How to deal with the heterogeneity of feminism?

thereslcjg2000 · 2019-12-16T19:42:58+00:00

I think you have something there. When I critique feminism, I refer to the word as it is usually used today, not necessary every single interpretation of the word. I agree that getting those sorts of people’s support can help our movement a lot.

Oh and as a side note, your analyses of the different types of feminists are spot-on.

cromulent_weasel · 2019-12-16T20:58:35+00:00

The dilemma is when we criticize feminists, this hits a lot of people who actually don't deserve it, who just happen to call themselves feminists.

Yeah, I mean there's a #NOTALLMEN or #NOTALLFEMINISTS kind of thing where people want to be able to speak in sweeping generalisations without qualifying their language but I think that loses something and alienates people who fundamentally aren't opposed to the ideas you are putting forth.

I have had people on this sub highlight to me the differences between equality feminism and gender feminsm where I would really characterise my self as an equality feminist rather than other different flavours.

AskingToFeminists · 2019-12-16T23:34:34+00:00

Those last people you are talking about, there are mostly two kinds. Those that don't really care about feminism. In the mainstream, it is the term to say "I believe in equality". Equality is a good thing. If asked, they will say "they are feminist" to say they are "good people". And they won't bother thinking about it before the next time someone ask them about it. Those people are basically useless for us to reach. The second kind is people who actually care about the issues. It's just that they haven't dived deep into them. They are basically newbies on the question. They have heard feminism is the word for people who care about equality, so they call themselves it. And then they start to learn more. And two things can happen. Either they are intellectually honest, and they will come to us anyway. Or they care more about being popular than about being right, and they will join the first category, then the second as they seek to make it higher in the feminist hierarchy. To reach the "popular" type of the second kind or to make them avoid wanting to join feminism, clear exposure of what feminism is is what we need. Criticism of feminism is what is needed. It also help reaching the first kind, by making them aware that feminism isn't the "good guy" default position.

Look, I know that many people don't like conflict. They want to round the edges, and why can't we all be nice and sing cumbaya and make everyone comfortable. But change isn't comfortable. If everyone is comfortable, then it means you don't touch the status quo. It is thanks to guys like Paul Elam that we ever got Cassie Jaye, and that she then went on to listen to guys like Warren Farrell. Sometimes, you just have to stir the shit up so that people wonder where the stink is coming from.

Never criticizing feminism, sidestepping the issues, it is all fine and dandy, but it will get us nowhere. People will still default to "Feminism is the movement for equality" without further question. Politicians will still think that openly opposing NOW is political suicide when NOW comes to them to get another shared parenting bill vetoed.

Yes, there is a need for people who also try to play it soft. They need to be there to help the landing of the people that were made to fall from the feminist tree when people who play it hard are shaking it. Without both, you accomplish nothing.

So, personally, I will keep saying it as it is : Feminism is and has always been a force for misandry and overall sexism in our societies, and anyone who reclaim themselves of it should be ashamed, because they are either pieces of shit, lazy ignorants or useful morons (and often a little bit of all three) . And I dare anyone who disagree to prove me wrong.

plitox_is_a_bitch · 2019-12-17T02:56:13+00:00

I find that the nitty-gritty differences and versions are usually only ever pulled out in mainstream discourse when feminists are painted into a corner.

"Oh, yeah, but that's only Radical Exclusionary Discombobulate Female Exo-Refinement Feminism. Socio-Desegregrationary Invertment Feminism doesn't ascribe to those theories at all."

Mostly sex-positive, mostly supportive of trans people and sex workers but might endorse the Nordic model, does not hate men but thinks that saying #menaretrash is OK in some contexts, does not consider each individual man a problem but believes in structures that systematically favor men over women, considers "the patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity" to be the reasons why men experience problems or do certain (bad) things...

Keep in mind that there's very much a traditional - and still ascribed to - notion that's tied in with male disposability here: that masculinity (and men) is a single, homogeneous bloc, with every male more or less interchangeable. Contrast with women being allowed to be more individualistic, unique, and free.

So it's fine to describe men as more or less as identical, but not for women. It's fine to make broad generalisations of men from a feminist perspective, but it's not fine to make the exact same sorts of generalisations about women.

spudmix · 2019-12-16T22:08:25+00:00

I think the solution is simple. Attack ideas and not groups or individuals, maintain a focus on solutions rather than problems, and most importantly treat every interaction you have with respect and the principle of charity.

For example, I agree with many of the folks here that the Duluth model is garbage. I see many arguments made around the internet that this means we must criticise feminism or feminists, because they were involved in creating it. But what does that actually achieve? At best you'll get a "yeah that was bad" and at worst you'll (continue to) be derided and ignored. Instead, let's do the following:

1) Undertake a study to find if, and where, the Duluth model is still in use - specific organisations should be identified
2) Compare the cost of addressing this to it's projected impact, and continue if we decide it's worth it
3) Prepare a strategy for getting a new, better model that doesn't suffer the same flaws adopted - direct correspondence, media and social pressure, aggregated research showing Duluth is a bad idea
4) Engage in the strategy above, assess impact vs. expectation, revise

0% effort spent complaining about feminism, way more effect than complaining about feminism.

LacklustreFriend · 2019-12-17T22:38:55+00:00

I have very mixed feelings on the feminist movement as a whole. My opinion has changed back and forth many times over the last few years. On one hand, I want to recognise their achievements in women's rights. On the other, Karen Straughan aka u/girlwriteswhat (and others) have made compelling arguments that feminism is not and never was about gender equality. The opinion where I'm at right now is that feminism was an outcome of changing attitudes about gender due to industralization and war, not the cause. That is, the feminist movement is just a byproduct, good or bad, of inevitable social change.

As for the heterogeneity question, when male advocates/MRAs/egalitarians use the term 'feminist' or 'feminism' they are referring to the current gender feminism that is practiced in academia and political institutions. Because here's a dirty little secret - there is really only one kind of feminism today. Sure, different feminist beliefs do exist, but for all practical purposes there is only one that matters. Gender feminism (or as I like to sometimes call it, ideological or institutional feminism) holds all the power in social, educational and political institutions. Gender feminists may technically be a numerical minority, but they wield all the power. Power os what legitimises a movement. If you don't subscribe to the dogma, you will be excommunicated like many of the prominent equity feminists have been. If I was being particularly uncharitable, I would say the majority 'casual' equity feminists simply act as a smokescreen defending the sexist actions, deliberate or otherwise, of the gender feminists.

Feminism has never been just the simple belief in the equality of the sexes (sorry Emma Watson!). It has always been a social movement, an ideology, a culture. There exists feminist theory, feminist political organisation, feminist literature, feminist artwork (go into any decently sized modern art gallery!). I don't mean this necessarily as a pejorative, it's just what it is. You can't do a 180 in the movement and change decades of feminist culture.

I think we should seek some sort of alliance with those feminists who feel alienated by modern feminism as much as we do.

That has already happened. Most MRAs/egalitarians are equity feminists but specifically left the movement/dropped the label because they care about equality and specifically for that reason they saw flaws of modern gender feminism which is feminism today. The prominent equity feminists who still called themselves feminists (such as C. H. Sommers and other you mention) already do somewhat have an informal alliance with MRAs/male advocates/egalitarians. They do want to try and save the label 'feminism' but it's a lost cause to me at least.

Blauwpetje · 2019-12-17T13:32:55+00:00

I can appreciate, and even cooperate with, individual feminists or sometimes even groups, just like with liberals, socialists, anarchists, traditionalists, conservatives. But if 'feminism' means something more than equalism, I don't think much of it. I even think in all the points that make feminism 'more' than equalism, I disagree with it.

czerdec · 2019-12-17T15:49:36+00:00

As far as logical thought is concerned, there is no heterogeneity.

Name any branch of feminism which practices the scientific method. You can't because none of them do.

mewacketergi · 2019-12-26T21:39:48+00:00

It's simple: you don't have to. The heterogenity is not real in terms of political power, it's a rhetorical trick. We only really need to concern ourselves with either the public opinion on gender issues, or those of feminists who have institutional power.

She notices the problems with the term herself, but in her recent videos, she seems to be embracing it a little more again. You might also include C. Paglia and C. H. Sommers in that category, but I'm personally not quite sure what to think about them. For those who speak German, the person I am primarily thinking about is Svenja Flaßpöhler.

And in my experience those sane feminists are only brought up and acknowledged as "real feminists" when it's convenient to deflect criticism.

Title	How to deal with the heterogeneity of feminism?
Author	GaborFrame
Upvotes	23
Comments	44
Date	December 16, 2019 7:35 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ebjx3e/how_to_deal_with_the_heterogeneity_of_feminism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/how-to-deal-with-the-heterogeneity-of-feminism.1202057 https://theredarchive.com/post/1202057

Comments