New improved feminism
Hey, what do you know, feminism is no longer a movement for the liberation of women, it’s a movement for the liberation of everyone. All lives matter.
At least that’s according to this genius. She explains that there are two kinds of feminism, one of which is the boring dreary old historical kind that was about the liberation of women, and the other of which is the hot new kind that’s so much better than that.
There’s also another way that “feminism” is used and that’s to refer to a broader movement. So “feminism” might also refer to what we do here at Everyday Feminism: the fight to end all kinds of oppression. So this may or may not be directly regarding women. Women will certainly gain freedom if oppressive systems are dismantled, as women are still oppressed in many ways due to their identities as women; however feminism as a broader movement is interested in freeing all genders and agender people from all oppressions. So it’s a movement that focuses on more than gender-based oppression against women.
Is it? Why? Why does it do that? Why does it call itself feminism if that’s what it does?
Why can’t feminism be about the liberation of women? Why are women the one group who are expected to move over and stfu and make room for everyone else? Why are there women who call themselves feminists who buy into this shit? Why is Everyday Feminism so idiotic?
‘women are still oppressed in many ways due to their identities as women’
What does ‘identity’ have to do with anything? Whatever I identify as, I will still be oppressed as a woman.
That’s libertarian feminism for you: it’s all about “identity” and nothing else – which explains why it runs itself into the brick wall of making women an optional extra.
The genius in question is doing a philosophy PhD. I shudder for the discipline.
And they used to call embroidery a waste of womens’ work.
Don’t despair too soon, Rebecca Reilly-Cooper is a philosopher!
Or will be reilly soon; not to put too fine a needle-pint to it.
Heh, I know. But this person should not be!
This is so reminiscent of the idea among certain types that ‘dictionary’ atheists aren’t really atheists, that rejecting the notion of gods does not qualify one as an atheist unless one also buys into the SJW philosophy, or more accurately the SJW movement latching onto atheism then redefining it in their own image.
It’s people hijacking existing movements to further their own, not necessarily related agendas because they know they have a ready-made audience created by the efforts of others, making it easier for them to be heard without the need to work too hard.
No, it isn’t. It wasn’t like that. It wasn’t about saying atheism isn’t about atheism, or atheism is only sometimes and optionally about atheism. It was about saying the more or less organized atheist movement should not be full of noisy overt misogynists, especially not ones who spent much of their time harassing feminist women.
That’s not like this. Feminism doesn’t have a problem of being stuffed with noisy overt racists.
Acolyte of Sagan @7, name a single person who doesn’t believe in god who has proffered the idea that you actually do believe in god if you don’t support social justice. Just one. Bonus points if you provide a link showing that they actually said anything close to that idea.
*headdesk*
I’ll agree with the argument that the result of ending patriarchal oppression will benefit most people, that doesn’t mean that feminism should dilute its message to deal with every oppression. There are plenty of movements working to ended other axes of oppression but, just as those working for racial equality should not be prioritising the needs of white women, neither should feminism prioritise those who are not, you know, women.
Doesn’t mean we can’t support those other movements where appropriate, and work together where our goals coincide, but if we aren’t about women first and foremost then what we are doing is not feminism.
Is this because women are like, you know, inherently more caring, nurturing and self sacrificing? Or could it be that women’s liberation is now complete and our attention can be turned elsewhere?
I don’t know what it is, other than infuriatingly stupid.
Ophelia, I don’t think I made my point as well as I should have done. In no way did I intend to suggest that feminism has the same problems as atheism, merely that both are being crowded out by other interests.
I am an atheist. I also strongly believe in social equality (and am sure I would be irrespective of any beliefs I might have had), but they are two different hats. Social equality is not an atheist issue just as trans issues are seperate from feminism; I know many religious people as passionate about equality as me which is why I treat the two as seperate issues, just as I would guess that there are many feminists who support trans activism but keep it apart from the feminist movement because it isn’t strictly a feminist issue.
In both cases, the seperate factions could work alongside each other, but the SJW movement shouldn’t – in my opinion – be redefining atheism to put themselves at the head any more than trans activists should be allowed to redefine and take over feminism.
I couldn’t agree more that atheism would be far better off without the racists and misogynists, but you’ve had first hand experience of what happens to one who fails to follow the official line on SJ issues, and I don’t see how alienating those with nothing but minor differences of opinion is going to help anybody.
In short, feminism, trans activism, atheism and SJ activism should all be working together to solve problems whilst accepting that they are seperate entities.
But I’ve also had first hand experience – extensive first hand experience – of what happens to one who objects to misogynist trashtalk and harassment from people who see themselves as part of an atheist “movement.”
I don’t see that as a minor difference of opinion.
How can you be ‘intersectional’ when you’ve erased your own path? When did BLM, or any other movement suddenly hamstring itself because of women’s oppression?
That blue-haired…CHILD. That smug, ill-informed, shallow twit, is an example of the culture that allows a horror like Trump to ascend. This is what ‘progressive’ politics is reduced to.
I find it hard to believe that the tiny numbers of gender-fractionalists really have the power to destroy feminism. There’s been some special internal rot that makes the smearing and no-platforming capable of shattering a movement that was supposedly gaining for the last couple of centuries.
Acolyte of Sagan@13:
Quotes, or it didn’t happen.
But while we are here: Once again, people who support social justice aren’t trying to redefine atheism; they know that atheism means a lack of belief in a god and are perfectly cool with that definition. What they are trying to do is positively influence the atheist movement, as Ophelia has already clearly pointed out. Tell me you get this, now. You understand that no one wants to redefine a word we all agree on, yes?
Let’s consider your other premise, two different hats and all that, just for fun. In your world, how can these groups possibly work together, which you claim to want? To ask an atheist to work with those who support social equality is to prioritize that atheist’s time towards supporting social equality’s goals in some way, right? And wouldn’t supporting those goals take valuable time away from supporting that atheist’s lack of belief in god, in your world? Since those streams can’t cross in any meaningful way without ruining your atheism, apparently, let’s be honest and just dispense with the notion that you want atheists to work in any meaningful way with people who support social equality.
Let’s now take things to their logical ends: You are a totes-cool supporter of social equality in some ill-defined way but if something has to be done related to atheism like, say, organize a conference, you would ditch social equality because to do otherwise would be to violate the definition of atheism, somehow. If I made note of the fact that the movement appears very obviously unwelcoming of people who aren’t white men, then I am working against the definition of atheism and should be ignored because making note of that gives social equality too much sway and has nothing to do with a lack of belief in god, right?
Alrighty, then.
Meanwhile, what’s with using stupid language like “crowded out.” If a black woman joins the movement and we want to treat her well and consider her interests, do we have to ask a white guy to leave, or something?
Here, let me try a different approach…
You would agree that atheism is a lack of belief in god, I assume? And you would agree that any stripe of human can be an atheist, yes? Well, that the impact of theism affects each group of people differently does not crowd out anything but instead demonstrates that the theist problem is massive and the interests are broad. Maybe you don’t want to know that a lack of belief in god affects LGBT people or black people or women differently and oftentimes more deeply than it affects straight white males, but it is worth understanding since recognizing this will help us to truly begin to address the insidious and pervasive problems presented by theism. And you won’t solve the problems that theism inflicts on the world if you don’t recruit these very same atheists from all walks of life, treat them well, serve their interests, and enlist them in the fight. To treat them well sounds like too much social justice, though, so fuck ’em, just fuck ‘em all because otherwise we will sound like we agree with the aims of those icky SJWs, right? I mean, why would the movement crowd out the interests of atheists by seeking to understand and serve the interests of, er, um, well, atheists?
You get how stupid that sounds, right?
One last thing: Equating these two situations is dopey. Despite how those that Ophelia is lamenting are trying to redefine the word, the feminist movement hasn’t traditionally defined “women” so broadly that it includes non-women. Meanwhile, the definition of atheist has always broadly included every stripe of person, all of whom share a single common trait, a lack of belief in a god. If you want to equate these two movements you actually have to start with a narrower definition of atheism, one as narrow as women. For the sake of argument and because it appears to be the default you want to defend, let’s call that atheism “white male atheism.” Okay, now those definitions are closer to equal. (Take special note that to equate them we just had to redefine atheism. Ironically.) In response to that, I support the liberation of women because it serves all women but I will never support the goals of “white male atheism” until they actually change the goals so that they serve the interests and concerns of all atheists. Which is to say, I want the movement to enlist and serve the interests of everyone already under the traditionally-defined atheist umbrella, not just those you deem acceptable.
*applause*
This feels a bit like piling on after TonyInBatavia’s thorough response, but one more point regarding Acolyte of Sagan’s call for “different hats.” Which reminds me of D.J. Grothe’s professed fear of “mission creep.”
Social justice causes aren’t going to get anywhere unless they “intrude” on other issues’ turf and people insist on “making this about [race/gender/etc].” For the most part, we’ve picked the low-hanging fruit already: the issues that everyone agrees are strictly issues of race/gender/etc. have mostly been disposed of, in the sense that we don’t have Jim Crow any more, or separate job listings for women, etc.
We’re now at the point where we can’t deal with the problems of race if we’re not willing to make race a part of other discussions. We shouldn’t be talking about “law and order” issues without acknowledging the racial dimensions. We shouldn’t be talking about education policy if we’re not prepared to discuss the racial disparities. Otherwise, when are we going to talk about race, other than to sing Kumbaya together every MLK Day?
Last week, during the confirmation hearings for Jeff Sessions, Sen. Graham cross-examined the head of the NAACP on its ratings for lawmakers, pointing out that the Democrats on the committee scored at or near 100%, while the Republicans were 25% or below. “Are we all racists?” he demanded. Of course, the NAACP wasn’t doing anything that a thousand other groups don’t do, such as the NRA’s voting scorecards on guns issues. But Graham implied that something improper was going on because the NAACP dared to score Senators on how their votes on issues affected minority concerns. In other words, the NAACP doesn’t stay in its lane and limit itself to scoring “are you a racist.”
Same thing for feminism, and let me use a different example. It’s easy for private companies to discuss women’s rights during their annual, state-mandated training on How to Avoid Sexual Harassment, or when they’re specifically formulating their family leave policy. But if you want equality in the workplace, those issues need to come up all over the place: someone has to be willing to point out during the meeting where promotions are being discussed that the “not sufficiently dedicated to the company” level sure seems to get applied a lot more often to “mommy track” workers, or that maybe the hiring committee needs to stop including “culture fit” as a hiring criterion if in practice it’s just a proxy for “did the mostly male interviewers have a good chat with the candidate about the local sports team.”
Basically, staying in your lane, or saving it for when you’re wearing your Social Justice Hat, is a recipe for sidelining those issues. And I’m sure that’s not Acolyte’s intent, but that’s where I think it leads.
The fact that some people may act like assholes in their pursuit of social justice, or alienate 99% allies for failing to be perfectly “woke,” is a subject for concern, but not cause to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is homeopathic feminism.
OH! But I am reminded of a demonstration in the UK I heard about that used the moniker of Black Lives Matter UK: apparently, several white people blocked a runway at an airport, shutting it down for some time, and claimed their action as part of BLM. To me, that is another example of a homeopathic social justice movement.
@Screechy Monkey One of my big learning experiences over the past few years is just how incredibly pervasive sexism is. Maybe we don’t have laws or policies excluding women from the workplace any more, but buildings are cooled to temperatures comfortable for men but too cold for women to work efficiently. Expenses policies pay for overnight stays but not childcare. (I noticed, and commented on, the fact that my company’s expenses policy assumes that the man of the house comes home every night to a huge dinner on the table, but of course no1curr.) Up until very recently the safety equipment required for my job only came in men’s sizes–making women at best look like they’re playing dressup in their dad’s clothes and at worst putting their lives in danger. Not a week goes by that I don’t see another way the deck is stacked against me, and I’m starting to find it overwhelming.