Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
However, with feminism - and not a few other 'isms' - like socialism, for instance - a big stack of old propagandising is involved. That's just in the nature of politics and political terms, I'm afraid. The oldest trick in the book is to make out that if any person buys into any version of belief x, then that person is the 'same as'/'in cahoots with/at bottom (in some usually unspecified way) a believer in the most extreme version and undesirable version of x. Thus, anyone who believes in a national health service is 'by definition' not just into a form of social health, but a socialist. And if he's a socialist, why, of course he must be a communist. Like Stalin ....
This might be part of where the confusion might come in, since a dictionary definition is often insufficient to define most words ending in "-ism" (at least when it refers to a philosophy or ideology). There was once a time when "nationalism" meant something more positive in people's minds, but now it's viewed as mostly negative and malignant. It was the same with "socialism."
But whole volumes can be written and have been written about nationalism, socialism, feminism, liberalism, progressivism, conservatism, etc. Even terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing" can be interpreted all sorts of ways.
quote:
It's got to the screwy stage now, re feminism particularly, whereby the propagandising has been so relentless, so extreme, and for so long ... that many people won't even call themselves feminists *unless* they consider themselves to be extreme feminists - manhaters, even.
It may not necessarily be a reflection on "feminism" in general, although what I've noticed is a compartmentalization of feminism, which is different from what I remember feminism (or "women's lib" as it was called back then) used to be. Feminism was a part of a greater whole of mainly progressive causes including civil rights, fighting poverty/classism/racism, anti-war, etc. Now, all of these causes which were once together have branched off into their own little niche where they're focused solely on one issue and one issue alone. There's no real "big picture" focus anymore; it's all just a bunch of little pictures, unrelated and disconnected from each other.
quote:
It was ever thus, with feminism. Way, way back, in the days of the suffragettes, ordinary, quite prim and proper women who merely announced that they thought women should have the vote, would be cast as the sorts of 'monsters' who'd punch policemen. It still does. It's still possible to get someone to believe that if she (or he) buys into a full-blooded equality of the sexes - but that, and only that - then she must, ipso facto, be a man-hater. Yet, underneath all that, feminism has been phenomenally successful, from what I've seen. It's radically changed things so, so quickly - and, apparently, permanently. I mean, think of it: how long did it take for universal suffrage to be achieved? The suffragette movement kicked off here in the UK in the 1880s and within just a few decades it had *achieved* female suffrage.
It was about the same here in the US. Some states allowed women to vote long before the 19th Amendment was ratified. I don't think it was always thought of as man-hating, though. Personally, I always thought the idea that feminists are "man-haters" was irrelevant anyway. If they are, so what? If someone hates me merely because I'm a man, that's their loss, not mine. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
quote:
But the acid test is always the same: how long before a set of precepts are accepted as axiomatic and unproblematic, and by the majority of people? Seriously, given the definition of feminism that I've quoted (again and again) - who here, really, would want to argue that he or she is *not* a feminist? I've seen no takers so far in this thread.
I think if we're looking at the bare bones definition relating to the principle of "equal rights before the law," then this would mean the basic goals of feminism were already achieved decades ago. Even before the 1960s, women had the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to education - at least on paper. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.
A lot of what feminism became after that was not so much about changing the law, since that had already been done. It was more about changing public perceptions. For example, instead of "chairman" it became "chairperson" - that sort of stuff. I still remember back when hurricanes were given only female names, and yet, this was something that feminists ostensibly complained about, prompting the change to giving hurricanes alternating male and female names.
The central theme was total equality in the belief that a woman can do anything a man can do, whether it's firefighter, working in a hardhat occupation, or any other previously male-dominated occupation. Most of these barriers had already been broken decades ago, so some might question whether feminism is even relevant anymore.
I'm not necessarily going to argue that I'm *not* a feminist. As a counter-example, I might say that if I lived during the 19th century, I would be an abolitionist. I am still very much anti-slavery, but since the passage of the 13th Amendment, saying "I'm an Abolitionist" just wouldn't make any sense nowadays. I wouldn't argue that I'm *not* an abolitionist, but it just doesn't seem like something I would argue either way.
Or it may be like the word "liberal," which is another one of those terms which gets tossed and twisted about. Technically, anyone who believes in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, etc. would be a "liberal," yet in common parlance, it often gets used differently. If someone is against "liberals," then they're against freedom - if we want to use a basic dictionary definition. Usually, when pressed on it, most on the right who lambaste and rail against "liberals" will concede that, yes, they are liberals too when using the basic definition. They'll admit to that, but only within that narrow context.
|
RE: Women's rights groups to rally against equal custod... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread