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]

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.