what is feminism?

I think that feminism is very broad. I like Dan's definition, but wonder if it is totally accurate (it is very catchy though).In any case there are so many varying concepts of how to go about achieving those ends that there cannot be one feminism. There are many factions and one can only claim to be the more popular, not the sole recipient of the title.Your concrete example is NOW. What is NOW? Well I'd say it certainly is feminist. But that is obviously not all it is... and... None of those are specific to women as equal beings, or justice for women. I know some may believe that abortion is, but that is not true. A woman can be very much for women's rights AND believe that life begins at conception and so a woman should not be able to kill that life.It appears NOW is a leftwing political organization that includes some feminist issues in its causes.That does not make it less feminist, just not ONLY feminist, and certainly not the FACE of feminism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Did you not read my post? It says feminism is too broad for one movement or organization to be considered THE feminist movement.There may be a singular goal, but organizations pursue that goal in many different fashions with different metaphysical and ethical beliefs flavoring their movement. I throw stones at everyone, but with regard to knocking feminISTS (I dare you to find me knocking feminISM) I made it clear I was going after the prudish anti-sex anti-porn anti-male feminist factions.Remember I even agreed to use AP feminists to describe them so you would not be confused?And I do not consider AP feminists to necessarily be the most popular faction anymore. I said which feminists I personally like and are gaining in popularity. I'm very tired of you asking me to represent "people" I have no connection with and do things I have not done. Cut it out. Perhaps you should remove your feet from where your mouth is, your hands from your ears, and your own navel from your eyeballs. Then we might start having a real conversation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You're compilation of quotes ought to fit just fine in that thread on examples of bad quote mining.... Not only do every single one of those quotes explicitly refer to feminISTS and not feminISM, the context of ALL OF THOSE QUOTES were to a specific group of feminISTS. Oh my gosh I can't believe you just said that. I guess I'll just stick that in my list of quotes by you denouncing all feminists and feminism!See how easy it is to quote mine?Now if you read my statement in context it was saying that I wanted actual studies, like in peer reviewed journals, and not LITERATURE. Sometimes APfeminists create collections of references to studies and bundle them in propaganda specifically for female audiences. That is Literature and unuseful for me to address. There's another quote for my "list" on you. Heheheh...Anyhow the quote of mine... as noted earlier... was in the context of APfeminists. I'm still wondering why this problem is occurring when I already went over feminism and feminists and who I was talking about in an earlier thread TO YOU. I didn't say only individuals, you would note that the very first quote you listed from me stated that I criticized a "faction". A faction is NOT just an individual.And the quote you are addressing now was addressed to feminist critics of porn: AP feminists. Clearly I could not be saying ALL feminists, and so feminISM, believe that porn is mysogynistic when in my posts I have also listed feminist authors that are proPorn.Where are those quotes from me? Oh well this is true. All feminists need to get their arguments straight. That goes for everyone, but this was being address to a specific group of arguments made by a section of feminists. That's not what I said. I said feminist critiques of porn are X. That does not mean that ALL feminists critique porn. This is underlined when I mention feminist authors that support porn.Again, where are those quotes of mine? Convincing to who, you? I had been over this stuff well before you ever came onto this site. So if you are trying to imply that I suddenly adopted this after you came on and argued with me... well you are just plain wrong. I want you to read the quote above. No mining there. First you say you are not asking me to represent everyone, then next paragraph start talking to brennakimi and born2preach as if I am in with them, then the third paragraph is to a bunch of people who apparently hold a position diametrically opposed to mine.You so crazy... certifiable.Finally and for the record. FEMINISM IS BROAD. There are many factions within it and each can be criticized separately, which prevents any single movement to be considered the TRUE feminism.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-23-2004 08:02 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It can stay on topic. My answer to Schraf's question was that there is NO single feminISM, other than a general pursuit of justice/equality/sex not meaning gender.Thus there can be and are a multitude of feminists, with some factions looking quite different and opposing one another.A great example is the division over porn. While I would love to discount Dworkin and co as not really feminist (in that I think they actually hurt women), I just don't get that ability. They WERE and ARE feminists.They are also diametrically opposed to feminists such as Dodson, Sprinkle, etc etc who not only like sex but feel in being free women should be able to commercially exploit their own sexuality if they wish.I thoroughly support feminism (the pursuit of that general goal) and side with the prosexual nonmalebashing factions of feminists, while thoroughly criticizing the opposition factions.NOW, as a singular feminist organization, has taken on too many liberal causes and is becoming too PC for its own good. It has made itself into a liberal political entity, rather than an issue based social entity. That said, I do support some of their specific programs.I think women are different than men, both physically and mentally (though that would be due to different brain chemistry). None of those make either sex objectively superior or inferior, each have "edges" on the other, especially when you get down to specific individuals and tasks.Personally I want to live in a society where women and men (as classes) are viewed as social equals. One sex is not expected to inherently defer to the other. Such deferments will come out in only specific situations depending on the tastes of those involved. Frankly I like tough girls that don't defer.However, being very into diversity and tolerance, I am not into bashing cultures which have some social expectations (roles) for each gender. I don't think social inequalities based on roles (which may be gender ascribed) NECESSARILY means being cheated of justice or thought of as less worthy. Most of the times there are trade offs and men get the shaft just as well.I do question the globalization of many feminist doctrines. Should all cultures look like us? I dunno. I feel the majority of feminists should stick to issues within Western Society as that is where most of them are, and let other cultures pick up on the feminist programs they find useful.Oh I'm sure that won't go over well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, actually I am 100% right and if you look at the thread where he quote mined everything you will find I said everything you just said above.I even noted proporn feminist authors who I like (I think I did in this thread as well), and contrasted them with those that were antiporn.The quote was pulled from a post where I was specifically talking about antiporn feminist critiques of porn and so had not felt the need to say antiporn every time I said feminist.If it had been about antiporn Xian fundamentalist criticisms of porn, I would have just said "Xian". It seems that context means nothing anymore.In that thread I also set out, and as you seem to agree, that feminism is not unified into any one thing. Indeed, it includes opposition groups.In the future, remember that Contracycle is an industrial size quote miner.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You can play that tune all you want, but its all false notes.The fact of the matter is I started studying the debate over 15 years ago. I was well aware of and had been reading proporn feminists then, and followed them as they have grown in number since then. I wish I had my college papers so I could send them to you and "prove" my point.However some on this site should know proof did exist. Before you came to EvC I had been in debates on this subject with Schraf. In those debates I was mentioning (and linking) to pro porn and pro prostitution feminists to debunk some of her claims.So you can pretend you "shook my world" and made me change my position, but that is because your view (as always) is that little porch in Africa.Good night contra.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-24-2004 12:53 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Look I get what you were saying (if that's any consolation). It seems to me both A and B are having problems because they are arguing from what they's like the world to be rather than admitting there are other ways of viewing things.In addition A (and maybe B) blew a gasket over your extension of the male "gender" to raping, impregnating, and abandoning. I don't think you believe in that definition yourself but I have to admit the way you wrote it made it sound like you did.While I would disagree with that view of "masculine" role, I'd have to admit there are some that actually do believe that is "man" in a nutshell. Thus it seems a bit odd to say it simply isn't. A has a point that was not the worldview that anyone on the project was using, so to view it that way is to view it through a foreign filter not conducive to understanding the piece.Then again I think A has abandoned gender filters altogether which also seems a little nonconducive. Other people do have to watch it (unless the movie was made for themselves) and those people will see things based on gender roles. Or if they put themselves in place of characters will perceive themselves to have gone through different roles.I think the gender role filter you described is not common to most in the US, but I think a filterless view is even less common than that.Maybe you need to put in a word on whether you want to see the world change for a filterless view, or not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What the hell is wrong with you and Arach? I don't think either of you deserve the treatment you are giving each other, and know damn well I did not rate the following... Let me say this for the first time, and hopefully the last. I am not Arach and I understood what you said. What you obviously did was not understand what I said. The above is not a proper answer to my statement... Read it as many times as you need to figure out that your answer was to Arach somewhere else and not to what I said. I said this myself didn't I? Didn't I mention that A had made a mistake in not taking into account that others would see the movie through their own filter?Remember I'm the guy defending your ability to use terms of gender separate from objective sex. That is of course a critique of feminist criticism, especially when they skip over rather large details as "not usually relevant", to blow up miniscule elements into "utterly relevant". You don't have to have felt what the creators intended as you watch it. Nor do you have to accept it as how you have to view it when you view it next.However if you are going to have a valid criticism of what the movie was "about", one does need to consider the intent of the creators.I was devastated when I finally learned that Marley's "No Woman, No Cry" was about a guy trying to cheer up his girlfriend, and not about a guy feeling down after having lost a girl and reflecting that without women he'd have no pain. Many people made that mistake.If I critiqued that song, especially from a feminist perspective, or even my own, I'd be lax in considering (or trying to find out) what Marley had actually intended with that song. Right?That said, even when I hear it now I tend to listen with my original "filter". If you want to see aliens as masculine... go ahead. I simply meant you could stave off all the problems that Arach and Brenna were giving you by explaining that you did not personally endorse that perspective.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Is directly contradicted by this... What I find particularly interesting is that you missed your making the mistake of confusing sex with gender. Just because something is associated with a sex, does NOT mean it is associated with gender.Men may rape more than women, but that does not inherently make rape a masculine characteristic.I would argue most people in this culture would view the men who love and leave women (to the degree you describe) to be very bad examples of what it is to be a REAL MAN, and thus not showing masculine characteristics at all.Feminists might disagree, but they are not in the majority. Personally I separate sex from gender and do not view that as masculine either. Of course you can criticize them. You simply cannot say that they are objectively false from the get go. You can criticize their consistency and use of evidence for providing a coherent view of the object of their criticism. That is a bit absurd. That kind of reasoning can also be used to implicate evolutionary theory as nihilistic and eugenical because the intentions of the scientists mean little compared to how the "audience" percieves it.Yes people can take something away from any work that the creator had not intended. One can criticize the effect that the art had then, though the blame would then be on the audience and not on the art.See the cunning trick of criticism. It starts by saying you can look at art devoid of the artist, because its what the audience reads into it which is important, yet then uses audience reaction to blame the art and the artist.If it wanted to be logically consistent it would be critiquing the audiences for what they take from the art, rather than the art or the artist.If you want to critique the art for what it is, and the artist for having put some element into it that is undesirable, then you have to look at what they intended. Your first mistake is thinking they can't be questioned, when they certainly can. The second was not recognizing that you were making an interpretation that was not supported from the text. As an analogy, you specifically judged Romeo and Juliet, from watching Shakespeare in Love and any of its sequals.What's worse, you continued to defend your analysis despite the mounds of evidence Arach was handing you to the contrary.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again with the strawman. In understood what you said. It appears you are replying to my posts line by line, because you keep making mistakes which appear only possible by assuming everything I mean has already been said.You need to read my posts through first, to see if I clarify something. It should have been obvious in the very next lines I wrote that I was not making the mistake you are addressing above. That is totally untrue. That is necessary, but not always sufficient.I agree someone can have it as both and thus rapist would be masculine. But for many, and I would argue most, while it would be necessary it is not sufficient, and so would be excluded from "masculine".Again when one thinks of spousal abuse, one thinks of a man hitting a woman. I think its a clear majority that do NOT view a man hitting a woman as a masculine thing to do, in fact quite the contrary. We just had a controversial general explain he enjoyed killing Taliban members because they hit women and were less than real men. I think that reflects an intuitive feeling most have in US culture. Interesting that you should view it as an equivocation on my part. I wonder then if perhaps feminists are not equivocating as well, or if you are in treating feminist critique as if it is like this other "general" criticism of art.Feminist critique not only establishes a way to view a work, but specifically sets it up as a criticism of the piece of art as well as the artist.It may be possible to define some criticism as essentially only building a way of viewing a work of art, but that is not where common feminist critiques end. You can't chalk it all up to simply stepping on fan boys's sacred cows. I started out quite neutral until you stepped on me personally, and then continued to use strawmen against my position.He started by telling you what he was talking about, and you felt you could criticize what he was talking about despite never having seen what he was talking about. He then tried to show you evidence from that subject, and you refused to look!You don't get to now retreat into "I can only talk about what I know". The point was you couldn't know, Arach showed you what you could know, and yet you continued to deny it.This really shouldn't have been this serious, and Arach did get overheated, but you have to recognize your culpability in maintaining a defense of a position which was clearly untenable, even in the face of evidence.He might have ended up acting like a fanboy, and a little too sensitive about feminist critique, but you were being overly obstinate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

For some reason we are talking past each other. The minor point that you confused sex and gender is so minor I am willing to drop discussing it. I only meant it as an interesting note. Unfortunately its just led to more confusion. How to define characteristics of "masculine" and "feminine" are arbitrary social constructs. There is no set right or wrong way.Feminists clearly use the idea of accepting stereotypes or demographic associations to fix what is "masculine", while rejecting the same for "feminine". Inconsistent, but not wrong.Traditional concepts of masculinity and feminity were based on ideals, as much of ancient cultures focused on beauty and ideals. There were also some connections based simply around similarity of function to sexual body part (penis active, vagina passive). You can see this latter form in Yin/Yang concepts.I would argue that most people in our culture do NOT use the feminist definition system, and use the more idealized version. I would argue this from the very examples of how people talk about masculinity. Most people (especially conservatives) find abuse of women, and abandonment of women to be wholly anti-masculine. They are less than men.It would be hard for me to accept that they somehow how view an emasculating phenomenon as "masculine" in character, just because a man does it and it makes a man less a man. Gay sex is thought of as associated with men... is that thought of as masculine? "We"??? Are you actually active in feminist critique? I would not have expected that.In any case, my problem with that system is that they use inconsistent gender assignments as well as not adequately going over their methods. It is insular and self-reflecting. Sophistry. I think you have caveated it enough by now. You saw me berating Arach for being a little overboard on that issue right? When you started in on me in the exact same way you were going at it with Arach. I was like a ref moving in to break up a clinch, only to find myself getting clinched and beaten. And that was your problem. Yes, he overreacted and stuck with his attacks on feminist critique. However you missed his actually showing you that the original alien was not what was seen in later movies, and there were whole production efforts to reach something not like what we saw them make in later movies.Its like you were both blinded to what the other guy was saying. Then I stepped in and got hit from both sides.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't think its that easy. Having been in gay circles for a while... and now almost excusively since getting to A'dam (in the six years I've been coming here its like all the heteros moved out and the gays have taken over) I still don't see gay sex inherently be considered masculine, though it may involve two men. One will generally be viewed as masculine and the other feminine. There are exceptions but that's generally the case.But even accepting the above analysis, my point was how the majority of society views it and that is certainly not as a "masculine" endeavour. Not saying because it is the majority, they are right, just pointing out that ideal concepts of masculinity are more common. I think so, except it seems Arach dropped out along the way somewhere.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)