Do you have a feminist son? Seems I do!

I think ( in part because of threads on here) that I showed dd a lot of media with women in it. Perhaps as a result, or perhaps it would have happened anyway, dd does not want to watch stuff that is mostly about men or boys ( so most media). Although she is a teenager, she does not see it as political. She just sees it as dull, boring and pointless. And I think that has to have an impact on self esteem, that the norm in what you view is not male dominated, and never has been.

fiscal, there is an interesting link on here somewhere where the writer says that a feminist is someone who believes that men and women should be equal, and that they currently are not equal, that the weight of that disadvantage falls on women, and that they want to do something about it.

I agree with that. I agree with trade unionism in theory, but in practice I don't actively do anything about it, so I am not a trade unionist (another form of egalitarianism!) in practice.

And that is fine, just as it is fine not to be a feminist in practice if you doing something else worthwhile. But your son, who is actively learning about it and challenging an authority figure about women's rights, I would consider that feminism in practice for a 9 year old.

Sorry that first paragraph should finish ' feminism is a subset of egalitarianism and gender equality is also a subset of egalitarianism.' not what I have written above.

I think any reply to this is only going to summarise what I have already said. Yes, feminism is a subset of feminism, but geder equality is also a subset of feminism.

There are lots of different types of egalitarianism, some of which are mutually exclusive and some of which are compatible. There are some people on this board who advocate for Marxism and Feminism (which are both kinds of egalitarianism) and some who only advocate for Feminism (one part of egalitarianism). People can advocate for some parts of egalitarianism and disagree with others.

It is possible to advocate for gender equality without advocating for women's rights. A person could advocate equality between men and third gender people, without mentioning women at all. But if you are talking about men and women, then a person cannot both believe that men and women should be equal but disagree that women should be able to vote. It would be like saying you believed in racial equality but didn't agree that apartheid should end for black people.

If this is not what you are saying and you are saying that egalitarianism is the theory that genders should be equal and feminism is the practice of giving women rights, that isn't the case either. All forms of egalitarianism have a theory and practice, including feminism.

I have never tried to imply feminism wasn't a subset of egalitarianism. I wonder if perhaps you're not understanding that all feminists are egalitarians, not all egalitarians are feminists.

Maybe you hold to a definition of feminism that actually doesn't distinguish feminism from egalitarianism, but my understanding and working assumption is that feminism is egalitarianism PLUS advocacy for women's rights.

If a person has only expressed a belief in the equality of genders, that's just basic egalitarianism. If that person goes on to express that belief AND the belief that e.g. women should therefore be able to vote/drive/etc, then that person is a feminist because they've added on the extra part about advocacy for women's rights.

I think the pathetic remark was fine, you were trying to use shaming and thought-terminating cliches, which I do think is pathetic. If you disagree, explain why, rather than resorting to buzzwords and stock phrases.

Captain, this may be a stupid question. I have heard people say that people with ASD are more prone to have a commitment to fairness, and so they are less inclined to pick up stereotypes and unfair reasons for treating people unequally, do you think there's any truth to that, or is it just a stereotype itself?

FiscalCliff Yes, my son is also a feminist. In very much the same way as yours is, I think. A sort of, 'well, duh, of course women are equal to men, what utter numpty would suggest they aren't?' style of thinking.

I think it's brilliant and has lead to us having some really interesting discussions about it all. He has ASD, and can be very literal in his thinking, so, while he might not get the subtleties, he does get the broad brush ideas.

I suspect lurkers don't post for a variety of reasons. A common criticism of why people don't engage in contemporary activism is because words are used to mean something that they have not traditionally meant, making it really difficult to understand what is being said, even if you make the effort to go away and look things up. So in that sense this conversation would entirely put off many people.

I think what this discussion has been is a good example of the other thread about losing the moral high ground, about how conservatives take a very simple concept, make entirely false statements with emotional connotations, and the feminists then attempt to explain rationally how something isn't true, thus leaving the emotional connotation in place, when people care a great deal about emotions, they matter very much, and they are what sways arguments.

That is exactly what has happened here. Suelford, you are still attempting to imply the feminism is not egalitarian, this implying that it is unequal and unfair, a highly emotional point that sways people.

There is not a feminist/egalitarian split of any percentage. Feminism is egalitarian. 100% of these points are egalitarian; it is just that two of thes points are about how we get equality for the gender group who form the economic, social and political minority and one is about two different gender groups being equal.

As for calling my argument pathetic, I see no point in even making that remark. The point of this section is not to advocate for feminism, but it is to discuss feminism. If you want to criticise feminism, you are entirely free to do so. MN has made that clear many times. The point of this thread was to discuss feminist sons; it was in the title of the thread.

Good point. I had forgotten the Star Wars one, so I was comparing a 50/50 feminist/egalitarian stance, but you're right, it's more like a 66/33 in favour of feminism.

I do think "derailing" is a bit pathetic though, this is a discussion board, we're here to discuss. Don't respond to my post if you don't want to take the thread off the rails (the rails to where? What is the correct destination of this thread?).

I feel like this is the sort of thing that stops the lurkers from posting and I not sure really helps.

But in your analogy, the OP would have to be having a conversation which they claimed was about egalitarianism (like Abrahamic religion) and then only made feminist points (like only making Christian points). That is not what happened. This was a post and thread discussing feminism and you have made out he is 'more egalitarian than feminist.'

The OP asked about feminism and her son advocated three points, all of which include the status of girls or women and the first two of which are specifically about discrimination against girls or women. They were 1. that girl should not be used as a term of abuse, 2. that there weren't enough female characters in action films and 3. that it didn't matter if a friend was a girl or a boy.

In your analogy, that would like somebody starting a conversation which they said was about Christianity and saying 1. I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, 2. I believe he died to save the world from sin. 3. I believe Moses was an important religious figures and you saying, 'sounds like he's more of a believer in Abrahmamic religions than a Christian.' Statements one and two are statements that are specifically drawn from Christian traditions. You would have derailed a conversation about Christianity to make some wider point about Abrahamic religion, as you have derailed a topic about feminism.

Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism - that doesn't mean that anything egalitarian is also automatically feminist, just because it is compatible with feminism.

To use your religion analogy, it would be like talking about ideas and behaviour in Abrahamic religions but only mentioning Christianity. It might be more specific, but that doesn't mean it is more accurate than the umbrella term; in fact, assigning certain behaviour to a specific subset, when it is actually practised by a wide variety of groups under the umbrella, would be misleading and inaccurate.

Suelford, you could just as easily say that the conversation was about equality between the sexes; in which case you could say that OP's son isn't a feminist, he is a conversationalist, as if the two are mutually exclusive categories. It is contrary to the meaning, social, political and philosophical background to the word egalitarian to try and imply that feminism is not egalitarian (when it is well established as being so and is a major strand in egalitarian thought) or use egalitarian as a precise description of a statement that is about gender, simply because it didn't specifically relate to discrimination against women.

Whoo hoo to feminist sons :) I sometimes get genuinely nervous about what dd (should she be heterosexual) have to muddle through when I see the sorry state of the world. takes fiscal's son's number for later

I don't think it is just a less specific umbrella term. Feminism has always been for (in both "about" and "pro" senses) women. Whereas egalitarianism is not for either gender in particular.

OP's sons first comment, challenging the "running like girls" is definitely feminist; the second comment about gender being irrelevant and making no difference, is gender-neutral and egalitarian.

Egalitarianism is an umbrella term. It includes ideas like anarch-syndicalism. Taking a conversation that was clearly about feminism and saying it is about egalitarianism is like taking a conversation that was clearly about Christianity and saying it was about religious belief.

As one is a subset of the other, it is about both, but why use a less specific term unless there are particular reasons why doing so would bring greater clarity?

yes I have one. Not due to me drilling it into his head, but I guess just because thats what he knows IYSWIM?
He is friends with boys and girls, challenges any stereotypical remark. But then he is very anti racist, anti homophobic as well and will challenge any of his friends with those views as well.

I don't think it was a cheeky comment at all, personally. He politely but firmly pulled his teacher up on a spot of casual sexism. He sounds like an excellent feminist (egalitarian if you prefer) and I would be extremely proud if my 3yo son grows up to be like him.

I have a feminist son.

I would like to think it's natural rather than the 24 hour a day 7 day a week indoctrination he has been subjected to since birth