|
PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/25/2010 2:53:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: porcelaine
Comfort was a privilege and the sufferance of others should never be overlooked. Those are the tenets that I adhere to and the same I ingrained in my daughter. To presume that I am a feminist merely because the improvement of those less endowed is of personal importance is pretty short-sighted. Does that imply that advocating for the arts makes one an artist? Or merely an enthusiast that supports the cause instead? While I can understand the perspective shown in the comments presented, we must never forget that's what applicable to one may be in opposition to another. What you term feminism is inaccurately defined and is truthfully philanthropy instead.
porcelaine,
A good, working definition of feminism is 'the furtherance of the tenets of freedom and equality, applied to a special case - that of women'. You may well like to use the terms philanthropy, or even noblesse oblige - they'll do, for a certain 'take' on what feminism may be for many. (Perhaps a more conservative take - that of a Disraeli, maybe - that 19th Century Conservative prime minister who is still often regarded as the most socially-reforming PM the UK's ever had. The phrase 'noblesse oblige' is now inextricably connected to his name, here.)
This all may sound like a broad definition - but we have to ask, why does it sound broad? It's a standard tactic by the opponents of a movement to try to associate all the adherents of that movement with its worst examples. I think the man-(or woman)-in-the-street's idea of what feminism 'is' has indeed become that much narrower, shudder-inducing version. The academic idea of 'what feminism is' is, as you might imagine, a great deal broader.
But, really, none of that matters. It's up to you and I - not the academics, not the political parties, not the media, and most definitely not the enemies of the feminist movement, to define it. There's a lot of work to do because the descendants of those who sneered at the suffragettes as 'monstrous hordes of women' have, by now, pretty much got their definition of feminism established as 'the only definition that matters'. At the same time, the movements - the ideologies - that they favour remain well-defended, no matter how many nasty little examples have cropped up over the decades. Thus, Feminism is still, in the public's perception, associated with a few of the most firebrand examples of writing (often suitably distorted, natch) of the most radical thinkers and activists of the 1980s. On the other hand, in the UK, political Conservatism has somehow shifted massively such that it's no longer associated with Thatcherism. Likewise, the far left of the Labour Party are assumed some not to matter any more. Why the difference?
'Feminism' is a dirty word. It doesn't need trashing, though - it needs washing. There's little point in taking the easier way out - that of it trashing it - because whatever new term that you use to describe your movement for a better world will, itself, get dirtied in exactly the same way. So, for instance . . . you aspire to be a philanthropist? Upset too many people, and you'll become, instead, 'a do-gooder'.
|
|
|
|
