Quick follow-up to my feminism post. It provoked more response than I’d expected. Some of the responses are to stupid to warrant addressing (they involve name-calling, pronouncements that I’m simply wrong for reasons the author does not care to explain, or they involve the phrase, “USA is as much of a patriarchy as Saudi Arabia”). Some aren’t.
Robot-heart writes:
I’ve always thought feminism was simply an idea that men and women were equal. I never realized that it meant I was asking for special consideration or special treatment. I just assumed it meant I could be treated as if I were an equal, as if I didn’t have something more to prove simply because I have a vagina, as if my position in society weren’t pre-determined by my reproductive organs. (…)
I think to trash the word or to say you will never use the moniker in relation to yourself is an insult to every feminist who came before you who fought for the rights you now so happily enjoy, and it is an insult to every woman who stands beside you who calls herself a feminist, with the expectation that she be treated equally — nothing more, nothing less.
With all respect, I think the word’s been trashed pretty thoroughly before I or anyone who agrees with me decided to publicly disavow it. It’s been taken by extremists and self-described feminists have advocated so much more than “an idea that men and women were equal.” If womens’ organizations and other self-professed feminists were only campaigning for this idea, and not for reverse discrimination, victimization, and the inherent immorality of the human male, I would be more inclined to agree. My opinion is, of course, colored by my experience, which depends on where I live (Norway). That said, I can’t say that I’ve seen foreign feminists any more eager to return to the equality ideals of yore than Norwegian feminists.
So, while I applaud the effort to take back the word from the extremists, at present I think it’s too dirtied, too associated with misandry and politics of favoritism to be acceptable.
Someone else asked why someone who doesn’t self-identify as a feminist gets to state his opinion on which feminists are the best. The answer is simple: the same way someone who isn’t an actor, a politician, or a racist can state their opinion on who the best actors, politicians and racists are. Although I think racists are misguided, the best racists are the ones who do not, despite their beliefs, commit hateful acts against people of other races. There, do you think I don’t have a right to say that unless I self-identify as a racist? I think I do.
Someone pointed out that studies have shown many of the differences between the sexes not to be innate, so we shouldn’t discourage (say) girls to go into science because of their sex. Well, no shit. There are still some biological differences between the sexes, and they could still account for some asymmetries between the sexes in some sectors. Risk-taking behavior, for instance, is thought to be something men are more prone to than women. If that is so, I wouldn’t be surprised if this means there are more men in high-risk professions than women. That doesn’t mean women can’t or shouldn’t engage in these professions if they’d like to. Regardless of biology, I believe we should encourage people to follow their dreams as far as realism allows. And we could definitely use more women in science, because we could use more scientists in general, but favoritism is the wrong way to go to encourage it.
Many, but not all who responded, seemed to take issue primarily with my use of the word “feminist”. I can assure you, I don’t have any substantial beef with these people: the only disagreement lies in what to call this position. I think it reeks of the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that all those who call themselves feminists but don’t subscribe to the position I called “humanism” aren’t really feminists. We’re forced to allow that part of the movement, which I think is really the majority of vocal feminists, a place under the umbrella too. And at that point, the reasonable people, I feel, ought to find themselves another umbrella to stand under, lest they be associated with the hateful extremists. Someone commented that “[I] think it’s sad how the word conjures up negative sentiments from people.” Well, it is sad, but it’s the fault of those who dirty the word by promoting negative policies in its name.
