Yo, long time no speak :)
I recently got into a discussion with my girlfriend about feminism (not something I will do again), and she brought up some points that made me think.
I don't consider myself a feminist, but I do think that a lot of feminist thought is pretty true.
First of all, this is not a discussion on feminism in general, as (I'm assuming) the topic has been covered many times and in much depth. Part 1 addresses the background to the discussion, Part 2 addresses the issue that I wish to be discussed in this thread.
Part 1: The Argument
Anyway, let's get down to it:
She said, and I'm paraphrasing: "the dictionary definition of feminism involves striving for gender equality. If you want equality you are a feminist".
Now, broken down into logical form this would be:
P1) The dictionary definition of feminism involves striving for gender equality.
C) If you want equality you are a feminist.
However, as you can tell, a premise is missing. I believe that the argument should actually be as follows (and this demonstrates why there is a flaw in the argument):
P1) The dictionary definition of feminism involves striving for gender equality.
P2) Feminism in practice follows this definition and does strive for gender equality.
C) If you want equality you are (or should be) a feminist.
So, as you see, the problem with the argument is that one cannot jump from saying "this is the definition of the movement" to "this is what it is in practice", at least not deductively/necessarily, and so evidence is needed to back up Premise 2. I did not agree or disagree on whether or not feminism does, in practice, follow its definition, rather I simply pointed out that this is a necessary premise for the argument to work.
But this got me thinking . . .
Part 2: Ideological Ambiguity
Feminists often say "it's feminisms, not feminism", due to the different interpretations of feminist theory and different ways of wanting to attain equal rights for women.
This could lead feminists to respond to (for example) the above argument I just made by saying "just because you don't agree that some feminists follow the definition in practice doesn't mean that feminism in general doesn't. If you want to strive for gender equality, then you are following the definition of feminism, and therefore you are a feminist".
My problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be logically taken to an extreme where, even if 100% of the world's feminists were acting in ways that deviated from the definition of feminism, you should still call yourself a feminist if you do not deviate from it. You fundamentally ideologically differ from 100% of the people that call themselves feminists in the world, and yet you should (by this reasoning) call yourself a feminist.
The broader issues I'm raising here are that of identity, ideological ambiguity, ideological broadness, and vagueness. In my opinion, you should never take political movements and strip them down to their definitions, because that removes all real-life, practical aspects of the ideology. Definitions are useful as long as they are broadly adhered to, and the meaning of a word does not necessarily maintain its same meaning as that of its dictionary definition over time. If the definition of Nazism was "the pursuit of the equality of all races", and yet Nazis were still (and are still, in some places) as they were in the 1930s, would that mean that I should call myself a Nazi because of the definition? Of course not! I wouldn't want to be associated with them at all, because in reality Nazism would not mean what the definition of the term purports the movement to be.
So that's my opinion, but then this raises the question of boundaries; where do we draw the line? The hypothetical examples I've given are exaggerated and extreme ones, simply to point out the irrationality of reasoning that definitions are necessarily true in practice. But feminism, for example, cannot be reduced in that way. So where is the line between saying that one is or is not a feminist? Is it too broad of an ideology to be considered one at all, but rather multiple ideologies? Is feminism even a useful term? Is it rational to say that feminism might not be a movement for gender equality because you disagree with what most self-proclaimed feminists say? What about the minority that you do agree with?
Very broad questions here, but they all come down to this question about ideological ambiguity and vagueness, and the problems it poses.
Personally, I think that it's a useful strategy for feminists to encompass anything they want to encompass and reject anything they want to reject. One can simply say "that is feminism" to things they like the sound of, and "that isn't feminism" to things they don't like the sound of, due to how vague a term it has become.
All thoughts and responses welcome :)
Feminism, and more specifically, the notion of ideological broadness/ambiguity
Started by: Automaton | Replies: 11 | Views: 1,987
Feb 17, 2015 3:12 AM #1310069
Feb 17, 2015 4:30 AM #1310100
WTF, ITS AUTOMATON.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS RESERVED FOR MY ARGUMENT WHEN I READ HIS POST. BUT RIGHT NOW, WTF ITS AUTOMATON.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS RESERVED FOR MY ARGUMENT WHEN I READ HIS POST. BUT RIGHT NOW, WTF ITS AUTOMATON.
Feb 17, 2015 4:58 AM #1310108
Greetings sir, long time no see.
Part 1: The Argument
I know you don't want to discuss in detail the definition of Feminism, but with any debate I feel it's important to be absolutely clear on the definition. So please bear with me.
I understand that you were paraphrasing so this isn't targeted at you. But even though she said the dictionary definition is thus "the dictionary definition of feminism involves striving for gender equality. If you want equality you are a feminist", there's flaws, she's absconding with the female aspect of it. Let me explain.
The dictionary definition:
Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
She is correct in saying that it "involves striving for gender equality". But by saying "if you want equality you're a feminist", she's clearly committing the logical fallacy False Dichotomy. By implying that feminism is the only perspective or method in which one achieves gender equality, that anything else does not and that if you do want gender equality you must automatically identify as a feminist. Ergo my next point.
Feminism, by definition is biased by "Advocating" womens rights from the perspective of women. See the "Fem" in "Feminism". Which seemingly defies the idea of equality. It's ironic. Like if I proclaimed myself a maleist and insisted that I advocate men's rights and equality to women.
Semantic digression.
Part 2: Ideological Ambiguity
As part two of your comment implies, it's awfully convenient that feminists are allowed to define feminism as one way and the majority seems to behave another way while still protecting themselves under the predication of the meanings they've defined.
Logical cop outs: Simply saying that because they identify as feminists they by definition strive for gender equality, regardless of their opinions or behavior that may indicate otherwise and that if you don't agree with their opinions you must not be a feminist. And subsequently must not care about gender equality. Hense "Ambiguity". It defies logic. Yet feminism leaves no room for disagreement, either you stand for gender equality making you a feminist or you choose to not identify as a feminist and are automatically opposing gender equality. Even if many self proclaimed feminists seem to stand for female superiority, they're safe under their own definitions. It's intellectually insulting.
Semantic regression: I understand why you say it's important to not strip ideologies down to their definitions. But if you look at ideologies they tend to have fairly strict definitions. Nazism, Anarchism, Buddhism all clear in definition. To put it simply, Feminism isn't fully defined. And this is supported by the definition of definition itself.
Definition: the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
Where we should draw the line: Feminism isn't definite, distinct or clear. Which is why it's so constantly abused and seemingly contradicted by the vast majority of people whom identify as Feminists. When so many hypocrites claim they're Feminists and the minority also describes themselves as Feminist there's a rift, expressing this problem. When one group says they're the "true feminists" and the other group says that they're the "true feminists", even feminists aren't clear on what feminism means. It's too subjective, too vague.
Even if it's considered an ideology, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: I should clarify that, if it isn't obvious already. I absolutely detest feminism.
Part 1: The Argument
I know you don't want to discuss in detail the definition of Feminism, but with any debate I feel it's important to be absolutely clear on the definition. So please bear with me.
I understand that you were paraphrasing so this isn't targeted at you. But even though she said the dictionary definition is thus "the dictionary definition of feminism involves striving for gender equality. If you want equality you are a feminist", there's flaws, she's absconding with the female aspect of it. Let me explain.
The dictionary definition:
Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
She is correct in saying that it "involves striving for gender equality". But by saying "if you want equality you're a feminist", she's clearly committing the logical fallacy False Dichotomy. By implying that feminism is the only perspective or method in which one achieves gender equality, that anything else does not and that if you do want gender equality you must automatically identify as a feminist. Ergo my next point.
Feminism, by definition is biased by "Advocating" womens rights from the perspective of women. See the "Fem" in "Feminism". Which seemingly defies the idea of equality. It's ironic. Like if I proclaimed myself a maleist and insisted that I advocate men's rights and equality to women.
Semantic digression.
Part 2: Ideological Ambiguity
As part two of your comment implies, it's awfully convenient that feminists are allowed to define feminism as one way and the majority seems to behave another way while still protecting themselves under the predication of the meanings they've defined.
Logical cop outs: Simply saying that because they identify as feminists they by definition strive for gender equality, regardless of their opinions or behavior that may indicate otherwise and that if you don't agree with their opinions you must not be a feminist. And subsequently must not care about gender equality. Hense "Ambiguity". It defies logic. Yet feminism leaves no room for disagreement, either you stand for gender equality making you a feminist or you choose to not identify as a feminist and are automatically opposing gender equality. Even if many self proclaimed feminists seem to stand for female superiority, they're safe under their own definitions. It's intellectually insulting.
Semantic regression: I understand why you say it's important to not strip ideologies down to their definitions. But if you look at ideologies they tend to have fairly strict definitions. Nazism, Anarchism, Buddhism all clear in definition. To put it simply, Feminism isn't fully defined. And this is supported by the definition of definition itself.
Definition: the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
Where we should draw the line: Feminism isn't definite, distinct or clear. Which is why it's so constantly abused and seemingly contradicted by the vast majority of people whom identify as Feminists. When so many hypocrites claim they're Feminists and the minority also describes themselves as Feminist there's a rift, expressing this problem. When one group says they're the "true feminists" and the other group says that they're the "true feminists", even feminists aren't clear on what feminism means. It's too subjective, too vague.
Even if it's considered an ideology, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: I should clarify that, if it isn't obvious already. I absolutely detest feminism.
Feb 17, 2015 12:01 PM #1310268
I object to the assertion here that dictionaries define words and not the other way around.
The meaning of the word when it comes into practise and how people actually use it is by far more important to the word's meaning than what is printed or typed on a dictionary. Feminism, being such a hotly argued subject, has many different groups of people lobbying and such under it. There's those claiming to be feminists when they actually want to put women in power, there's those being far more humanist about it and campaigning for equal sex rights for both men and women and there's groups just campaigning for equality for women. That's three very different 'definitions' the groups use in practise.
You may, of course disagree about the validity of even 2 of those 3 definitions, but the way language works is not logical. Many words have been completely destroyed of their original meaning due to constant 'mis use': mudane, sick, awesome, retarded, special...
Except there isn't a 'correct use' for words. We make our own language, dictionaries copy it, they do not define it for us, we define it for them.
I object to the argument on the basis of the first premise having no meaning to the conclusion or premise 2, and I would consider myself a feminist under the meaning of striving for equality for both sexes - but under no other meaning would I.
If, for instance, that meaning I agree with is swamped out entirely by other meanings, much like you can't call something awesome anymore and mean that you are in awe of it, I would have to change my answer because the meaning people interpret the word by will have changed. However as of now, I do not think the 'equality' meaning is completely swamped out.
Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles.[10] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
“Just as the Supreme Court has said that women have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, men should also have that right,” she told The New York Times, calling this “the only logical feminist position to take.” -- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/
Every feminist I speak to at school also has defined it as equality for both sexes. Does that make it always mean that? No. But it is a meaning for the word.
At Justu has already explained at length, and probably better than I could, that Feminism is ambiguous, I won't both saying that. But because it is so ambiguous, it is much better to lay down what, in the context, you mean by Feminism whenever trying to discuss that particular type.
Let's try that with the argument
P1) The definition used for feminism in this argument involves striving for gender equality.
P2) Feminism referred to here as feminist, excluding all other forms and types, in practice follows this definition and does strive for gender equality.
C) If you want equality you are (or should be) a feminist under this definition.
That argument still seems rather weak.
I might as well write it like this
P1) You want equality
C) Under a particular definition of Feminism you are a Feminist
The meaning of the word when it comes into practise and how people actually use it is by far more important to the word's meaning than what is printed or typed on a dictionary. Feminism, being such a hotly argued subject, has many different groups of people lobbying and such under it. There's those claiming to be feminists when they actually want to put women in power, there's those being far more humanist about it and campaigning for equal sex rights for both men and women and there's groups just campaigning for equality for women. That's three very different 'definitions' the groups use in practise.
You may, of course disagree about the validity of even 2 of those 3 definitions, but the way language works is not logical. Many words have been completely destroyed of their original meaning due to constant 'mis use': mudane, sick, awesome, retarded, special...
Except there isn't a 'correct use' for words. We make our own language, dictionaries copy it, they do not define it for us, we define it for them.
I object to the argument on the basis of the first premise having no meaning to the conclusion or premise 2, and I would consider myself a feminist under the meaning of striving for equality for both sexes - but under no other meaning would I.
If, for instance, that meaning I agree with is swamped out entirely by other meanings, much like you can't call something awesome anymore and mean that you are in awe of it, I would have to change my answer because the meaning people interpret the word by will have changed. However as of now, I do not think the 'equality' meaning is completely swamped out.
Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles.[10] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
“Just as the Supreme Court has said that women have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, men should also have that right,” she told The New York Times, calling this “the only logical feminist position to take.” -- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/
Every feminist I speak to at school also has defined it as equality for both sexes. Does that make it always mean that? No. But it is a meaning for the word.
At Justu has already explained at length, and probably better than I could, that Feminism is ambiguous, I won't both saying that. But because it is so ambiguous, it is much better to lay down what, in the context, you mean by Feminism whenever trying to discuss that particular type.
Let's try that with the argument
P1) The definition used for feminism in this argument involves striving for gender equality.
P2) Feminism referred to here as feminist, excluding all other forms and types, in practice follows this definition and does strive for gender equality.
C) If you want equality you are (or should be) a feminist under this definition.
That argument still seems rather weak.
I might as well write it like this
P1) You want equality
C) Under a particular definition of Feminism you are a Feminist
Feb 17, 2015 4:39 PM #1310473
I agree with Jutsu on the points he made, except for the detesting feminism part.
Also another thing about ambiguity of definitions: When it comes to definitions, especially with words meant to describe political/social movements, ideologies, and anything that is not a fact or not quantifiable the definition is decided by the person writing it. Your example of Nazism is perfect. To Nazis nazism was the correct path towards overall ''correctness'' which in itself is relative, when in reality to us and most people it is not. Even you have ''good'' intentions (also subjective), and don't just want to mislead, it is nearly impossible to be completely unbiased since humans are not purely logical, so in turn definitions will not be absolutely ''correct'' as well. However we can be as unbiased as possible based on the majority of what people agree on, which as we progress through time and advance in knowledge becomes closer and closer to purely logical "correctness".
Also another thing about ambiguity of definitions: When it comes to definitions, especially with words meant to describe political/social movements, ideologies, and anything that is not a fact or not quantifiable the definition is decided by the person writing it. Your example of Nazism is perfect. To Nazis nazism was the correct path towards overall ''correctness'' which in itself is relative, when in reality to us and most people it is not. Even you have ''good'' intentions (also subjective), and don't just want to mislead, it is nearly impossible to be completely unbiased since humans are not purely logical, so in turn definitions will not be absolutely ''correct'' as well. However we can be as unbiased as possible based on the majority of what people agree on, which as we progress through time and advance in knowledge becomes closer and closer to purely logical "correctness".
Feb 18, 2015 1:23 AM #1310707
While I agree with gender equality, I can't really argue or provide much insight on the topic. What I can say, though, is that Skeleton's argument relies on connotation and denotation. Basically, both the dictionary definition and the "public" definition are accurate definitions of a word. By this reasoning, Feminism may relate to both the standard dictionary definition Jutsu provided, as well as the definitions both Automaton and Skeleton refer to (though, I suppose technically it was Auto's girlfriend?).
Similarly, I feel that just because one wants gender equality, does not signify that they're a feminist. I also feel that simply saying you're a feminist does not mean you are such, simply that you have an interest in your connotation of feminism.
Similarly, I feel that just because one wants gender equality, does not signify that they're a feminist. I also feel that simply saying you're a feminist does not mean you are such, simply that you have an interest in your connotation of feminism.
Feb 18, 2015 12:44 PM #1310941
I think, going along with Azure Kite's point, perhaps a better question for the person speaking to the OP would have been one about wanting gender equality, so as to avoid all this confusion.
I also found an interesting site that dealt with the question in a similar way to what we've discussed.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq
I also found an interesting site that dealt with the question in a similar way to what we've discussed.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq
text wall (Click to Show)
Feb 24, 2015 6:53 PM #1315355
Why don't we just name people who believe in gender equality equalists instead of using a term that is exclusionary?
Feb 24, 2015 9:53 PM #1315392
Quote from PreserveWhy don't we just name people who believe in gender equality equalists instead of using a term that is exclusionary?
Because language has never, ever, been rational like that and no amount of sensible thinking about words will change what language people use.
Feb 25, 2015 11:05 PM #1315996
I have not seen this mentioned at all, and I think it's relevant so I'll bring it up: Feminism is not a blanket term meaning "equal rights". It represents a complex ideology with many different interpretations linked by the common goal of equal rights for women. It refers to a very specific part of the overall equal rights issue. A lot of people get caught up in this binary mindset conflating gender equality with equality, and it boils down to feminist = good, non-feminist = bad, but it's certainly a more complex issue because people forget that feminism focuses only on women. Much in the same way LGBT focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity, or NAACP focuses on african-american rights in the US.
Does agreeing with any small part of any of those ideologies suddenly put that label on me? Am I part of the LGBT community just because I agree with them about gay marriage? I don't really like labels like this personally because humans tend to use them in an "us vs them" mentality, like they were sports teams, which makes me feel uncomfortable when I have to disagree with something one group says or does. If you had to choose a label "equal rights" in general, and not just "equal rights for women", it would be Egalitarianism.
Does agreeing with any small part of any of those ideologies suddenly put that label on me? Am I part of the LGBT community just because I agree with them about gay marriage? I don't really like labels like this personally because humans tend to use them in an "us vs them" mentality, like they were sports teams, which makes me feel uncomfortable when I have to disagree with something one group says or does. If you had to choose a label "equal rights" in general, and not just "equal rights for women", it would be Egalitarianism.
Feb 26, 2015 5:11 PM #1316414
Problem with Egalitarianism is it is _equal_ rights.
There are times when rights are not meant to be equal, because people are different. You don't need a right to have special looking after and monitoring so you can attain well at school unless you are blind or something like that which means you need it to get to an equal playing field.
Equally fair rights would put it better, and that isn't quite Egalitarianism.
There are times when rights are not meant to be equal, because people are different. You don't need a right to have special looking after and monitoring so you can attain well at school unless you are blind or something like that which means you need it to get to an equal playing field.
Equally fair rights would put it better, and that isn't quite Egalitarianism.
Feb 27, 2015 12:05 AM #1316632
I'm not entirely sure how your commentary on egalitarianism is relevant. My point was that labels are ambiguous and it's silly to use them, I wasn't advocating for egalitarianism but simply clarifying that feminism isn't about equal rights for everyone, just equal rights for women. You were also just talking about how there's no group for "equal rights" when there is.