quote:

I didn't define it according to the OED, HP, but according to that which is used within the social sciences. There's a big difference and this is implied by that word 'sciences'. We have to isolate words and define them clearly in sciences of any sort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21

quote:

I didn't define it according to the OED, HP, but according to that which is used within the social sciences. There's a big difference and this is implied by that word 'sciences'. We have to isolate words and define them clearly in sciences of any sort.

Sorry, the OED defines feminism in a manner nearly identical to that used in a previous post of yours, and the folks of the OED are pretty good about adhering to the definitions widely held by social scientists, so I didn't see any discrepancies. I believe the OED describes feminism as "the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Same as the definition according to mainstream social scientists, yes?

I think you've made a very good point in describing the importance of proper semantics within the sciences. But, as you've demonstrated with respect to conservatism and socialism, there is no one ideology behind most political definitions. There is no one "conservative" or "socialist" or "feminist" ideology. There are so many different feminist philosophies, with so many different beliefs and ideologies backing them, that I find it very difficult to define feminism, as a whole, under one standard definition. Doing so, I think, is unscientific and betrays the very concept of clear, honest semantics. At least, with respect to my self-identification. And, hey, even in academia, terms like "feminism" are often qualified to describe the particular ideology being addressed and discussed.

Most socio-political issues are very complex by nature, and one's views on them cannot often be corralled by a single term. That's why I don't call myself a "democrat" or a "republican" or a "socialist" either, and when I hear those terms, they won't characterize my opinion of another person. Because, quite frankly, those words have become completely meaningless. There are so many different "republican" and "democrat" ideologies, that I simply cannot use those terms to informatively label any one person or idea.

I believe the same applies to feminism. It's a virtually meaningless term. It wasn't always, but it has been muddied by so many different ideologies, that I can't really learn anything of value from being told, "So-and-so is a feminist." Especially since, even if we agree that feminism is belief in "equal rights," what constitutes "equal rights" will vary from person to person, and even from social scientist to social scientist.

For example, I don't believe that abortion is ethical after the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. (Whether or not it should be legal is, I think a separate issue). But, given this, can I still call myself a feminist? I say I believe in equal rights for women, but because I believe that the exercise of certain "reproductive rights" can be characterized as selfish and self-centered, you and others might think I don't qualify for the title. I also believe in the legalization of pornography. Can I still call myself a feminist, or are others in the field going to argue otherwise, because by its very nature pornography is the dehumanization of women? Why bother with all this silly nonsense.

I know, I know. Their are always radicals "on the fringe" who will insist that these beliefs preclude me from calling myself a feminist. You argue that I shouldn't let the "fringe" and their lunatic ideologies turn me away from feminism, right? But I don't think these ideas are as "fringe" as you think. At least half of the self-proclaimed feminists I've talked to have argued that anti-abortion beliefs, the desire to submit to a man, and/or support for the porn industry preclude me from being a feminist. Of course, this is just my experience, but why argue? Okay,okay. I give up. You guys win; I'm not a feminist. I've got better things to do then fight for a term my fellow women don't want me to have.

I understand that there is a lot of anti-feminist propaganda, and I agree, it is a problem. But a lot of women seem to serve as propaganda against their own movement as well, and I am tired of arguing with other women about whether or not my beliefs make me a feminist or not. It just isn't worth it.

I'll stick to my weekly volunteer gig and my useless, cowardly "humanist" ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
And Peon, like hispet I don't really give a rats ass what some social scientists THINK feminism is. What I consider "real" is not some social science theory. "Real", to me, is what exists in the actual world. My experience tells me your social scientists need to visit reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21Sorry, the OED defines feminism in a manner nearly identical to that used in a previous post of yours, and the folks of the OED are pretty good about adhering to the definitions widely held by social scientists, so I didn't see any discrepancies. I believe the OED describes feminism as "the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Same as the definition according to mainstream social scientists, yes?

quote:

Because, quite frankly, those words have become completely meaningless. There are so many different "republican" and "democrat" ideologies, that I simply cannot use those terms to informatively label any one person or idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Still, they have gone into reality - and that's what they've found. (We've found, I should say, since I'm one of them.) They've found feminists who've looked and acted in a decent and balanced way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
Then all I can say is what you found and what I found where vastly different things. It remains true that I choose not to help those who are trying to hurt me. In the mean time I will vote according to my own conscience and try to get laws passed which forward my own personal goals regarding equality of the sexes. I won't wear the label though and I won't help fund a feminist organization. If feminism is really as nice and tidy as you portray then if they want males involved they can... you know... involve males. I'll be more interested again when I start hearing discussions about things like "reproductive rights" that actually consider what rights the male might have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Since feminism is about equality, then it's about as tidy as that term could ever be, which isn't very tidy at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
What I'm trying to communicate is that is not my observed view of what feminism is about. I think it's about women's rights... with no regard whatsoever to men.

quote:

In which case, we have nothing to talk about and this thread has been a waste of everyone's time.

quote:

We can't talk about either liking or disliking 'feminism' because we don't know what 'feminism' means.

quote:

The more I read this thread the happier that I am that I'm a humanist with traditional values and don't have to worry about all of this.

quote:

When the scales were ludicrously tipped against women, I was fine focusing on the half which was clearly getting screwed. Now that things aren't nearly as unbalanced... and arguably overbalanced in some areas to the women's favor... I'm way less interested in looking at half the problem. Now I believe what is necessary for forward motion is looking at the entire question of gender roles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21

quote:

In which case, we have nothing to talk about and this thread has been a waste of everyone's time.

I certainly think it has.

quote:

We can't talk about either liking or disliking 'feminism' because we don't know what 'feminism' means.

I don't see why this is problematic. Instead of saying, "I am a feminist," and forcing people to guess what, exactly, I mean by that, I could take an extra five seconds out of my day to say, "I believe in women's rights, and for me that entails the legalization of abortion up through the third trimester," or "I believe that pornography should be illegal," or "I think women shouldn't be treated as a pre-existing health condition for the purposes of health insurance." Isn't that lot more helpful? And, hey, it forces the conversation toward a discussion of politics as opposed to that of semantics!

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdmb

ugh, and now we have gone to porn

a few things about porn:

1)it can be very good, it can be very demeaning, it doesnt have much to do with gender. when you really look at it, porn about a man sitting on the face of a woman is really very gentle while porn about a woman sitting on the face of a man is quite cruel and much more likely to be dangerous, do you really think porn is automatically demeaning to women? obviously your definition of porn is a good five or six decades old.

2)lets look for a second at the entertainment industry in america, right now they are writing our laws and making it quite impossible to have privacy online. now, seeing as they have that much power, lets look back at the beginning of VHS

2a)VHS started out being hated by hollywood, laws were in the making to make it entirely illegal to have anything that could record video pretty much at all. know who stopped it? people could put their porn on something they could see over and over again if VHS existed. porn made VHS and thus DVD Bluray and all video recording mediums (including internet) possible.

so, i leave it to you, do you really think porn is a bad thing? it makes men who have frigid wives, women who have frigid husbands, women who have frigid girlfriends, and men who have frigid boyfriends able to have a possibility for escape

also, it allows people to know that there are other options. how many of you wouldve gone thru life frustrated, living vanilla lives, and not understanding why you werent happy?

hey, lets play out a hypothetical!

okay, porn is illegal, well that opens the government up to being able to say sexting is not legal, and how would anybody know if you were sexting? well not we have to watch EVERY text sent from EVERY phone. good going antiporn laws, now phones are being actively scrutinized and you can be arrested on that alone

wait, theres more? oh yes, an ultrasound of your baby? well the government can easily twist that around and call it porn, good going, now there is no warning at all (altho personally im starting to wonder about how safe those are for the fetus anyways...)

and yet more? well, phones are being tapped for porn, and they will be, if you dont think they will be then youre delusional to such a degree (yeah, sure, we are just looking for porn, we arent watching just so we have all your movements, oh no, not at all) so might as well go to email, all email services will be required to hand over their records

yes, these are extreme, but ive seen much less do much more. all they need is one excuse, just the one, and they can take over whatever is convenient and whatever they want. look at the word terrorism, terrorism used to mean using fear to get what you want, well that definition is now called patriotic and the new definition for terrorism is "whoever doesnt agree that my gods dick is bigger then their gods dick". you arent even guaranteed a trial if you are labeled a terrorist, so once again, whoever they dont want to send to trail is labeled a terrorist, for convenience

oh yeah, btw, back to that thing about porn taking down hollywood? yeah, if porn can take down the thing that wrote our most recent law about internet privacy (it slipped in after SOPA got turned down, everybody patted their own backs while it got signed), do you really want to fuck with them? yeah, ill be standing over here so your bloodsplatter doesnt ruin my suit

hey, im just somebody whos seen enough laws get turned around for devious means, maby im wrong and porn will go away and itll affect sexual assault in only positive ways... sure... keep telling yourself that

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
It's about ideals, and and what people have fought for and continue to fight for, on account of how they find ideals important. It wasn't due to 'semantics' those suffragettes got themselves gaoled and force-fed back at the turn of the twentieth century.

quote:

Do you not think it might help if all sides were to stop and think about what 'freedom' means? More importantly, actually to *value* the thinking about what that word 'freedom' actually means? And ultimately, *pin the frigging word down* a bit more?