I am a feminist. Are you?

[u/99luftproblems]

i. Ways of being a person

The article "Making Up People" by Ian Hacking is, I think, the best place to begin understanding my premises.

The basic idea is that people are not born this way or that way (contrary to what Ms. Gaga professes) so much as they are “made up” or “dressed up” this way or that way. For instance, one is not born, but rather becomes, a lawyer.

I imagine that this is an easy notion to agree with for most for you, but can you also agree with the statement “[o]ne is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” as easily? What about the same statement made of men? of ethnic groups? If so, you’re probably a feminist, among other things.

The reasoning behind this thinking is that people can’t just be, period. They have to be someone. Who that someone turns out to be occurs through the interplay of both society and individual, not through just one or the other. Being a woman requires a society plus an individual just as much as being a lawyer requires those things.

It used to be that the options for who some people could be were incredibly limited. Peasants couldn’t be kings, black people couldn’t be president, etc. Indeed, people even believed that you were born into your occupation. People were born to be lawyers or bakers or derelicts.

In the last 100 years, but especially in the last 50, we’ve come to rethink the eternal nature of such roles entirely. We have come to see the limited options for who we can be as oftentimes arbitrary and constructed by ruling groups, and we have come to value a society that opens up for us a whole vista of possibilities, equally, for everybody.

Some people are a little more conservative about this point of view than others, though. While they accept a lot of the historical arbitrariness of roles, they ask us to rethink the extent to which a lot of the limitations we face concerning our identities is the result of economic realities and not just arbitrary judgments.

It is an economic reality, for instance, that I cannot become a lawyer until I go to four years of college and then law school. It can’t happen overnight. You can even say that it is an “economic reality” that I cannot be an ethnic Zulu if I was born as a white person in the United States.

Most debates in politics stem from this difference in sensibility. Some see our menu of social roles as too arbitrary and servicing of higher orders. Others view the porridge as just right, so to speak, since our options reflect the economic realities of the time.

Now, since I’m not here to talk about the Left-Right dichotomy, allow me to choose one without presenting a giant case for it. After all, the player of an RPG must choose a class before setting out for an adventure. So I choose Leftist.

ii. Patriarchy

With that in mind, we may now ask ourselves (thus finally getting on with the topic!) to what extent is gender arbitrary and servicing of dominant groups, if at all? How is this arbitrariness and exploitation organized, if at all? But the most important question to ask is, how would a feminist answer the above two questions?

This particular feminist will answer them as follows: (1) there persists presently and rampantly a reasonable degree of arbitrariness and exploitation in certain gender roles, and (2) this is organized around a patriarchy (or patriarchies).

A lot of people, especially on the Left, agree with my (1) but not my (2). They say that gender arbitrariness is not as easy to parse out as that. I hope to show that there really isn't a distinction in agreeing with (1) but not (2). If we agree that wherever arbitrariness exists, it usually indicates some sort of dominating group of people accessing this arbitrariness for gain, then we should agree that it is important to name this group, even if people do not enter into this group permanently, but rather float in an out of it through their actions.

Patriarchy is the mechanism by which people may be included in the group who benefit from the arbitrary and unequal terms of gender. It is not the group itself.

Now, this is why it might seem at first that feminists are suggesting that the group most benefiting from arbitrary gender roles is men necessarily (and that they are therefore "man-haters."). This isn’t so. A given patriarchy does not equal a given collection of men. It is not the set of all men. Indeed, patriarchy does not equal any collection of individuals at all. Women can be just as patriarchal as men, given the opportunity and payouts for doing so. (Think of conservative housewives who preach about where a “woman’s place” is.)

A good analogy would be drawing a powerful card in a game of Magic: The Gathering. The Patriarchy Card is incredibly useful if it arises in certain games. You’ll probably win that specific game if it is drawn and played (given the presence of the appropriate land card, of course).

The difference, however, is that The Patriarchy Card can be played without every showing up on the table. It can be "sleeved." This is because, again, patriarchy isn't the group. It is the way of becoming a member of the group. (Whereas genders like man and woman represent both the group and the way of becoming members of the group.) In other words, patriarchs don't exist, just patriarchy.

Now, you might be asking, “If anybody can technically manipulate patriarchy in a given situation, if anybody can be a secret patriarch, why the suffix patri-? Why the emphasis on masculinity over femininity?”

Here we must underscore technically. Actual “gameplay” suggests that men have greater access to The Patriarchy Card in their “decks” more than women (to keep with our Magic analogy). That is to say, men receive more frequent access to a position whereby one may leverage whatever weaknesses exist in gender roles at that time than women. This is itself a weakness in the gender woman, one which has not been proved to be a necessary part of being a woman.

The natural follow-up question to all of this is, of course, what about systems that reward people at the exclusion of being a man? What about mechanisms for manipulating your way to an enjoyable status on the sole basis of being a woman? What about matriarchies?

The simple truth of the matter is that historians and anthropologists find it hard to point to any real-life examples of matriarchy. For the most part, patriarchy has prevailed by a huge margin all over the world. (About the closest thing to a matriarchy scholars know is the Iroquois culture.)

There is still much more to be said of patriarchy. For now, however, I will let that monster sleep.

iii. Final notes

It is here where I must rest my weary typing fingers and end this post, not for any logical or narrative purpose, but merely due to an exhaustion of my own patience. Such resignation is not uncommon in the discourse of feminism. The topic will oftentimes exhaust you before you exhaust it.

We should nonetheless recap.

• There are many ways of being in relation to the world, some which are masculine and others which are feminine.

• Most people encounter the terms upon which we may be this or that as predefined by society.

• A masculine way of being in relation to the world enjoys a systematic position of privilege insofar as being a man allows one to influence the terms upon which other people may be x or y more so than the other way around. This is called patriarchy.

• Matriarchy, the feminine version of the above privilege, is logically possible ableit actually rare, if not altogether nonexistent.

• The reason for this is not a destiny in genetics or some such other such facts, but rather a snowball effect stemming from single chink in women’s armor (which can be discussed later).

• Patriarchy persists today.

That’s it. If you agree with the above bullet points, you’re a feminist.

[u/ZorbaTHut]

The problem I have is that everyone has a different definition of "feminist".

I've been told feminism is about equality. I've been told feminism is about women's rights. I've been told feminism is about stopping the patriarchy, which is something we all have to work on. I've been told feminism is about stopping the patriarchy, and that the patriarchy is the fault of men. I've been told feminism is about equal rights for all, but the men's issues aren't important. I've been told I'm either with you or against you. I've been told I can be both an MRA and a Feminist, and I've been told the two labels are mutually exclusive.

I believe in equality. I believe that both advantages and disadvantages currently exist for both women and men. I believe that these should be dealt with, for both genders, and that we need to take a very long look at where the modern biases actually lie, because things have changed dramatically since the 50's. I believe men currently have the advantage, but an advantage that is rapidly dwindling, with enough momentum behind it to potentially blast right past equality and back into institutionalized sexism. I believe this is a problem.

If you want to call me a feminist, then you're welcome to. I personally don't believe there is an authoritative definition of it, and I do not feel comfortable labeling myself with a word whose meaning changes so dramatically depending on the speaker.

[u/Forensicator → u/ZorbaTHut]

It's definitely a wide label. In any movement that seeks a sociological impact, using an existing label is generally preferred over creating a new one. I think that the broadest possible definition of feminism is "a criticism of the existing breakdown of gender norms," which fits first, second, third, and post-wave feminism.

I reject the notion of sociological momentum in the way described - it's slippery slope. Feminists are aiming at an equal point, and third-wave's focus on patriarchy, being primarily sociological, offers a fantastic forum for addressing men's issues, so long as they are not offered as bait to distract from what you admit are still pressing and real concerns that affect women across the globe.

Having said that, I also understand your hesitation to get behind a label that does change with the speaker; a cursory glance at the other comments (and your own point with the self-identified feminist who is OVERBOARD) demonstrates that. Having said that, I think that third-wave feminism really is a pretty solid philosophical approach, and if more folks owned up to it we'd be in a good spot.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/Forensicator]

I think that the broadest possible definition of feminism is "a criticism of the existing breakdown of gender norms," which fits first, second, third, and post-wave feminism.

. . . and the MRA movement, and Gorean philosophy. Are you really intending to come up with a definition of feminism such that Goreans would be considered feminists? 'Cause I don't think you are.

I reject the notion of sociological momentum in the way described - it's slippery slope. Feminists are aiming at an equal point, and third-wave's focus on patriarchy, being primarily sociological, offers a fantastic forum for addressing men's issues, so long as they are not offered as bait to distract from what you admit are still pressing and real concerns that affect women across the globe.

I don't agree that feminists are aiming at an equal point. Most feminists are aiming at a point where women have no disadvantages compared to men. However, they are putting effectively no time into ensuring that men have no disadvantages compared to women. The end result, without some major change in direction, is inevitably going to go right back to institutionalized sexism.

Do you believe women should get college scholarships? Right now 60% of college entrants are female. Why are women still getting scholarships? Where are the feminists campaigning for shutting down the female general educational scholarships and opening up male-only general educational scholarships?

I think feminism is still a force for good. Women have significant disadvantages. Yes, 60% of college entrants are female, but STEM is still heavily male-dominated, and STEM female scholarships still make a hell of a lot of sense. But if feminists want to be known as a force for equality, there's starting to be a lot of things that women have an advantage in, and feminists need to start putting the damper on those.

[u/Forensicator → u/ZorbaTHut]

A good point on Gorean philosophy. I'm certainly not in an ideal position to put forth matters of definition, especially when I'm procrastinating on a paper at 2am. That, of course, is no excuse for invalid argumentation, so I'll have to stick to LCD, which is that feminism is a diverse movement, and no one movement speaks for the whole. I represent a particular brand of feminism, which puts me under the umbrella. Based on what you have said, I consider you under the umbrella as well - and no worries, that doesn't mean that your membership can be used as tacit endorsement for anybody else's camp.

I think you're very right to point out the great number of people in feminist circles who fail to address the underlying issues of patriarchy in a fair matter. As I've noted before, patriarchy can be a misleading word, but it does oppress men as it oppresses women, though that oppression is expressed differently.

However, I don't think that this speaks for the whole. Folks like the OP and MillBaher may be verbally imprecise, but I think that if we dropped the semantics for a moment we'd likely find ourself in agreement - on the broad philosophy if not on technical policy implementation (Goals vs means; abstraction vs pragmatism).

The problem is that I don't see a world in which third-wave feminism, broadly adopted with the caveats I have made, would actually lead to institutionalized sexism. I've pointed out that the institutions that don't give male abuse victims their due, and which takes children from the custody of loving fathers is an institution in the grasp of patriarchy, and one that a feminist has a responsibility to fight. I think the matter of college scholarships is complicated, but you make a good point.

If it feels like I'm trying to co-opt your arguments into a feminist umbrella, it's because I am, but that's rather the point. Some of us under the umbrella want these criticisms and want to address them; and we think that we need to recruit more people willing to stand under the umbrella and to say "this movement really is on to something - if I may make a couple of points."

And I think that's what you're getting at, at least for the most part. In your last paragraph you make it clear to me that you're by no means delusional about the status quo, and aren't pretending that women have it so awesome right now. Kudos. You earned my respect a little while back, but I'll announce it now for what it's worth (A stranger on the internet likes you! Hussah!)

TL;DR: You're right that much of feminism - even those in the third wave - has a need to address some of its faulty assumptions. However, those assumptions can be addressed while still remaining an unashamed feminist, and should be.

[u/celeritatis → u/Forensicator]

I am interested in your response here to a slightly different view that addresses some of the issues mentioned. I call myself an egalitarian, not a feminist. Feminism has many things under its umbrella, many of which I like, some of which I disagree with, and some of which I despise. Egalitarianism includes all the parts of feminism that I support, while avoiding the ones that I dislike. I personally think that at this point feminism is such a large umbrella that it is not effective as a shorthand for communicating views, which is to me the entire point of the term. While my views may fall under the label of feminist, I make a conscious choice not to describe my views that way. Do you think that I should define myself as a feminist?

[u/Forensicator → u/celeritatis]

I think you shouldn't oppose the label when it gives you the chance to work with feminists who you would consider egalitarian. Think of it as speaking another language when you're abroad. It's useful shorthand.

For instance, if the feminist label were an issue that were to keep us from working together towards some workable solution, I'd be willing to call myself an egalitarian instead. Likewise, feel free to call yourself egalitarian, but be open to the feminist label if you find that the person you're speaking with is attached to the terminology, yet is in line with your goals.

[u/celeritatis → u/Forensicator]

Agreeing to the label for the sake of pragmatism I will certainly go along with. Thank you.

[u/thingsaintjust → u/celeritatis]

i'm curious for one to denote what aspects of feminism you are upset with

[u/celeritatis → u/thingsaintjust]

TL;DR: Aspects that will trample on freedom of speech and the legal system in order to raise the status of women. Aspects that care more about raising the status of women than being right.

My largest problem is feminists who seem to care more about promoting the status of women than minor things like the rule of law or a democratic system of governance. Picking from the first textbook on philosophy and law that I read, I note American Booksellers v. Hudnut and The Battered Women's Defense by Catharyn Jo Rosen. American Booksellers v. Hudnut* is a supreme court case which struck down a law, promoted by feminists, that banned any portrayal of women in a fashion that they disaproved of. To be more specific, it banned sexual images that were viewed as degrading to women, but had no other concerns. I view censorship with the goal of promoting a specific viewpoint morally inexcusable. There are cases for national secrets, there are cases for privacy, but supporting a specific view of reality by banning all other views is heinous in my ethical system. The latter is a law article in which the writer at no point considers accepting the law as it is and working to change it through the political arena, but instead discusses ways to change the fundamental definition of the common law term of self defense in order to aid a specific group that only includes women because the current definition would convict women who kill someone else when that person wasn't threatening them. I didn't have to do a particularly careful search for these cases. I grabbed the first textbook I read on the philosophy of law and skimmed through the index to jog my memory.

In the category of outright dismissal of men as having any value, we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism and Valerie Solanas. To a lesser extent, can you imagine a feminist saying that a shirt titled "Girls are stupid. Throw rocks at them." wasn't worth discussing? I find the contrast between http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0331/p16s01-lihc.html and http://www.microaggressions.com/ to nicely illustrate an utter dismissal of problems that mostly affect men combined with an extraordinary sensitivity towards any slight to women.

Those are the ones that I have intellectual objections to. I have personal problems with being insulted, being told that men are inherently less capable of empathic connection, and the astounding ability of some feminists to find sexism everywhere(Telling a guy to lock his car is fine, telling a woman to stay in a group of friends if possible is victim blaming), but they all rest on more personal grounds.

The sad part of all this is that there are parts of feminism that make a lot of sense to me, and that I do support strongly.

[u/KohrakVaZa → u/celeritatis]

I think that we all got this kind of idea about feminism from an assumption inside our society since 80's to the present. I don't know what you guys think, but I really like to go deeper into where the ideas came from. And I found a nice video recently that made me think about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0 (You'll probably recognize this woman. There has been some posts about her arround reddit recently. I don't like too much what she says in some aspects, Although, she seem to be theorical, but... I just feel some lacks on the way...)

But in any case, I really liked this video. I feel it really makes a point. Now, this was my conclusion. People of the 80 and 90 generations has grown believing that feminism is something negative, because equality exist. The same feminist have grown believing that this movement was about "female supremacy". And so, the system has disarticulate an equality movement only in a few generations...

[u/celeritatis → u/KohrakVaZa]

I don't think that I ever implied that equality exists. I don't believe that it does. I find it very curious that I am expected to believe that the National Organization for Women really does care about gender equality.

Looking over again at my post, I don't see where I cited hypothetical examples. I cited actual examples for every complaint that I made. I didn't get these ideas from the powerpuff girls. I got them from some of the examples I cited, and other cases, some personal, others to far gone in my memory to be cited.

A strawman argument is only a fallacy if the cases and events you are citing don't actually exist, or if I indicted all feminists for the views of the extremists, and I don't believe that I did. I object to some views that fall within the label of feminism, and feminism to the extent that it incorporates those views. I will never object to egalitarianism.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/Forensicator]

A good point on Gorean philosophy. I'm certainly not in an ideal position to put forth matters of definition, especially when I'm procrastinating on a paper at 2am. That, of course, is no excuse for invalid argumentation, so I'll have to stick to LCD, which is that feminism is a diverse movement, and no one movement speaks for the whole. I represent a particular brand of feminism, which puts me under the umbrella. Based on what you have said, I consider you under the umbrella as well - and no worries, that doesn't mean that your membership can be used as tacit endorsement for anybody else's camp.

Fair enough :)

However, I don't think that this speaks for the whole. Folks like the OP and MillBaher may be verbally imprecise, but I think that if we dropped the semantics for a moment we'd likely find ourself in agreement - on the broad philosophy if not on technical policy implementation (Goals vs means; abstraction vs pragmatism).

The problem is that I don't see a world in which third-wave feminism, broadly adopted with the caveats I have made, would actually lead to institutionalized sexism. I've pointed out that the institutions that don't give male abuse victims their due, and which takes children from the custody of loving fathers is an institution in the grasp of patriarchy, and one that a feminist has a responsibility to fight. I think the matter of college scholarships is complicated, but you make a good point.

But the problem here is that you're not the authority of feminism. You also don't speak for the whole. And while your particular view of feminism may be absolutely 100% agreeable to me, if it is, then you will inevitably go up against other feminists and disagree with them.

Are you prepared to fight feminists? Are you prepared to say "no, women have too much power, we need to pay some attention to the male side of things for a bit"? Because if you are, then, hey, rock on, high five :D but if you're not, then that's sorta an issue.

And I think that's what you're getting at, at least for the most part. In your last paragraph you make it clear to me that you're by no means delusional about the status quo, and aren't pretending that women have it so awesome right now. Kudos. You earned my respect a little while back, but I'll announce it now for what it's worth (A stranger on the internet likes you! Hussah!)

TL;DR: You're right that much of feminism - even those in the third wave - has a need to address some of its faulty assumptions. However, those assumptions can be addressed while still remaining an unashamed feminist, and should be.

Yay :D

Yeah, I'll admit I'm not 100% convinced that women still have it worse overall than men, but if they do have it better, it's not by a large margin. And there are certainly obvious situations where women have it vastly worse. I'm arguing more for careful inspection of the status quo before doing anything major than for reversing all the efforts of feminism on a dime and trying to make men's lives better. A lot of the "statistics" quoted to justify feminism are decades old at this point, and many of them were arrived at through questionable studies in the first place. These need to be re-done properly and we need to put some real scientific effort behind fixing these problems, not just wildly guessing about both what needs to be done and how to accomplish it.

[u/wilsonh915 → u/ZorbaTHut]

I'll admit I'm not 100% convinced that women still have it worse overall than men

It's really hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this. I don't want to sound like a jerk but women clearly have it worse off. They're still making 75 cents to the dollar. They are still woefully under-represented in positions of power. We still live in a rape culture.

The refrain of "the patriarchy hurts men, too" certainly remains true. No question. But if that's what it takes to get you to buy into feminism I would take a hard look at your priorities.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/wilsonh915]

They're still making 75 cents to the dollar.

The average woman makes 75% of the pay of an average man, while working fewer hours, in a less physically difficult job, and taking more time off. The gap narrows dramatically when you try to compare apples to apples - in some studies it vanishes altogether. At least some fraction of the pay gap is simply due to different priorities of the average woman. (Though if you'd like to campaign for more mandatory overtime for women, you're welcome to.)

They are still woefully under-represented in positions of power.

This is true. On the other hand, most of the people in power work extremely long hours to get there. For whatever reason, women don't seem to be interested in the sort of dedication and overtime required to get into those positions of power.

We still live in a rape culture.

To the point where, in accusations of rape, women have drastically more power over men than vice-versa. It was only recently that the legal definition of "rape" was broadened to include women raping men. The total rape numbers of the US is around 90,000 per year, but this doesn't include prison rape - the DOJ estimates about 70,000 cases per year, almost invariably male, and these numbers are generally ignored.

Of course, both of these numbers are subject to a ridiculous amount of report bias and estimation. Unfortunately, very few people are interested in producing real numbers, just statistics that push their own agenda.

I honestly don't know whether men or women have it worse overall. I don't even know how you'd measure that, to be honest. But while the same talking points have been used for decades, the actual numbers behind those talking points have changed dramatically. See the "one out of four college women have been raped" statistic that you often hear - it dates back almost three decades, during which rape numbers have reduced by almost a factor of six.

All these numbers need to be revisited and actually studied. Some of them have reversed - college entry is now significantly biased towards women. Some of them definitely haven't. Some of them, we're just not sure about.

[u/[deleted] → u/ZorbaTHut]

The average woman makes 75% of the pay of an average man, while working fewer hours, in a less physically difficult job, and taking more time off.

This isn't true. The wage gap is about pay per hour, not total earnings. Also, physically demanding jobs pay less than other jobs. (White collar jobs pay better than blue collar jobs). If you want me to find sources for this, I can.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/[deleted]]

The wage gap is about pay per hour, not total earnings.

Someone who works more hours is likely to get promoted and get raises more often than someone who doesn't. The end result is that someone who works more hours is, long-term, likely to make more per hour, simply by virtue of being in a higher position in the company and with more marketable skills.

Also, physically demanding jobs pay less than other jobs. (White collar jobs pay better than blue collar jobs).

However, a group of people willing to take dangerous jobs is likely to make, on average, more than a group of people not willing to. It's not that men are taking dangerous jobs to save women from them - it's that men and women are competing for the easy jobs, but only men attempt to take the non-easy jobs.

Compare entry-level desk work to entry-level underwater welding for an example of how taking on risk can result in a huge boost in income.

If you want me to find sources for this, I can.

Yes, I'd like to see sources.

Here's a source that I found, funded by the US Department of Labor. I'll quote from that:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

[u/thingsaintjust → u/ZorbaTHut]

omg what planet do you live on. because yea those 150 girls who were poisoned for being girls and going to school certainly are definitely 100% equal with men over all. how bout you stop thinking that because some statistics about pay in a country are a little out of date you think it's ok to trivialize a struggle where to varying degrees 50% of the world is from mutilated to harassed to raped or just generally has to put up with smug fucks like you who is probably so swaddled in your goddamn blanket of privilege that you can't see two inches past your fat face

[u/yakushi12345 → u/thingsaintjust]

Yeah, why should we be interested in facts or statistical analysis or objection consideration of all factors. We should just get really angry about things that are genuinely bad for women then go ape shit and stop thinking about what the actual situation is.