Feminism general thread

[Trevor]

Relevant. http://www.tera.ca

I find the situations in which the law has supported breast equality in America to be quite promising.

[Shandi]

Similar info on Canada, on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada

[VineFynn]

Unfortunately if that was true I wouldn't be criticized for saying that I'm an egalitarian, not a feminist.

Egalitarianism is a nothing word. It is a platitude.

It is a word that was coined to distance the user from feminism, and give them a chance to says, "well I'm an egalitarian, I support the rights of both men AND women."

As much as I'm probably beating a dead horse 36 pages on here, I feel the obligation to the nagging feeling in my gut to my clarify the context of my own usage of the word egalitarian to some person that I'll never meet.

The word isn't really a platitude in the fashion I use it (and it was coined in 1881)- and it certainly doesn't mean nothing. I tend to object to using the word feminist to describe my social views from a linguistic perspective- the word feminist really fails to succinctly put across everything I believe when it comes to achieving equality.

Semantically speaking, it totally fails to communicate any sort of concrete meaning. When I say "I'm a feminist", the only thing that can be derived from this without further explanation is that I support women's rights in some fashion. When I say "I'm an egalitarian", the meaning is clear- I don't care who you are, you deserve the same rights as everyone else. This neatly solves the problem of people thinking you're either a women>men sort or ignore the problems that transgender/gay/male/foreign people encounter in society.

Sure, I *qualify* as a moderate feminist, and when you're talking specifically women's rights and nothing else I'll identify as one, but the word utterly fails to have any meaning beyond that, and morphologically isn't really suited to being an umbrella term for the new civil rights movement. Technically speaking, all actual egalitarians are, by definition, moderate feminists, and moderate feminism is a subset of egalitarianism.

So, I suppose, it is a matter of convenience. And my autism.

[korvys]

The problem is rarely the definition, but the usage.

Certainly, the dictionary definition of egalitarian encompasses the same desire for equality as espoused by feminists,but dictionary definitions only go so far. Words gain meaning by their use, as much as they are used according to their meaning. And in this case, the most common users of the word are those who want to explicitly oppose feminism, while also taking the moral high ground, by proclaiming their desire for equality but not really believing it.

So while it certainly can be true that there are those who egalitarian in the pure sense, and I have no reason to believe you are not sincere in your claim to be such, you have to realise that that word is more often used by people who are anything but.

[VineFynn]

The problem is rarely the definition, but the usage.

Certainly, the dictionary definition of egalitarian encompasses the same desire for equality as espoused by feminists,but dictionary definitions only go so far. Words gain meaning by their use, as much as they are used according to their meaning. And in this case, the most common users of the word are those who want to explicitly oppose feminism, while also taking the moral high ground, by proclaiming their desire for equality but not really believing it.

So while it certainly can be true that there are those who egalitarian in the pure sense, and I have no reason to believe you are not sincere in your claim to be such, you have to realise that that word is more often used by people who are anything but.

Of course. But I can't help but feel it is perhaps a bit hasty to dismiss usage of the word almost entirely in lieu of using feminism, since that would also make feminism a valid candidate for dismissal, considering the rampant misappropriation of the word by extremists.

What're your thoughts on words like humanist?

[korvys]

I feel about it pretty much the same as egalitarian.

As for the appropriation of feminism? It is, ultimately, not about what is correct, as that would lead us back to the dictionary definitions. Rather it is the use of the word day to day, for each person. I, personally, have found that someone who labels themselves a feminist, is occasionally, but not commonly, on the extreme end of things. Egalitarian on the other hand, I have found rarely used at all, and most often by those who I feel comfortable dismissing (MRAs, etc). The very few who aren't usually present themselves in a way that makes their position clear, such as yourself.

From conversation with others, and posts in this thread, it seems to be the case that others feel similarly to me.

The prescriptivist in me is occasionally dismayed that people use words in ways to diverge from their original meaning, but I lean further to the descriptivist side as time passes, and I'm more interested in what words mean, than what they meant.

[Tycherin]

I submit that this is a false dichotomy.

Egalitarianism (or humanism, if you prefer) is a philosophy. It's a moral framework for understanding the way society should be structured, the interactions people should have with one another, the effects laws should strive to create, and the kind of actions that should be encouraged.

Feminism is a movement. It is a set of goals and objectives with an end in mind. It recognizes that the current "gender gap" is something that needs to be addressed, and the way to address it is by correcting standing inequalities and changing people's perceptions about gender. Feminism isn't an alternative to egalitarianism; it's an implementation of egalitarianism. To be "a feminist" is to support the movement of feminism, a movement which seeks to support egalitarian ideals via a certain path.

In my view, when people say, "I'm not a feminist, I'm an egalitarian," it's like saying, "I don't drive a Toyota, I drive a car." It's possible that what they're really saying is something about their perception of the feminist movement, but that's another discussion entirely.

[AlexanderDitto]

When I say "I'm an egalitarian", the meaning is clear- I don't care who you are, you deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Except it really doesn't. You think it does, because in your mind "equality for everyone!" seems easy and self evident. But what would that entail? How do we execute that? It's not clear, which is why it's so often discussed. So we start with:

Who is currently disenfranchised by the system? Who is "not equal?"

In the case of gender-based discrimination, the answer is overwhelmingly women (or, more generally, people who outwardly exhibit characteristics coded as female in the culture in question), which is why feminism is called feminism and not egalitarianism. It specifically exists to address the imbalance that disenfranchises women. And if your response to this is "men have problems too," I'm gay. I assure you, I know. But many of those problems stem from discrimination against things coded female.

The problems that aren't about that are often caused by enforcement of rigid gender norms (addressed by queer rights movement), or poverty (addressed by anti-classism movements/populism before that became a dirty word), or racism (addressed by various civil rights movements), or disability (disability rights movements).

It's why the gay rights/lgbt rights/queer liberation movements are called that and not egalitarianism. It's why the African-American Civil Rights Movement and the Chicano Movement are called that and not called egalitarianism.

The kind of gross thing about using the word egalitarianism for any of these cases: it moves the spotlight away from the problem. It favors bland inoffensiveness over underscoring and highlighting the problem the movement seeks to address. Words have power. Yes, feminism fights for a more egalitarian world. But rejecting the label of feminism in favor of egalitarianism is explicitly anti-feminist, because it draws the focus away from the problems of women.

Imagine you're eating a steak. Someone says, "oh, you're eating meat." And you respond, "no, I'm eating food." Can you not see how that shifts the focus of the conversation?

Sure, I *qualify* as a moderate feminist, and when you're talking specifically women's rights and nothing else I'll identify as one, but the word utterly fails to have any meaning beyond that, and morphologically isn't really suited to being an umbrella term for the new civil rights movement.

If the word utterly fails to have any meaning to you, you must know next to nothing about the history of the feminist movement.

And feminism doesn't seek to be an umbrella term for the new civil rights movement. If you want one of those, go look up intersectionality.

Technically speaking, all actual egalitarians are, by definition, moderate feminists, and moderate feminism is a subset of egalitarianism.

So, I suppose, it is a matter of convenience. And my autism.

Perhaps this is technically true, but not socially true. Unfortunately, humans and social issues do not operate on principals of set theory, and I'm sure there are lots of people who would claim themselves egalitarian but who would not ascribe to the fundamentals of modern feminism, because they have a distorted view of what "equal" means. Heck, a lot of people think men and women are equal right now, and then claim themselves egalitarians for upholding the status quo.

[korvys]

As usual, Ditto swoops in to steal the glory by being far more eloquent, and far explaining thing much better than I can.
*shakes fist* Ditto!

So, what he said.

[Lord Chrusher]

I would guess most of the posts in this thread are arguing over semantics.

I would call myself a feminist but I do not think I would have call myself that a few years ago even though my believes have not really changed.

[Amake]

This seems relevant.

Like if you're going to argue that women's rights is not a house that is figuratively on fire, you have to shut your eyes pretty hard. Why the need to separate yourself from feminism? Why the need to deny its relevance? Why the need to erase its long and difficult history of trying to make things better for women, and thereby succeeding in making things better for everyone?

[VineFynn]

The prescriptivist in me

prescriptivist power!

snip

I was complaining about Matt calling the word a platitude and meaning nothing. I wasn't saying that it was a movement.

The food thing doesn't really make sense as an analogy here because that's not the topic of the argument (the topic being that egalitarian is useless as a way of describing your views). I'm not arguing that feminism isn't egalitarianism (quite the opposite), and so I'm not sure how me denying eating steak and instead saying I'm eating food actually translates here. If somebody asks me if I'm a feminist, I will do one of two things- specify that I am an egalitarian, thus indicating to them, assuming they're willing to take me at face-value, that I think the same rights should be granted to literally every demographic in existence (thus qualifying me as a feminist), or, I will ask them to specify what they mean by feminism. Because, of course, the word has different meanings for different people (thus the comment at the end about its morphological problems). Thus the utility of the word egalitarian.

The word fails to have meaning beyond "women's rights activist" for me because different people use the same word to mean different things. I wait for people to elaborate before I draw any more meaning from their usage of it. It has very little to do with my understanding of the history of the feminist movement.

I have seen it used, and described, as an umbrella term for the LGBTQQI movement. Therefore I felt it was appropriate to shoehorn that in there.

Again, the usage of the word is not to do with shifting the topic of the conversation, but merely being succinct. It is, of course, context sensitive. If somebody asks me if I am a feminist, and the topic is women's rights, I will say yes. But if somebody simply asks me if I am a feminist, there are immediate communication problems.

I don't, of course, seek to move the spotlight away. But I'm not looking to be blandly inoffensive, I'm actually looking to be concrete. That must be the main problem that feminism today faces. It fails to present a truly ideologically unified front, and thus the semantic problems that we are presented with (as discussed at the start of the thread) when we use the word.

TL;DR: I'm not using it in the same context as the guy earlier was (I think he was refusing to use it altogether?), who Matt was talking to. I was simply defending specific uses of the word. The same problems that egalitarianism faces (like who is "not equal", and what is "equal") feminism faces too, as they confront the same problems, feminism being a subset of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism as a word isn't perfect, but as a one-word descriptor it works better than feminism.

I submit that this is a false dichotomy.

Exactly.

Like if you're going to argue that women's rights is not a house that is figuratively on fire, you have to shut your eyes pretty hard. Why the need to separate yourself from feminism? Why the need to deny its relevance? Why the need to erase its long and difficult history of trying to make things better for women, and thereby succeeding in making things better for everyone?

Assuming you're talking to me, I think you need to reconsider your interpretation of my points. I'm arguing the utility of the word egalitarian in communicating my point in the face of the myriad meanings of feminism. I literally state:

Sure, I *qualify* as a moderate feminist, and when you're talking specifically women's rights and nothing else I'll identify as one,

again

all actual egalitarians are, by definition, moderate feminists, and moderate feminism is a subset of egalitarianism.

I don't seperate myself from feminism in the slightest.

------------

You're scaring me a bit here, guys- I'm just saying that egalitarianism as a word has it's uses. I'm not arguing ideology or anything. I'm a feminist

[AlexanderDitto]

I would guess most of the posts in this thread are arguing over semantics.

I would call myself a feminist but I do not think I would have call myself that a few years ago even though my believes have not really changed.

It is true that a lot of arguments happen over semantics, but words end up framing debates, which is why it's important to resist when they're being modified in ways that undermine a movement.

It would be nice if more discussions happened over actual concrete change that can be made (like workplace nondiscrimination laws, or guaranteed parental leave upon birth of a child, etc) but semantics matters too.

TL;DR: I'm not using it in the same context as the guy earlier was (I think he was refusing to use it altogether?), who Matt was talking to. I was simply defending specific uses of the word. The same problems that egalitarianism faces (like who is "not equal", and what is "equal") feminism faces too, as they confront the same problems, feminism being a subset of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism as a word isn't perfect, but as a one-word descriptor it works better than feminism.

[snip]

You're scaring me a bit here, guys- I'm just saying that egalitarianism as a word has it's uses. I'm not arguing ideology or anything. I'm a feminist

I'm not attacking your ideology or saying you're a bad feminist or anything! I am just discussing why people choosing to identify as egalitarian rather than feminist (or saying egalitarian works better as a one-word descriptor) isn't true. You seem to be implying that egalitarian has meaning that is clear, or at least clearer than the word feminism, and I'm telling you it really doesn't. Maybe to you it does. But in a wider social context, it's just as ambiguous. Equality means different things to different people. A lot of people, for example, think that affirmative action is anti-egalitarian; that equality means nobody gets a leg up. I've heard people argue against title IX, or science camps for girls, or public funding for birth control or women's health clinics, all in the name of equality.

Egalitarian as a word has just as many immediate communication problems as feminism. It is just as fraught, and (if you're using it in a women's rights context) has the additional detriment of erasing women from the conversation.

I'm not, by the way, implying that feminism is a wonderful, pure, unambiguous term. Trans-exclusionary radical feminists, for example, are trash and I hate that they exist and besmirch the name of feminism with their gender essentialist garbage. But consider: do you think that Christians would be well served by not identifying as christian because of the existence of the Westboro Baptist Church? Should they just call themselves "religious" or "spiritual?" Both of those things are probably true of people who call themselves Christian... but they're unspecific and have very different connotations. If I say "I'm spiritual," it means something very different then if I say "I'm a Christian." Words have power.

If, in a discussion, you're using egalitarian as a wider lens that you see feminism, gay rights, civil rights, etc as all falling under, that makes total sense. And yes, saying you're a feminist doesn't precisely communicate your beliefs. But saying you're an egalitarian doesn't either, and plus (if, again, the context of the discussion is women's rights) it has the nasty side effect of shifting focus away from women (the house that's on fire, to use Straub's comic reference). That's all I'm saying.

[MetricFurlong]

The food thing doesn't really make sense as an analogy here because that's not the topic of the argument (the topic being that egalitarian is useless as a way of describing your views).

I don't know, if you asked me to describe what I was eating and I said 'it's food' that would be a bit of a useless answer

[Deedles]

The food thing doesn't really make sense as an analogy here because that's not the topic of the argument (the topic being that egalitarian is useless as a way of describing your views).

Egalitarian isn't useless as a way to describe a more general sense of your opinion, i.e. that you want equality for all(what then equality means is another question). On the other hand it is fairly useless when describing your views towards feminism. If I ask someone if they support feminism and they reply "I'm an egalitarian" that doesn't really answer my question, and doesn't leave me knowing anymore about their opinion about it(apart from them possibly being hesitant to call themselves a feminist).

To you it might be obvious that when you say that you're Egalitarian that encompasses Feminism, but that is FAR from the norm, and that is something that you, and everyone else, have to keep in mind.

[VineFynn]

snip

Ah, that's fair. I only think egalitarian is a good way of clarifying, in addition to your belief about women's rights, your belief of everything else, because it specifies that everyone is equal. So it avoids women>men arguments.

And sorry, I probably came off as a bit defensive.

I don't know, if you asked me to describe what I was eating and I said 'it's food' that would be a bit of a useless answer

In that context, answering "food" would be the same as saying my philosophy was "a philosophy", since the question is "what are you eating", that answer is already implied.

To you it might be obvious that when you say that you're Egalitarian that encompasses Feminism, but that is FAR from the norm, and that is something that you, and everyone else, have to keep in mind.

That sort of problem is one that plenty of words have issues with, I suppose. It's inherent in the English language.

[Deedles]

Aye, but Feminism has one base meaning that never changes; You believe that there is a gap between the equality of the genders. Egalitarian doesn't have that base meaning, because while it means 'I want equality for all', it doesn't answer what that means. What about someone who says they're egalitarian, but also doesn't believe that people of colour aren't treated equally in western nations? They still identify as an Egalitarian, because they simply don't think there's an inequality there. And that's the same problem you run into with egalitarianism/feminism.

[VineFynn]

Aye, but Feminism has one base meaning that never changes; You believe that there is a gap between the equality of the genders. Egalitarian doesn't have that base meaning, because while it means 'I want equality for all', it doesn't answer what that means. What about someone who says they're egalitarian, but also doesn't believe that people of colour aren't treated equally in western nations? They still identify as an Egalitarian, because they simply don't think there's an inequality there. And that's the same problem you run into with egalitarianism/feminism.

I see your point, and I hadn't considered it before. However, perspective is detached from the meaning of the word. It is a moot point when discussing the utility of the word in explaining ideology.

[Deedles]

Aye, it doesn't come down to the dictionary description, but the social meaning of the word. Egalitarian does mean believing in equality for all, and thus should encompass feminism, but to some who use the word it doesn't, and thus that becomes uncertain.

That aside, I think calling yourself one or the other is fine, but I gladly call myself both egalitarian and feminist.

[AdmiralMemo]

So this happened over the weekend over at El Goonish Shive...

Friday's Comic

Friday - Click to Expand

Commentary for Friday - Click to Expand

Rich is, of course, responding to opinions Susan has shared on her online review show. He may or may not recall the time he actually met Susan in person, but odds are he remembers Catalina more.

I'm not 100% sure why I decided it was absolutely necessary that Susan be drinking something in this comic, but I did. It just felt right to me, possibly because I think it makes her look more nonchalant. Or maybe I thought it would look cute. Hell, I can have two reasons.

This comic is inspired by an actual e-mail and my response to it. As much as I welcome criticism and debate about important issues, I've reached the conclusion that I don't have to devote my time and attention to every message I receive. If someone wishes to persuade me of something, they can very well be polite about it, and if they are unwilling to do so, then I will respond in kind and ignore their message entirely.

Or make a snarky comic about it. Either / or.

Heck, even if they aren't trying to convince me of something, they can very well be polite about it if they truly want me to read their message. My time is valuable to me. I will not expend it upon those who are actively giving me reason not to. There are others I could, and should, be devoting that time to.

Monday's Comic

Monday - Click to Expand

Commentary for Monday - Click to Expand

When someone looks at a character of mine with a particular viewpoint behaving a certain way and reaches the conclusion that I am saying all people with that viewpoint are like that, I reach a conclusion of my own: That that person really does not know me very well.

Richard is a gentleman and a scholar, though for some reason, he associates the word "feminism" with negative things. Sadly, Susan deleted the e-mail, so we'll never know what those reasons are.

I believe word "feminism", and indeed, most words people would use, or not use, to describe themselves are effectively double-edged, and that's because the meaning of those words are ultimately personal while nonetheless being used to generalize.

Oh sure, you can quote whatever dictionary is handy, argue the history of a word, etc., but there isn't a singular "feminist" organization. People aren't given "gamer" membership cards once they've proven they've met some vague qualifications. No angel descends from the heavens to say "sick music, brah" and declare someone a "musician" (at least, I assume that hasn't happened).

A person who identifies as a feminist may do so because they find the actions of many past feminists inspiring, and it gives them courage to fight for gender equality. Perhaps it lets them know they're not alone, and that there are others who feel as they do.

And maybe there are those who associate the word with women controlling men, and many of them really wouldn't get along with those who identify with my first example.

Personally, I grew up in such a way that I now associate feminism with good things, and I would love to argue that feminism is all about equality and is totally rad. Given my beliefs regarding personal meaning, however, I can't really blame someone for not embracing the word if they somehow associate it with negative things, particularly if they're genuinely for gender equality and simply embrace other words that mean to them what feminism means to me.

I may take issue with their interpretation, but I don't feel there's much to be gained insisting that they call themselves feminists if it doesn't have that personal meaning for them.

What I can blame people for, however is when people tell others that their personal meaning and feelings regarding feminism are wrong, and that they cannot be inspired and empowered by it. I can blame people for reacting to notions of fair treatment for women as "feminist garbage". I can blame people for ignoring matters of equality in favor of generalizing feminists and / or arguing against the word instead.

And so on, and so forth.

Anyway, RICHARD! Yeah. I have a whole 'nother topic after that last mouthful. Don't worry, it's brief.

Richard's not smiling about his "amusing" subject choice in panel two because, supposedly, men are less attractive when they smile? I'm eager to hear responses to THAT assertion, but I gave him perpetually somewhat pouty lips instead. I've also read that men with subtle beards (practically stubble) are commonly thought of as attractive. I know at least one woman who'll disagree with that and demand Richard be given a full thick beard, but that's what I went with.

As for his hairstyle, that would be my personal preferences at work. I want hair like that, darn it.

Context for the character in the first comic - Click to Expand

Rich and Larry are characters that were introduced as teen-aged conspiracy theorists who have some very misogynistic views on women. They apparently are mainly severely mis-informed, as they have "guides" to women. (I am not sure whether these "guides" are people or books or Internet articles or what.) Over the course of the story-line, Larry's had some experiences that have made him question his previous opinions, and he seems open to change, but Rich is still stuck in his ways.

So... Thoughts on this? Do you think Dan needed to do a "remastering" of the previous comic? Do you think the people emailing him were right or wrong? Thoughts?

[mariomario42]

So... Thoughts on this? Do you think Dan needed to do a "remastering" of the previous comic? Do you think the people emailing him were right or wrong? Thoughts?

"Rudeness and the ignoring therefore was the point of the comic". How is this a point? There's 2 panels dedicated to making the guy seem like an idiot, then a "punchline"? I can't call this a punchline since the joke is poorly written. If the author wanted what they said, a better delivery would be the girl scrolling through emails: P1: "Bills, spam, blah blah blah" P2: "Sorry to Burst your Bubble" P3: "Haha, not worth my time. Delete". That is still a weak comic, but should stand if that's the point, minus the strawman.

The second comic is both mocking the people who responding and missing the point the people who emailed were making. Reading the edited version of the comic, it makes even less sense, showing that the strawman was important to the comic. Comics should be funny or tell a story, and in the rare case educational like Oh Joy Sex Toy, but this is comes off as a soap box.

[Deedles]

I can definitely see the comics point, and I can understand why the author portrayed Rich as a bit of a dumbass, because if you write an email to someone on the internet and start in an obviously aggressive tone there are few who are going to read it, either because they don't have the time to waste on someone like that, or because they simply don't want to.

Comic artists and other artistic creators who essentially work for themselves generally don't have some guy or girl hired to sift through their fan mail, so they have to do that themselves. They don't have a community manager like larger studios and companies, and thus have finite time to spend on things like emails. As such I would say; No, I don't think it needed remastering.

[Avistew]

I don't like that the more polite version is also more conventionally attractive. People have been complaining a lot that Rich, who is a pretty horrible person by all accounts, is also overweight. I find that easy to dismiss because several awesome characters (George, Tensaided) are overweight too. But now, the polite, more educated version of Rich looks like Fabio. That's making a pretty clear connection between looks and attitude/opinion, and that's... well, to me, it's just confusing. It's pretty obvious that's not how Dan feels about it so... why?

When I first glanced at the second comic, I thought it was going to be "why was the asshole overweight?" (which is the criticism that keeps coming up) and that Dan's reaction was to have the exact same dialogue and comic with a "hot" version instead, to show that being an ass had nothing to do with being overweight.

So, I was pretty disappointed with the second comic. I think it destroys the punchline of the first one, is provocative for no reason and doesn't really make a point.

[korvys]

But now, the polite, more educated version of Rich looks like Fabio. That's making a pretty clear connection between looks and attitude/opinion, and that's... well, to me, it's just confusing.

As someone who doesn't read the comics, it seems to be the exact opposite view. By showing 2 people with different appearances holding the same views, and being treat the same, you show it's not the appearance that matters.

Overweight stereotypical nerd type guy holds shitty anti-feminist views, and is arrogant enough to think they need to educate the other person on why feminism is bad. Puts in a lot of condescending effort, and is ignored in less than a second. Works for me.

Now a "good" looking guy has the same thing happen. The second comic seems to be saying "No, I'm not mocking you (reader) if you're overweight, I'm mocking you if you hold shitty anti-feminist views (and are a jerk about explaining them to people), regardless of your appearance"

And if the person complaining is complaining because the artist is mocking people with anit-feminist views, well that's even funnier.

Comics should be funny or tell a story, and in the rare case educational like Oh Joy Sex Toy, but this is comes off as a soap box.

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but this sounds a lot like "Video Games should be fun, not push a political agenda" that a certain "ethics" (I need like, super air quotes for that) movement keeps spouting.

[Master Gunner]

People were dismissing the point of the first comic ("If you want someone to read your criticisms, you need to be polite about it rather than aggressive") on the basis that Dan was using Rich as a strawman - since Rich embodies the "fat fedora-wearing neckbeard" stereotype (which largely began because Dan used it as comedy shorthand to establish his character for his early appearances).

So to fight people dismissing the comic as a strawman argument, he inverted the character as much as possible for the second - hence the Fabio-esque appearance and flowery language. This was done to clearly separate the point he was trying to make from the character making it.