“Women basically already have equal rights in the West”

[Ethelfleda]

I’ve heard this statement from a few people over the past year or so, always from men.
I know they’re wrong but I so rarely know how to tell them they’re wrong.
I want to tell them they’re wrong without patronising them because it is my belief that once you do this, you alienate your audience and they won’t ever come around to your way of thinking.

What do you say to this statement??

Childish playground tactics, and a form of bullying. It always gives me the shivers to see it

Yes, I know. I went to an all girls school. It doesn't really deter me, though.....in fact it just sharpens the intent.

I just spent five minutes wondering how rats eaten by cats, can survive inside the cat and start breeding.

Zombie rats making baby rats (zombie status undetermined) inside a cat's belly. They can add it as a plotline on The Walking Dead.

I'm not sending anyone to Coventry, just responding to things I am interested in. I'm not getting drawn into goady insulting questions accusing me of manhating and being a bully. Why should I? I'm totally happy to discuss in good faith but I won't engage to be insulted.

Meanwhile, a good recipe or animal fact is always worth having

If these books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous and are to be burned. If they agree with the Qur'an they are superfluous and are also to be burned.

Absolutely! This kind of bunker politics has had its day; for me, at least....and this forum contains a fair few whose big, bigoted, blind spot is themselves. When you've inhabited a position for decades...it can often be very difficult to let go of the security of it.

Like Stephen King's Pet Cemetery, but in a cat.

Zombieception?

I'm not sending anyone to Coventry, just responding to things I am interested in.

Same here. Someone made a point about ants and I just pointed out that it was incorrect 🤷‍♀️

Poor old Coventry does take quite a bashing. Apparently the phrase is very old though, thought to have originated in the 1600s

Yes, before its destruction during the war, I believe it had a beautiful medieval core.

I'm not sure how responding to someone constitutes being sent to coventry, but I suppose it's a handy stick to beat people with 🤷‍♀️

Are there any other political theories that people a) claim to espouse while b) redefining as their opposite. Or is feminism alone in this?

I seem to recall there's a parasite that makes ants climb grass stalks and wait to be eaten by cows. Am sure we can find some relevance in this somewhere.

Are there any other political theories that people a) claim to espouse while b) redefining as their opposite. Or is feminism alone in this?

I think Ash Sarkar's "fully automated luxury communism" is as close as you're likely to get.

Are there any other political theories that people a) claim to espouse while b) redefining as their opposite. Or is feminism alone in this?

I must first say that I don't think feminism is a purely political theory. Within the realm of the question, I would say that it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding or personal desire to redefine feminism as something objective. I believe that the only objective statement one can make about feminism and its definition is that it is subjective. Since the what and how are based on each individual's perceptions, I think it's possible for two individuals to work counter to each other and still legitimately both describe themselves as feminists.

This is also true for most political ideologies, which is why it's rarely accurate to describe a particular belief system in one universally applicable word. For example, among anarchists, you have anarcocapitalists, anarcocommunists, anarcoprimitivists and a whole galaxy of other adherents who, while sharing the belief that a national system of government is wrong, otherwise differ enormously to the point of contradiction.

The devil is always in the details.

I'm aware there's more to feminism than political theory - there's the practice of it also - but recasting it as something purely subjective is exactly what I'm questioning.

I believe that the only objective statement one can make about feminism and its definition is that it is subjective.

This is what I mean. Feminism isn't just a subjective thing; why are you claiming it is?

So, it would be fair to say that an objective description of anarchism is "the belief that a national system of government is wrong." Do we then get people coming along claiming to be anarchists while advocating to eg recreate NK in the West? No. (Or if we do, we laugh at them.)

So why is it that we have an objective description of feminism - it's a political theory advocating for the advancement of women's rights and the dismantling of sex-based oppression - yet we still have people coming along and telling us that there's no objective description and we're doing it wrong because they reject the tenets of the philosophy?

But Gronky, surely everyone could agree, for example, that feminism is based on a desire to make improvements to women's lives? They just don't necessarily agree on what constitutes "improvements". Is that what you mean by "subjective"?

it's a political theory advocating for the advancement of women's rights and the dismantling of sex-based oppression

feminism is based on a desire to make improvements to women's lives

Here is that devil rearing its head. I would agree more with kesstrel that their definition is more universal. Perhaps I should have said that the definition of a feminist rather than feminism is subjective (just as the definition of an anarchist, rather than anarchism is subjective).

In the above difference, someone could honestly believe that women are happier when all their decisions are made for them and they're provided with everything the provider thinks they need. While I'd strongly disagree with their beliefs, they'd still be a feminist.

Regarding an anarchist and North Korea, in a similar vein, there are anarcocommunists who honestly believe that a totalitarian Stalinist government is a requirement to transition to pure communism, free of all government. Yes, their beliefs are laughable but they're still anarchists.

I just spent five minutes wondering how rats eaten by cats, can survive inside the cat and start breeding.

Reading my post back I can see how you thought that now!

Interestingly, other toxoplasmosis infected animals lose their inherent fear of their predators, but with humans it’s almost the case that we lose our fear of failure/inhibitions. Recent studies have shown that infected humans are more likely to be entrepreneurs and that the most common degree amongst infected youths was business management.

Perhaps I should have said that the definition of a feminist rather than feminism is subjective

This I would agree with, having seen the sexist rubbish some people who call themselves feminists come out with.

I would suggest that, if you (general you, not you personally) reject feminist analysis and announce that the conclusions of earlier feminist theorists are utterly wrong, your subjective opinion of whether you're a feminist isn't enough to make you one.

Fancying a word and redefining it to suit you; now where have we seen that before?

Can anyone quote (and I mean actually quote, not give a heavily interpreted "paraphrase") actual examples from this thread of someone claiming to espouse feminism while redefining it as its opposite?

Because what I've seen here is basically women musing on possible reasons why it might not be possible to achieve a feminist utopia, and speculating over what might get in the way of such a goal. I really haven't seen anyone "redefining feminism as its opposite". What have I missed?

Fancying a word and redefining it to suit you; now where have we seen that before?

And thus we see why I reached the conclusion that some arguments just weren't worth engaging with. Others are of course free to do so if they find doing so entertaining. Lockdown can get a bit boring after all.

I would suggest that, if you (general you, not you personally) reject feminist analysis and announce that the conclusions of earlier feminist theorists are utterly wrong, your subjective opinion of whether you're a feminist isn't enough to make you one

The question then is how far back or forwards do you go? For example, first wave feminism contradicted Islamic Feminism (which may seem like an oxymoron but the Qur'an sets out many principles which, at the time, constituted a radical improvement to the rights of women) which is itself hardly the earliest recorded form of what might be described as feminism.

Doubt it, kesstrel - if I've implied that's happened on this thread then that's poor phrasing on my part. It is however a widespread problem.

Closest I've seen on this thread is a lack of awareness of the implications, for feminism and for women and girls, of assuming gendered behaviours must be biological in nature rather than as a result of the interplay between biology and culture.

Gronky And it's not as if feminist analysis is always entirely internally consistent, either. Shulamith Firestone had some weird ideas, but I was happy to take from her what i thought made sense, while discarding other parts of her analysis.

Someone cited Engels earlier, in a way that sounded like they were citing the Bible or the Koran - as if his ideas were simply unchallengeable. Now he was undoubtedly a brilliant, amazing mind, but he had the disadvantage of writing more than 150 years ago, without any of the anthropological knowledge we've gained since then. His speculations about private property and male dominance are just that - speculations.

There was also a whole strand of feminist thought in the 70s that focussed on feminine qualities as valuable and important and powerful, which seems to have been completely lost.

finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/

Closest I've seen on this thread is a lack of awareness of the implications, for feminism and for women and girls, of assuming gendered behaviours must be biological in nature rather than as a result of the interplay between biology and culture.

But I don't think I've seen that on this thread either. And I suspect a lot of women here would disagree that "proper feminism" accepts the idea of "an interplay between biology and culture". Rather, they would argue that it is in fact all culture. Certainly, there is quite a lot of the kind of earlier feminist analysis being cited as a 'given' here, that argues that it's all socialisation. I read plenty of it in the 70s.