What is feminism? What is it not?

  1. apathy maybe
    Well, seeing as there is a new forum automatically created, I've decided to make a new thread in it.

    So, what is feminism? Feminism is the project of equality for all people regardless of gender. There are different types of feminism that focus on different aspects of society. E.g. Liberal feminism wants women and men to be treated equally within the framework of a capitalist society, where as socialist feminists desire a socialist society and often argue that true equality between different genders can not be achieved in capitalist society.

    Feminism is not about making women higher then men, or about women ruling over men. It is about abolishing the power differences.


    This is just a start. In this thread I'm looking for all you folks to come up with really good definitions of feminism, both short and long, and for some really good explanations of what is and isn't feminism.

    Have fun!
  2. Module
    Module
    Oh haha I just made it (I think.)

    I think that feminism should be considered more than simply abolishing the power differences between women and men, but also a struggle against heteronormativism, and all sexual oppression.

    Somebody should pin this.
  3. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    It is not about abolishing penises!

    It is not anti-men!

    It is not anti-sex!

    It is not anti-humour!

    It is not about bra-burning!

    Feminism is not just for females!

    It does not advocate an exclusive society of females!

    That is what feminism is not, although it is often criticised as such. And sometimes those criticisms are correct - for example, anti-sex feminists and anti-male feminists should be opposed because they are counter-productive to the social liberation of everyone.

    Feminism, in my opinion, argues for the abolition of all economic and societal differences between men and women. But feminists are often engaged in debate with other matters of social oppression. For example, queer rights, anti-racism etc.

    Essentially: my body, my decision!
  4. apathy maybe
    Great post! I'ld give you a rep point, 'cept that I already did that today...

    If you talk about "anti-male feminists", I would argue that you aren't actually talking about feminists at all. Just like people who want "law of the juggle" type anarchism aren't anarchists.

    We have a definition of feminism, just like we have a definition of anarchism. It is now just a matter of defending that definition and "throwing out" everyone who doesn't fit.

    (And finally, a thread from 2006. http://www.revleft.com/vb/humanistic-feminism-t43472/ )
  5. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    If you talk about "anti-male feminists", I would argue that you aren't actually talking about feminists at all.
    Indeed. Effectively, they argue for more social oppression and discrimination justifying it by the discrimination of women. Its a very hypocritical stance.

    They also attack the wrong thing; rather sexual division being a result of class society and explainable materialistic phenomena they think that men are inherently 'evil.' Of course, what anarchists and Marxists argue is that there is nothing which is inherently socially discriminatory in the human species.

    Fortunately, those feminists are few and far in between.

    Furthermore, feminism is not a form of paternalism. This is the attitude which the left, in my opinion, mainly has in regards to women's liberation; that 'our women' are 'sacred' and need to be protected. I have read those very words in this forum. There is nothing liberating about that, any more than the view that 'our workers' are 'special' and 'we need to liberate them.'

    That is a chauvinistic and paternalistic attitude, and one which should be struggled against. There is nothing sacred about the female body any more than the male body, and that sort of wish-washy spiritual garbage should be binned, in my view.

    This view is most often evident in regards to rape issues; the left, largely, takes a liberal, patronising view that explicit consent must be required, which necessarily presumes that women do not have the same sexual agency as their partners. It also ignores the reality that explicit approval is not too common a thing in sex. When was the last time you explicitly said that you wanted to fuck? This denies implied consent, and effectively has an anti-sex agenda. It trivialises rape and ultimately is against gender equality because it puts a presumed guilt on accused males, rather than assume them to be innocent.

    So, just because women are "privileged" in certain areas, does not at all mean they are treated as equals - it may come from a reactionary and patronising attitude.

    I think rape is a good example of that. I went off tangent, but I thought it was important in pointing it out in regards to the difference between the anti-sex, anti-male feminist movement and the radical feminist movement.

    Oh, and your link didn't work apathy maybe. :'(
  6. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    I also wanted to point out that the other side of the coin, that 'all women are liars' is just as wrong as the 'all men are rapists' view.

    Sorry for distracting the purpose of the thread. Carry on.
  7. Bilan
    Bilan
    It's hard to add to whats already been said, really.

    Also, bra burnings: why did this occur? I don't understand...
    Possibly because I don't wear a bra.
    But I gather they're uncomfortable when sleeping. Haha, that's all I know.
  8. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    It's hard to add to whats already been said, really.

    Also, bra burnings: why did this occur? I don't understand...
    Possibly because I don't wear a bra.
    But I gather they're uncomfortable when sleeping. Haha, that's all I know.


    I think it was a symbolic attack on the view that women needed to conform to certain beauty standards (i.e. pushed up boobs) and argued that they were what they were.

    Of course, bras those days were quite different, from what I am told, to how they are currently designed; they were made of different material, were uncomfortable and a lot bigger.

    Even today I was watching a thing on Oprah () which was discussing how so many women wear bras which are the wrong size and hence not good for their bodies (and comfort).

    Personally, if someone tried to burn my sports bra I would hit them! If you have big boobs they help your posture, and if you don't wear one they can kill your back. Even if you're not well endowed, like myself, try running on a treadmill without a sports bra on.

    And plus, some of them look really sexy.
  9. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    I found this too.

    Feminist protests, Miss America, and "bra burning"

    In the late 1960s, some of the emblems of femininity became targets of feminist activism. Feminists charged that these objects, typified as patriarchal, reduced women to the status of sex objects. Some women publicly disavowed bras in an anti-sexist act of female liberation.

    When Germaine Greer stated that "Bras are a ludicrous invention," her statement resonated with many women who had been questioning the role of the bra. Pivotal in popular bra culture is a now-notorious protest against the 1968 Miss America beauty pageant[19], seen as an oppression of women. About 400 women from the New York Radical Women were involved in a demonstration at the Atlantic City Convention Hall shortly after the Democratic National Convention[20]. Protesters saw the pageant and its symbols as an oppression of women (because of its emphasis on an arbitrary standard of beauty, and its elevation of its choice of the "most beautiful girl in America" to a pedestal for public worship and commercial exploitation). A "Freedom Trash Can" was placed on the ground, and filled with bras, high-heeled shoes, false eyelashes, girdles, curlers, hairspray, makeup, corsets, magazines, and other items thought to be "instruments of torture"[21], accoutrements of enforced femininity. Someone suggested lighting a fire, but a permit could not be obtained, and so (contrary to the subsequent urban legend) there was no burning, nor did anyone take off her bra.

    The event received quite a bit of media coverage at the time[22] but the notion of women burning their bras was merely a concatenation of several movements, including sexual liberation, in the media imagery[23]. A number of journalists [24] who wrote descriptions of the incident drew parallels with the young men who had burned their draft cards in opposition to the Vietnam War with the women's action and used the term "bra-burning." These parallels were encouraged by organisers such as Robin Morgan. Lindsay van Gelder's account in the New York Post carried a headline "Bra Burners and Miss America". [25] The phrase became headline material and was quickly associated with women who chose to go braless, following Germaine Greer's comments.[26] Feminism and "bra-burning" then became linked in popular culture[27] [28] and Greer became a metaphor for bra burning. [26][29][30][31][32]

    Since then anti-feminists have used "bra burning" and "braless" [33]as derogatory and trivializing terms for the feminist movement.[22] What got lost in the rhetoric, and is probably more important, is that it became quite acceptable in the 1960s and 1970s to not wear a bra. Thus echoes of the 'liberated 60s' or 'bra-burning 60s' have continued to reverberate in women's fashion history.

    Many women stopped wearing bras, but few did so with a public ceremony: they simply left their existing bras in a dresser drawer and stopped buying more. The only women who took off their bras in public were strippers and bargain hunters in Filene's Basement in Boston: notoriously, many women stripped to their underwear or to nudity before trying on garments in this crowded store, which was well known to lack dressing rooms. In 1971, Herb Caen, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist, reported that the Berkeley Roos-Atkins store had closed its bra department because of poor sales. Berkeley was notably on the leading edge of social change: in the 1970s many outspoken lesbians lived there, and few lesbians wore bras then; few straight women did either (in Berkeley). (Roos-Atkins was until then a major clothing retailer in the San Francisco Bay Area. It closed in the 1980s.)

    Bra sales were not noticeably affected by the protest, and manufacturers capitalised on the attitudes of sexual liberation by emphasising allure. They also promoted "no-bra" alternatives like the "no-bra bra" and adhesive pads that supported the breasts and covered the nipples. These stratagems were clearly attempts to recover braless women as customers, by offering them something that they could spend money on. Nevertheless this era was perceived by the industry as a crisis, and a preoccupation, which led indirectly to multiple mergers and acquisitions and the development of large corporations.
  10. Bilan
    Bilan
    Ahh. Okay, thank you!
  11. BobKKKindle$
    Feminism is actually a category of different ideologies, and it sometimes necessary to identify common objectives and principles except for the focus on the social condition of women - liberal feminism seeks to liberate women through reforms within the framework of the existing political system, whereas radical feminism posits women are being in a directly antagonistic relationship with men, as expressed through patriarchy theory.

    Feminism is, for me, the struggle to eliminate gender as a social construct, such that no-one is forced to enter roles in accordance with what is expected of their sex. For this reason, feminism should not be seen as an ideological category that only engages with women, as men would also benefit from the destruction of the male gender role.
  12. Module
    Module
    Feminism is, for me, the struggle to eliminate gender as a social construct, such that no-one is forced to enter roles in accordance with what is expected of their sex. For this reason, feminism should not be seen as an ideological category that only engages with women, as men would also benefit from the destruction of the male gender role.
    I agree with this.
    Divisionary social laws disadvantage us as human beings, not simply as members of specific genders.
    I think recognising this is important to truly understanding how sexism manifests itself in our culture. We interact with eachother on the basis of gender in so many different ways that we are not even conscious of. Feminism shouldn't be understood simply from the perspective of men and women, but as human beings.
  13. Kropotesta
    Kropotesta
    I take it that no one here agrees with the SCUM manifestos line- "All men are rapists and that's all they are"- Valerie Solanas? Obviously this wasn't ment literally but moreso on the constant threat of violence men hold over women.
  14. BobKKKindle$
    I take it that no one here agrees with the SCUM manifestos line- "All men are rapists and that's all they are"- Valerie Solanas? Obviously this wasn't ment literally but moreso on the constant threat of violence men hold over women.
    What you are describing is radical feminism, which identifies primary antagonism in society as existing between men and women, such that divisions within the female population are secondary to their common identity as women - as such, this section of feminism is opposed to Socialism, as it encourages female workers to identify with managers of the same sex.
  15. ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
    What you are describing is radical feminism, which identifies primary antagonism in society as existing between men and women, such that divisions within the female population are secondary to their common identity as women - as such, this section of feminism is opposed to Socialism, as it encourages female workers to identify with managers of the same sex.
    SCUM is better characterised as separatist feminism rather than that definition of radical feminism, since radical feminism includes a wide spectrum of views...some of them not excluding class analysis as you suggested.
  16. Kropotesta
    Kropotesta
    What you are describing is radical feminism, which identifies primary antagonism in society as existing between men and women, such that divisions within the female population are secondary to their common identity as women - as such, this section of feminism is opposed to Socialism, as it encourages female workers to identify with managers of the same sex.
    I do know the catergoisations of feminism....
  17. Bad Grrrl Agro
    Bad Grrrl Agro
    I believe as far as equality in a relationship, as a man, I actually prefer to let the woman make most of the decisions because I personally am to indecisive. I don't think that it's the right way for all relationships to always let the woman make all the decisions, but in my case it works. If it was up to me no decisions would be made either way. I'd be arguing with myself (probably out loud).
  18. Bilan
    Bilan
    I take it that no one here agrees with the SCUM manifestos line- "All men are rapists and that's all they are"- Valerie Solanas? Obviously this wasn't ment literally but moreso on the constant threat of violence men hold over women.
    The SCUM manifesto is absolute crap.
  19. Mujer Libre
    Mujer Libre
    Just a thought, coming from what I've read in this thread, and the thread about "what kind of feminist are you" perhaps it would be good to put together a sticky with brief descriptions about different types of feminism?

    I think a lot of the negative reactions might come from people who don't actually know much about feminism at all. What do others think?
  20. bcbm
    bcbm
    They also attack the wrong thing; rather sexual division being a result of class society and explainable materialistic phenomena they think that men are inherently 'evil.'
    I do not think this is a fair description of what the majority of so-called separatist and radical feminists actually believe. Many of them (Andrea Dworkin for one) have roots in Marxist and anarchist thinking and what I have seen from that milieu generally avoids the sort of moralism you are accusing them of.
  21. Lector Malibu
    Lector Malibu
    The SCUM manifesto is absolute crap.

    Seconded
  22. RHIZOMES
    RHIZOMES
    I think a lot of the negative reactions might come from people who don't actually know much about feminism at all. What do others think?
    Yeah. I'm sure a lot of men who are scared of feminists are getting their information from stereotypes and cliches based on Valerie Solanas-type people.

    But of course there are also men who are just afraid of losing their privilege and using Valerie Solanas-types as an excuse for their misogyny.
  23. Malakangga
    Malakangga
    feminism is the equality between men and women
  24. Lector Malibu
    Lector Malibu
    feminism is the equality between men and women
    This is true.
  25. bayano
    bayano
    Firstly, I don't think there are necessarily contradictions between marxist/socialist feminisms, anarcha-feminisms, and radical feminisms. I subscribe to at least the first and third, and I find that (and revleft forums are a great example) attacks on radical feminisms by alleged socialist feminists often contradict marxism and narrowly define radical feminism.

    To paraphrase one of the earlier posts, radical feminism isn't necessarily anti-sex, anti-penis, bra burning, etc etc.

    But there's another current not to be forgotten, and which is still used today. Womanism/womynism, a term used by many women of color who feel left out of most currents in femnism, still is used. I don't want to patronize it, but for most unfamiliar with womanism, it is a feminism of color.

    Feminism, in my mind, can be split in two (with a blurred line thanks to some folks who are just plain confused), between liberal feminists and those feminists who are against the system of patriarchy. The latter feminism is, just my opinion, irrelevant if it doesn't oppose class systems and white supremacy as well, because as womanists and anti-racist feminists argue, you are not fighting for women if you are only fighting for white, middle class, female-born women.
  26. Schrödinger's Cat
    [FONT=Arial]Feminism: giving men better sex lives since the French Revolution. [/FONT]
  27. Janine Melnitz
    Janine Melnitz
    For this reason, feminism should not be seen as an ideological category that only engages with women, as men would also benefit from the destruction of the male gender role.
    o rly? I sort of agree, I guess; in the long term, it would be best for everybody. But "in the long term", so would socialism; that doesn't mean that capitalists won't violently defend their privileges, or that socialists should waste their time asking rich folks to give up these privileges. Not that I'm discounting the role that rich class-traitors or male sex-traitors can play, but it's silly to act like patriarchy isn't a system that benefits men, who actively defend it for good reasons.
  28. Black Dagger
    [FONT=Arial]Feminism: giving men better sex lives since the French Revolution
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial]Sarcasm? What are you getting at Gene? [/FONT]
  29. Црвена
    The radical notion that women are people.