme, ultra, ultra-extreme, not quite ultra but not quite extreme, moderate, reasonable, typical...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Feminism is a gradual shading from feminists who consider formal equality, that is legislation which puts males and females on an equal judicial footing, through feminism that realises the inadequacy of formal equality to feminism that advocates discrimination against men, and in some cases actually hates them. Your black and white view is singularly unhelpful.

I agree that there are more than 2 types, but these are the two I am focusing on for the purpose of this thread. I disagree that it is a gradual shading and that these are on two opposite ends of a continuum of the same thing. One is not merely a more extreme version of the other. The core of the one is liberal meritocracy and anti-discrimination. The core of the other is authoritarian discrimination. The one empowers and liberates women. The other infantilizes them.

 

[rousseau]

Too bad we only have a bunch of white males chiming in on this thread, and few people who have actually spent significant time involved with feminism and women's issues.

 

[ruby sparks]

Too bad we only have a bunch of white males chiming in on this thread, and few people who have actually spent significant time involved with feminism and women's issues.

That's true.

That said, there seemed to be several female posters in the gender biology thread that Rhea started and that went quite well and I enjoyed it and learned something.

Actually, just last night, as we were watching a news item about the 100 year anniversary of the British suffragettes, my wife and I started a general discussion on feminism (always a dangerous thing to do after a couple of glasses of wine) and she said that she'd recently heard a prominent feminist say that to take things to the 'next level' feminism needs to focus on getting more men on board, either as formal supporters or just more sympathetic fellow humans.

So in that sense, perhaps we, the chaps here (so far) can make some headway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Too bad we only have a bunch of white males chiming in on this thread, and few people who have actually spent significant time involved with feminism and women's issues.

Why exactly would that matter? If somebody says "Behaviour X is authoritarian discrimination" and provides reasons why they believe that to be the case, in what way would the demographics of that somebody impact the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments? While it certainly could be that their arguments are flawed due to a lack of perspective regarding the subject matter, making that case should also be done by responding to the arguments being made and showing how that's the case, not by dismissing the arguments out of hand because of the race and gender of the person making them.

 

[rousseau]

Too bad we only have a bunch of white males chiming in on this thread, and few people who have actually spent significant time involved with feminism and women's issues.

Why exactly would that matter? If somebody says "Behaviour X is authoritarian discrimination" and provides reasons why they believe that to be the case, in what way would the demographics of that somebody impact the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments? While it certainly could be that their arguments are flawed due to a lack of perspective regarding the subject matter, making that case should also be done by responding to the arguments being made and showing how that's the case, not by dismissing the arguments out of hand because of the race and gender of the person making them.

There you go.

The implication is that everyone in this thread is mostly incapable of responding to the subject matter, and that until there is a legitimate expert on the topic, or at least a diversity of opinions, then right now we have a bunch of people conjecturing about something they don't really know about.

It's not totally unlike a group of men getting together in a room and debating women's health policy. Ok, maybe some of them are actually experts on women's health, but I'm definitely not seeing that here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Too bad we only have a bunch of white males chiming in on this thread, and few people who have actually spent significant time involved with feminism and women's issues.

Why exactly would that matter? If somebody says "Behaviour X is authoritarian discrimination" and provides reasons why they believe that to be the case, in what way would the demographics of that somebody impact the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments? While it certainly could be that their arguments are flawed due to a lack of perspective regarding the subject matter, making that case should also be done by responding to the arguments being made and showing how that's the case, not by dismissing the arguments out of hand because of the race and gender of the person making them.

There you go.

The implication is that everyone in this thread is mostly incapable of responding to the subject matter, and that until there is a legitimate expert on the topic, or at least a diversity of opinions, then right now we have a bunch of people conjecturing about something they don't really know about.

It's not totally unlike a group of men getting together in a room and debating women's health policy. Ok, maybe some of them are actually experts on women's health, but I'm definitely not seeing that here.

Yes, that’s what I was talking about.

If the arguments are invalid because of flawed views, then the response should be “your point X is wrong because of A, B and C”. It shouldn’t be “your argument is invalid because of who you are”. A white male’s opinions about feminism might be completely off the wall because he doesn’t understand the issue at all or it might be insightful and on the nose because he understands it perfectly or it might be somewhere in between those two.

The only way to determine that is to deal with the arguments themselves, not with the race of the person making them.

 

[rousseau]

There you go.

The implication is that everyone in this thread is mostly incapable of responding to the subject matter, and that until there is a legitimate expert on the topic, or at least a diversity of opinions, then right now we have a bunch of people conjecturing about something they don't really know about.

It's not totally unlike a group of men getting together in a room and debating women's health policy. Ok, maybe some of them are actually experts on women's health, but I'm definitely not seeing that here.

Yes, that’s what I was talking about.

If the arguments are invalid because of flawed views, then the response should be “your point X is wrong because of A, B and C”. It shouldn’t be “your argument is invalid because of who you are”. A white male’s opinions about feminism might be completely off the wall because he doesn’t understand the issue at all or it might be insightful and on the nose because he understands it perfectly or it might be somewhere in between those two.

The only way to determine that is to deal with the arguments themselves, not with the race of the person making them.

I agree. I'm really making two separate points. 1) We have no diversity of opinion, and 2) Few in this thread appear to be experts on the topic of feminism. On the first point, your race/gender shouldn't be relevant when you make an argument, fair enough, but when the entire conversation is coming from a very specific demographic, in which there are few experts, you're pretty much getting an incomplete view of the topic by necessity.

In other words, I'm not claiming people's arguments aren't valid, but that this thread without females and feminists, is like starting a thread on atheism at a christians only board.

 

[prideandfall]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name.

going to have to disagree with you here.
you see two slightly different approaches to the same goal and have decided one is acceptable and the other is not, and further decided that both are "feminism" and that you can now denigrate the term based on disliking one approach.

What do you call the first type?

feminism.

What do you call the second type?

also feminism.

And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

"it's all well and good that we let women think they're equal, so long as the bitches don't get uppity about it"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There you go.

The implication is that everyone in this thread is mostly incapable of responding to the subject matter, and that until there is a legitimate expert on the topic, or at least a diversity of opinions, then right now we have a bunch of people conjecturing about something they don't really know about.

It's not totally unlike a group of men getting together in a room and debating women's health policy. Ok, maybe some of them are actually experts on women's health, but I'm definitely not seeing that here.

Yes, that’s what I was talking about.

If the arguments are invalid because of flawed views, then the response should be “your point X is wrong because of A, B and C”. It shouldn’t be “your argument is invalid because of who you are”. A white male’s opinions about feminism might be completely off the wall because he doesn’t understand the issue at all or it might be insightful and on the nose because he understands it perfectly or it might be somewhere in between those two.

The only way to determine that is to deal with the arguments themselves, not with the race of the person making them.

I agree. I'm really making two separate points. 1) We have no diversity of opinion, and 2) Few in this thread appear to be experts on the topic of feminism. On the first point, your race/gender shouldn't be relevant when you make an argument, fair enough, but when the entire conversation is coming from a very specific demographic, in which there are few experts, you're pretty much getting an incomplete view of the topic by necessity.

In other words, I'm not claiming people's arguments aren't valid, but that this thread without females and feminists, is like starting a thread on atheism at a christians only board.

Fair enough.