Feminism

[slightreturn]

Please feel free to express your views honestly re; Feninism.
What to men really think about it?

But mysogynist isn't necessarily someone who hates all women is it?

I've always thought of it as someone who has a general antipathy to femaleness per se. It doesn't mean that you hate everyone who is female, it doesn't mean that you can't love some females. Hell, it doesn't even mean that you can't be female! It just means that you have a deep hatred of the state of being female.

At least that's what I think a mysogynist is. Have never really thought about it that much except in the vague terms of "woman hater". Am ready to be persuaded it means something different...

I think people who regard anti-feminist as always equalling misogynist are probably looking at it from the viewpoint of "if you aren't with us, you're against us".

I have missed all of this because I have been sorting out Real Life... gah.

Herbeatitude - we will have to agree to disagree, because you know what I am saying and I know what you are saying and yet I don't think we are saying exactly the same thing... Oh well. I just think "men expect women to speak deferentially" isn't just a value-free observation, it can be read as containing a critique (of men expecting women to be the "deferential" one). You didn't mean it that way but it can be read that way.

"Misogynist" I think is a very strong term which should not be bandied about lightly. Just as "man-hater" will make women blanch and want to remind people that they have men in their lives whom they love, being called "misogynist" will make a lot of men bristle (and maybe bridle, who knows?), as most of them will have women in their lives whom they love - wives, mothers, daughters. (Well, hopefully only one each of the first two, but you know what I mean.)

I don't think anyone who truly loves his wife and daughter can have a "deep hatred of the state of being female." What a horrible place that would be to be in.

Habbibu, your comparison with atheism is interesting. I disagree with it but I can see where you're coming from. I don't think of myself as especially "strident", but I am occasionally a bit cross, as I tried politeness for many, many years and these days I just get so frustrated with all the "it's not about proof" stuff over and over. Richard Dawkins is accused of being spiky with his interlocutors, but I don't think he is, especially - he goes quite gently on them in comparison to the way some people I know would have a go at them...

"I don't think anyone who truly loves his wife and daughter can have a "deep hatred of the state of being female." What a horrible place that would be to be in."

Well yes. Lots of mysogynists are in a really horrible place. Patriarchy hurts menz too...

@nickoftime

I agree with what you say. May feminists do believe that men and women should share the breadwinner and childcare roles. I also believe this is very appropriate and that it does allow both men and women to experience a broader spectrum of life. I'll add that I think feminism is responsible for changing society for the better in this respect.

I don't see how that makes me a feminist. It just means that I'm in sympathy with some of its achievements. I appreciate that feminism has many strands, but it is fair to say that it is about a good deal more than, for example, the ability to get out to work.

Moraldisorder basically states what I see feminism as being about. It seems to me that feminism strives for fairness rather than equality, because in general it doesn't view men and women as the same. This makes it rather different to, for example, the gay rights movement which is premised on homosexuals being entitled to the same treatment as heterosexuals because the are fundamentally no different, and which is restricted to that issue. Feminism, it seems to me, is more about a way of viewing the world.

Thanks, stayfrosty - my point exactly!

Toad, but how does how you think make you not a feminist, either? It's not like you have to pay a subscription - if you're generally in sympathy with it, are you not a feminist by default, iyswim?

@Habbibu,

Because, or so it seems to me, being a feminist is more than agreeing with certain outcomes, even if those outcomes seem intrinsically fair or equal. It appears to require, at least to some extent, the belief that women and men have different experiences, different outlooks on life, and that society should be restructured to be more consistent with women's needs, experiences, etc. Some of these changes might well benefit men too. Some of them won't. The main concern is not people in general but women.

Back in the 1970s many things that were considered fair are now seen as grossly unfair and absurd. In order to consider something to be fair or unfair, there needs to be a set of moral standards by which to judge it. Feminists changed those standards.

Do I believe in fairness for men and women? Of course I do. But this strikes me as a rather different position than advocating what is best specifically for women.

Apologies for double-post. My last paragraph should have said this:-

"Do I believe in fairness for men and women? Of course I do. But this strikes me as a rather different position than advocating what is best specifically for women even if done in the belief that it is fair overall.

HerBeatitude, you're entering realms of semantics that are beyond me. My dictionary defines misogyny as hatred of women. Not a woman, or even some women, or femaleness, but women. What do you mean by "femaleness" that is separate from women?

I see it as analogous to misanthropy, the hatred of people in general. A true misanthrope doesn't just hate some people, he/she hates everyone.

It doesn't require "the belief that women and men have different experiences, different outlooks on life," although that is a feature of some feminism.

It does require "that society should be restructured to be more consistent with women's needs, experiences, etc. "

but not out of any belief that 'what is best for women' trumps concerns around fairness. Rather out of a belief that women's interests have mean unfairly sacrificed so that a concentration on them is needed to rectify an imbalance.

re your amendment "even if done in the belief that it is fair overall": if the belief is a correct one then it surely legitimises the focual on what is best for women.

If the belief is an incorrect one, then that is simply a mistake that the progress of feminism and the shared discussions of men and women must aim to refine.

focual focus

So, just to clarify, women's love of their menfolk can be used as conclusive evidence that they are not man-haters, but men's love of the women in their lives is not conclusive evidence that they aren't misgynists?

Just checking. I'm making a List, you know. :)

I knew somebody would do exactly that with my point about atheism. I pretty much opened the door and ushered you in. What about my point about Dawkins? I think he lets his detractors destroy themselves with their empty rhetoric and his calm questioning - he is nothing like the harsh, rude critic people make him out to be.

misOgynists.

I can spel but i carnt tipe.

You did rather lay on a welcome for that one! You know, I honestly haven't heard/read enough Dawkins to properly recall what he's really like - I shouldn't have taken his name in vain before, in fairness. BUT - that raises another interesting idea - the perception of Dawkins as an atheist ranter is widespread, even if it is, as you suggest, misguided. So people listen to him with preconceived notions and hear what they expect to hear, iyswim? Finding offence where, if you look closely, it's actually hard to justify.

Could this not be true of many of the maligned feminist voices?

Interesting discussion of misogyny - maybe the definition would include not respecting women as equals. As I think about it, I can't help but think of the "I can't be racist - some of my best friends are black" line. The exception proving the rule? But this would apply equally to misogyny and man-hating, except that misogyny has been rather more supported by the patriarchal society.

But once again, feminism has sought to change (and has in fact changed) notions of fairness. This is why consciousness raising was an important part of the early movement: it was designed to get people to see the existence of a problem where previously they didn't. This is not entirely consistent with trying to do the best for men and women, or even simply for women according to what seems fair, although there is room for overlap. It does not seem to have the impartiality required.

(last post was Eleison)

But you're implying that the need for consciousness-raising is gone, whereas in fact it could easily be argued it needs a boost in a hyper-sexualised society.

(err.. I mean, last post was FOR Eleison )

This is a great thread, but it's tricky keeping all these various tangents in your head at once!

Habbibu,

I apologise for misleading you: I didn't mean to imply that at all. I'm not even questioning whether consciousness-raising is a legitimate pursuit. I mentioned it to illustrate how feminism changed notions of fairness instead of working within them.

TITH I don't see the inconsistency. If there is an unfairness that is rendered hidden by false consciousness, then the revelation and correction of it is still entirely consistent with fairness?

What's fairness?

Agree fairness is a very vague term, not introduced by me. Makes me v annoyed that party politicians have started using it -- precisely because it commits them to nothing more than the claim to be the goood guy.

Better terms might be 'social justice' plus 'equality of respect'. Social goods and cultural values that reflect a commitment not to short-change anyone on the basis morally neutral phenomena like gender, race, etc.