Is feminism just about women?

[sqbr]

So, this is something that's been bugging me about feminism as a movement for a while, and I was hoping some of you more educated and involved feminist types could educate me. I've been prodded into asking by a few annoyed posts about racism amongst feminist bloggers at debunkingwhite which helped me crystalise the issue in my head.

EDIT: The answer, it appears, is "Yes" :) Kind of. See strangedave's very interesting comment on the subject.

Now I realise that the word "feminism" has many meanings, and even if you ignore the ones only used by non-feminists(*) you still have some fairly different ideologies amongst self-identified feminists. But looking around at various "Feminism 101" type places (see, for example, the links near the bottom of this post), the basic consensus is that, roughly speaking, feminism is about fighting or at least acknowledging gender oppression and believing that women deserve basic human rights.

But a few other definitions are more strict: feminism is about recognizing and being against all oppression and bigotry. So which is it? Or is this a matter of contention?

I've always assumed the first. Everything I've seen which describes it self as being feminist is first and foremost about gender and women. I have seen feminists criticised (and criticising themselves) for ignoring the plight of non-white, GLBT, disabled etc women, but assumed that was general "We expect better of you lefty social justice types", in the same way as one would criticise a disability advocacy group for being sexist.

A POV I have seen which irritates me beyond measure is "Once we get rid of the patriarchy there will no longer be any homophobia or racism", with the implication that anyone who wants justice about racism etc should become a feminist activist, and all their other problems will magically vanish away. I've seen this argument used for why "feminist" is a perfectly good synonym for "against all oppression", much better than say "equalist". (This despite fairly common displays of racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc amongst groups of women and feminists in particular)

But recently I've realised that this may not be what people mean when they argue that "all feminists are against racism" etc. Nor are they just assuming that anyone who is good on one point (ie feminism) must naturally be a "good" person in other ways(**). They may actually be using the second, more restrictive definition.

But by this defintion the feminist movement sucks. Because if feminism is against all oppression and bigotry, why are they focussing so much on women? Why do feminist books and blogs etc not focus as much on the plight of the black or gay or disabled man as much as they do on the white middle class woman? (I mean, by either definition they should also be focussing on disadvantaged women, but by this one there is absolutely no good reason why women should be first priority rather than just one disadvantaged group amongst many) I mean it's still ok for individual feminists to focus on particular issues which may only involve women, in the same way as it's ok for individual environmentalists or environmental groups to focus on say one particular animal or issue, but it would be all shades of wrong if they all focussed on saving cute furry animals, and none on say global warming.. except specifically as it affected cute furry animals. And of course the very word "feminism" becomes incredibly loaded, alienating disadvantaged men from the group that theoretically represents them.

Am I missing something? Because as I see it there are three possibilities:
(a) There are two contradictory definitions of feminism being used, with both groups seeing theirs as obvious and well accepted, and I've just missed seeing any of the inevitable clashes;
(b) People who assume that all feminists are against racism etc are full of crap;
(c) There is something incredibly wrong with the feminist movement beyond the generic intolerance you get in any group of people not specifically gathered together to fight that particular intolerance (e.g. I'm sure disability advocacy groups are sexist)

Personally I'm going for a little of column (a), a little of column (b) :) But it would be useful to get some more knowledgeable feedback, since I get into in arguments with people who have women's studies degrees and end up frustrated and unable to defend my POV.

Ranting on why all feminists suck etc to go here please :P

(*)Like: crazy man hating gender separatist
(**) A common misconception, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I think my favourite was "Anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior is free from sin" with the clarification that yes, there are an awful lot of people who give every impression of thinking they've accepted him, but clearly haven't or they wouldn't be sinning would they? Similary, there are apparently a lot of people who fight for women's rights and call themselves feminists, but they can't really be feminists, because then they'd be nice! And unbigoted!

Comments

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned feminism is only about mitigating and ultimately eliminating all forms of oppression against women because they are women, or perhaps eliminating all forms of oppression against people on the basis of gender.

I don't think any definitions with a broader scope than that have much currency, do they? Especially given the rather obvious etymology of the term "feminism" itself, which makes it terribly unsuited to wider application.

[distantcam.livejournal.com]

Manhole, manhandle, manslaughter, manservant, manhunt.

Why does the etymology of a word matter if the meaning has expanded to include something that wasn't part of the original meaning?

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

The etymology doesn't matter of necessity, especially if that wider meaning has already passed into established usage.

(I'll leave the obvious comment about the historical use of "man" to mean "person" and its relation to feminism aside.)

However I don't see that as an argument to use "podiatrist" (with its obvious "foot person" etymology) to mean "any health industry professional".

Furthermore if there's already a term whose referent is the wider meaning, why limit the usefulness of the more nuanced term by smearing it out?

[alias_sqbr]

Well, there's a lot of feminists (myself included) who'll argue that the etymology of a word is very important if it is still plainly apparent in the word's usage and implications (ie chairman, policeman etc) This applies to "feminism" given that it sounds like, and usually refers to, the "feminine".

Of course you have the opposite argument, where people argue that, say "spastic" isn't an insult since it comes from an old fashioned scientific term for cerebral palsy, but that ignores the word's history, usage, and associations.

*is not entirely sure what my point is exactly*

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Unlike Tom, I won't leave the obvious comment aside. None of those terms have had their meaning expanded beyond their etymology, because 'man' has more than one contextual meaning (and while 'manservant' refers specifically to males, I doubt anyone uses it to describe female valets).

The question of whether the use of 'man' to refer non-specifically to any member of the human race is oppressive to women is cultural, having only to do with the (etymologically appropriate) use of a culturally-loaded term. The use of 'feminism' to refer to an opposition of all forms of bigotry is etymological, expanding a term originally used for describing the beliefs and actions of those fighting for female equality to supplant other, more appropriate terms such as 'tolerance'.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

These things usually go in the other direction: when two or more words with identical referents arrive to compete in the same space, one or both of them will tend to take on a more nuanced meaning.

Example: prior to 1066 the antecedent of "apple" in Anglo-Saxon / OE / whatever was a general term meaning the same as our contemporary "fruit". Following the Norman conquest "apple" gradually took on its contemporary meaning as the (French-derived) "fruit" took root in English.

This is a process that tends to enrich language (allowing the economic expression of more complex meanings) rather than impoverish it (by creating a bunch of vague terms all meaning the same thing).

Be interesting to see where terms like "laptop" and "notebook" go over the next couple of decades (assuming the devices themselves remain).

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

It's true, there are cases where words become more specific, losing their former, broader meaning. It's generally pretty rare, though, usually coinciding with cultural upheaval (as in the case of the 1066 invasion).

I would agree that words competing in the same lexical space tend to become nuanced: 'cataclysm' and 'disaster', for example. However, I wouldn't consider 'man' to be an example of this. The word has been used throughout post-Roman history to describe both humans and specifically male humans - certainly that usage has cultural roots, but that's more than a nuance. Competing words ('person', for example) came into English hundreds of years later, and didn't assume their current common meanings in the same space as 'man' until later still.

Additionally, the nuances are rarely universal, differing wildly between English-speaking cultures (see 'biscuit' or 'truck' for examples). Nor do words naturally narrow their definitions; many words become re-used so many times that they have no single "commonly accepted" definition (look at 'set').

'Laptop' and 'notebook' are interesting examples. 'Laptop' has been forced into a smaller category in technical usage, with newer words like 'palmtop' and 'ultraportable' stealing some of its scope, but is commonly used for all mobile computers to distinguish them from 'desktop' machines. This is similar to 'man': the word refers to both a group and a subset of that group. 'Notebook', on the other hand, is an example of a word with an existing definition being co-opted into another definition, with the specific meaning determined by the context in which is it used.

Yay language. :)

[alias_sqbr]

See strangedave's comment below: some see feminism as being inextricably bound up with the wider fight against all oppression by it's nature.

*grumble*

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Some people might choose to use the term "feminism" in that broader sense, but two things being bound up together (even inextricably!) doesn't make them interchangeable or the same in any logical sense, so I don't consider the usage to be justified.

Yes, language is a shifting multifarious thing, who knew?

This whole train of thought makes me grumpy about people who abuse terms due to their laziness or their desperation for rhetorical advantage and then say "well the meaning's evolved to include my bollocksy usage" once they've committed the aforesaid atrocities over some span of time.

And then start interpreting other people's non-abusive use of the term as if their intent included the wider scope! Argh!

Re: *grumble*

[alias_sqbr]

See people using words to mean something different is just the way language works, though I agree that some particular examples are dumb and counterproductive.

But yes, people who use a word to mean something different to most people then act as if everyone was using their definition are grumpy making indeed. Also confusing. As in this case.

this is more my opinion than knowledgeable feedback.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

IMO: feminism = fighting/at least acknowledging gender oppression and believing that women deserve basic human rights. And yeah, some people think the best way to bring attention to the issue/express their opinion etc is by doing the crazy man hating thing gender separatist thing. And for me, that is ~all~ that feminism brings to mind, it has nothing to do with racism, classism etc etc. They're different issues to me.

That said, thinking about it more, I guess I think that things like racism/classism are also a part of feminism - as in, racism regarding women. If that makes sense. But the main definition of feminism in my head has always only been in regard to gender oppression rather than other -ism-y issues.

Also, as I was reading this post, this post and some of the comments came to mind (http://seperis.livejournal.com/543192.html).

Re: this is more my opinion than knowledgeable feedback.

[alias_sqbr]

Mmm. It is difficult to be in favour of broad actions taken to redress wider inequalities which in practice bear down hard on you specifically.

From various things I've read, I think the definition of feminism is a lot more subtle and slippery than it first appears. But mostly I get along with the obvious one, which is good because the others confuse me :)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Similar to ataxi, I'd be really surprised to hit a definition of feminism that included other types of discrimination.

OTOH, I would be surprised to come across someone who identified as a feminist that wasn't, you know, generally against other types of discrimination. I'd have this expectation because once you start giving serious thought to the mechanics of discrimination, it'd be hard to miss them in operation across other interactions.

However, I would also not expect someone who identified as feminist to be across all possible extrapolations of those discrimination mechanics operating in all possible unequal power dynamics; someone who identifies as feminist has pretty much chosen a speciality. So, basically, they'd slip into the "standard" unequal, discriminatory, acculturated biases across other dynamics, because, you know, that's what people do.

Does that make sense?

[alias_sqbr]

It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm not sure it applies to everyone who self identifies as feminist :)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

I think it's a reasonable expectation, rather than a cardinal truth.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Oddly, I was just talking to Chas last night about something similar to this.

I think if you're talking about feminism, then you're talking about a movement/philosophy opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender.

Often, this leaves out some subcategories, such as problems which are problems for women, but for non-white women; this is a race problem, yes, but it's both separate from and mixed with feminism. The basic thing is, feminists are people, which means they are flawed, and they're making some mistakes.

Thus it's up to those with principles both feminist and anti-racist to try and bring the rest into it.

So much for feminism, but I'm becoming uncomfortable with the connotations of the word feminism as it is. I think misogyny and the "patriarchy" hurt men too, and I don't want advantage for women, I want EQUALITY, for EVERYONE.

Chas and I were talking about privilege, both male and white. You look at a lot of the stuff that's unpacked as privilege of the dominant groups and you have to acknowledge that yes, those of us who have those rights are privileged. The thing is, though?

I don't intend to give up quite a lot of the privileges that come with being white, and I don't want men to give up a lot of the privilege that comes with being male. I do, however, want non-white people to have that privilege too, and I want the privilege males have, until it's not a matter of "privilege", it's a matter of the respect accorded to people for being people.

On this not all feminists or anti-racists would agree. It depends at least somewhat on personal philosophy.

And now I have to run for a bus.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. See something I've had feminists more steeped in theory than me explain (slowly and to only partial comprehension on my part, so don't trust my explanation) is that the problem of the word "equality" is the assumption that, say, women want to be given the same rights as men, when in fact that they want is for society to give them space and respect for being women. Not just equal pay for equal work, but maternity leave and childcare. Not just "It's ok for women to be firemen" but "It's ok for men to be housewives".

But yes. There is a somewhat blurry line between "privileges that everyone should have" (like not being assumed to be a criminal based on skin colour) and "privileges which only exist through another groups lack of privilege", like having your group seen as the default for everyone and everything.

[lilysea.livejournal.com]

I think a feminist is ‘someone who seeks to remove discrimination on the grounds of gender’.

As Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in one of the earliest feminist books
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman:

“I do earnestly wish to see the distinction of sex confounded in society, unless where love animates the behaviour. “

This *includes* discrimination against men (eg. discrimination against male childcare workers, kindergarten teachers, nurses; increasing the amount of paternity leave available to men who wish to play a large role in the care/rearing of their children etc etc), but as so much of the gender discrimination in the world is currently discrimination-against-women, most feminists are understandably most visible in fighting against discrimination against women.

To me, feminism does not include a commitment against racism, etc.

However, most (though not all) people who are feminist are also against other forms of discrimination.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Only two contradictory definitions of feminism? Feminism is a cause, not a philosophy - in effect, its a cluster of different philosophical positions that all have some attitudes in common.

Now, most feminists understand that feminism opposes patriarchy. And many feminists have come to a philosophical understanding of the patriarchy that sees it as not only the cause of discrimination against women, but also the same basic system that drives intolerance against many other groups. And if you see things that way, then you see feminism as intrinsically against intolerance in all forms - once you attack the foundations of discrimination against women, you at the same time attack discrimination against racism, class, etc.

Other feminists have a different philosophy, and don't see all causes of discrimination as intrinsically linked. They can still be against oppression and bigotry (you can think that discrimination against women and other forms of discrimination are both wrong, without thinking they have the same cause). Some might even think that accepting feminism means being opposed to discrimination in general, but working towards feminist goals doesn't necessary aid other anti-discrimination causes. According to this view, you just have to choose a cause, and they've chosen feminism, but all those other causes are good too.
Other feminismts have different philosophies again - there are certainly feminists who would agree with the idea that feminism sucks, particularly there are definitely black feminists who think white feminism sucks because it is so bad at seeing and fighting racism and classism.

Other feminists think completely different stuff. I'm sure you can find anti-semitic or otherwise racist feminists if you look hard enough. You probably wouldn't need to look that hard. It would be pretty easy to construct a basically racist feminism from the archeological theories of Marija Gimbutas if so inclined, for example.

So, essentially, I'm going with a little from column a, and mostly column b.

And also, option d) actually, people are bad at consistently espousing the one philosophy, and some people just don't think hard about whether their collected prejudices form a philosophically consistent position, They can still call them themselves feminists.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"Feminism is a cause, not a philosophy"

Shouldn't that be a cause AND a philosophy, the way you're talking about it?

"in effect, its a cluster of different philosophical positions that all have some attitudes in common"

To me if you have a grab-bag of viewpoints which you're going to call "feminist viewpoints", feminism should consist of their intersection, not their union.

I realise this is a prescriptivist / descriptivist argument, and fine, "feminism" obviously has a multiplicity of meanings most of which depend on context, none of which is absolutely right or wrong ...

"some people just don't think hard about whether their collected prejudices form a philosophically consistent position, They can still call themselves feminists."

But in some cases, everyone else is bound to disagree, or qualify their claims.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't that be a cause AND a philosophy
A cause and a bunch of related philosophical positions.

To me if you have a grab-bag of viewpoints which you're going to call "feminist viewpoints", feminism should consist of their intersection, not their union.

Sure, a quite sensible approach. That does not, me me, appear to be how the term is consistently used in practice, though, hence the resulting confusion which prompted the question.

in some cases, everyone else is bound to disagree, or qualify their claims.
Absolutely. But this creates arguments, rather than solves them.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"Absolutely. But this creates arguments, rather than solves them."

I usually end up agreeing (with a few regrets) that quibbling endlessly about terms isn't a good way to build consensus and make progress.

But once progress has been made on the broad shared goals of a movement the time not previously spent persuading others to share your more specific ideas will suddenly seem more important.

[alias_sqbr]

Ooh! Thankyou for your well considered reply, I think you have it exactly.

The problem is that many (most?) self identified feminists may be part of "the feminist cause" but the actual definitions I have seen of feminism tend to be as a philosophy, as an opinion about gender and society without any direct expectation of action. Which I think is rather disingenuous, since there's a lot of assumed baggage that goes unstated, including being part of the cause. And yes, I do focus perhaps too much on written definitions rather than people's actions, but I'm a literal minded maths nerd, I can't help it :)

I think the sorts of feminists who have been confusing me are the "The patriarchy is under it all" sort, and the way you've expressed their POV makes it sound less bad than the understanding I had (and actually kind of sensible). Still, I think if what we're talking about is the underlying power structures inherent to society and their underpinnings in racism, sexism, etc, not just about gender, then there's no good reason to call it "The Patriarchy". This just inflates the importance of gender and implies that all women (no matter if they're rich white etc) are the innocent victims and all men (no matter if they're poor or black etc) are the powerful aggressors. It's like my (white, straight, male, somewhat working-class) dad expressing all social justice in terms of class, it means he never has to be part of the "bad guys" because he always defines them first and foremost as being the rich(*).

I am all in favour of people being able to self-identify as feminist (or whatever) even if they don't think about it very hard and their position makes no sense, if we start excluding those sorts of people there'll be very few "ist"s left of any flavour :)

(*)Am reminded to refer to the patriarchy as many times as possible tomorrow. Whenever I bring up sexism when he's in the middle of a rant about the Oligarchy Ruling Us All he gets all flustered until he can find a way to blame it all on the industrial revolution or something.

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

Um, I refer to the Patriararcy and that's not what I mean AT ALL. Rather it's the opposite - to acknowledge political inequality while noting structural power relations [aka of course as a a white woman in a wealthy minority world state I'm privileged over many men].

Ok, I mean this in a nice way seriously, but where are you getting your info? Are you hearing strident campus feminists or something? Patriarchy =/= men!!!

[alias_sqbr]

*pauses*

*realises that while I have gone out of my way to make sure I have a fair understanding of what the proper definition of "feminism" is, I'd just assumed I'd picked up the correct definition of "Patriarchy" from context*

Oops. I have very poor reading comprehension when it comes to philosophicalish concepts you see. (This stuff hurts my brain in general, which is why I'v taken so long to work my way down replying to all the long complex comments. Yours is next after this!)

*googles*
Are these roughly ok?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy_in_feminism
http://gray.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Caribbean/Patriarchy.htm

Because that's roughly what I had in mind, though I'll admit I expressed my point very poorly in my comment to strangedave.

My point is this: I have no problem with feminists who think that being a feminist means also fighting against other sorts of inequality(*). I do have a problem with any who try to bring all fights against bigotry under the umbrella of feminism, since it elevates gender above race, sexuality etc.

That is:
- it ignores the many hugely important non-feminists working against other sorts of bigotry
-whatever it should be, the feminist movement in practice has largely focussed on gender, so the equation anti-bigotry=feminism easily becomes anti-bigotry=feminism=fighting against gender inequality, making gender the top priority
-similarly, words like "feminism" and "patriarchy" (and presumably other feminist terms and concepts) are inextricably linked to gender, by usage and entomology and often by definition. If they become the dominant terminology then gender becomes the central focus.

I'm not saying feminists don't care about or notice racism etc.(**) But making feminism the default is as bad as making male the default. Someone who says "Fighting racism is part of feminism's fight against the patriarchy" almost certainly doesn't mean to exclude disadvantaged men, but it does have that subtext, in the same way that someone saying "Our company needs a new chairman" is probably entirely happy to have a woman in the role...but the word still has an exclusionary subtext.

Anyway, I'm probably still missing something, and it's possible that the sort of attitude I'm worried about doesn't actually exist. But that's the vibe I get, and if I don't express it and have people point out why I'm wrong it'll sit there niggling at me whenever I get involved with feminism (which I would very much like to do. The Patriarchy sucks however you define it)

*hopes this is both clear and not horribly offensive, has a nasty feeling it is neither*

(*)Assuming they accept that not everyone sees feminism this way, both inside and outside the movement.
(**) I realise that what I said to strangedave basically said that, but that's not what I meant. I forgive you for not being psychic :)

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

My apologies, I jumped off the handle there. I'm pretty much a feminist history buff and I tend to lunge into debates without checking where others are at in the background.

The wikis on feminism are kinda vauge imho, but from what you're saying here it sounds like you're referring to the radical feminist and/or dominant liberal academic feminist forms of defining it. In which case, there definitely really are feminists like that -very influential ones in Oz- but I don't think they're the majority in practice and I agree with your point about trying to make feminism a central encompassing approach being as problematic as making masculism central.

But I should go find some links or definitions to clarify myself before I blather more *goes surfing*

[alias_sqbr]

Ah, that's cool. It's a very loaded subject.

And don't worry, I'm aware that that sort of feminism is just one sub-branch. This post was prompted by coming a across a few of them who acted as if that was the only logical way to be feminist, and then getting this POV mixed up with the much more reasonable "Being feminist should imply not being a bigot about other things". But now things are much clearer, and I stand better prepared for the next time I engage in a discussion on the topic. Huzzah for my brainy friends list :)

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

The semantics, they burn me.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

I almost commented for real. But it is no more.

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

I'd venture a more extensive opinion, but looking through the comments it seems that everything I would have said has been covered.

I'd largely concur with much of strangedave's comment. The idea of a loose, almost infinitely diverse multiplicity of feminisms as opposed to the one 'feminism: this is IT' reflects my experience particularly well. I can articulate the beliefs and positions that are a part of 'my feminism' reasonably well, but don't expect that to reflect the next person's experience or beliefs of the same. (However, given that I'm into post-modernity as well as feminism, this is hardly a surprising position for me to take.)

For a really good read that deals with the practical and political issues your question has raised over the years, I'd highly recommend Susan Brownmiller's autobiographical 'In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution'. She's very honest about the factional nature of the women's movement, the philosophical divides and cults-of-personality around certain high-profile feminists. At the same time, though, it's an inspiring read rather than a depressing one - it was the first book that made me realise that all the freedoms I now take for granted did not come from society getting 'modern' and 'more sensible' all by itself, but through the massive efforts of brave and dedicated people.

[i-palimpsest.livejournal.com]

I heart your icon. My most favorite book of all time.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm, ok, I'll have to look that up.

And yes, while certain aspects of the way the feminist movement works bug me I think it has been and continues to be a vitally important cause. And any group of more than one person is going to have factionalism etc :)

[i-palimpsest.livejournal.com]

Feminism and Feminist I don't think can be used as a blanket description of being against all bigotry. The language is too exclusionist. Also I think it is important to have terms that are exclusionary as well as inclusionary as it is often necessary to discuss different types of bigotry specifically.

Theoretically you should be able to say that all feminists are against all bigotry. It's not unreasonable that a person acknowledging and fighting against one form of bigotry would be equally acknowledging of other forms.

However feminists are people, and people are not that simple. I have met feminists who were against homosexuals. After all, they might say, homosexuality is immoral - so we shouldn't encourage it. But being a woman is not immoral so we should have the same rights. And negro's aren't really people anyway so obviously that doesn't apply to black women.

So although we should be able to assume that feminists are completely against bigotry but their attitudes to others are still shaped by their upbringing and experience.

[i-palimpsest.livejournal.com]

Umm just re-read that and realised that it might not be obvious that the bit about negros not being people was meant to be a hypothetical racist feminist and wanted to clarify that this is not my own personal viewpoint,

[alias_sqbr]

Hah, nah, it's cool, I picked up the implication :)

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

But a few other definitions are more strict: feminism is about recognizing and being against all oppression and bigotry. So which is it? Or is this a matter of contention?

Oh, i love this question.

I'd say that these aren't opposing perspectives [womens rights or interrelated politics of race, abelism etc] but complementary points because;

- the majority of the world's women experience sexual politics and human rights in conjunction with these related politics of race, class etc. To exclude these politics impact upon sexual politics results in feminist theory with greatly reduced applicability at best, or overt discrimination to less privileged women within feminist organizing at worst.

-I define feminism in relation to patriarachy. Keeping the P-word in there is important imho because feminism is a political philosophy, it addresses power relations and ideologies which the concept of Patriarchy conveys - unlike just saying gender or men. Especially when defining feminism with newbs, just saying "womens issues" and men allows the common misperception that feminism = some men vs women gender war thing, and totally personal lifestyle choices, not wider political critique and actions.

-If I'm aiming to dismantle patriarchy, that then does imply both point a) of addressing women's rights as women are most disadvantaged by patriarchy and point b) because The Patriarch is constructed in conjunction with other politics. For example, John Howard appealed to a very nationalist, white, heterosexual, Christian Patriarchal vision. He also appealed to some women to support him in politics with deeply sexist impacts to other women by working that really nationalist patriarchy. To unpack that required getting the way these politics interact.

-Nonetheless, there are HEAPS of academic feminists and factions that will say it's either/or, that one's better blah blah. Imho that reflects women of privilege generally having had more opportunity to create feminist resources and pursue feminism in academia, resulting in the related politics being presented as an "add on" despite that not being how it's actually lived by many.

I thus take the endless "It's either, NO it's OR!" debates as;

-evidence that women and feminists have unequal power relations amongst ourselves

-which impacts upon the way feminism is practised in RL and recorded/ transmitted in academia.

Which is "real" feminism depends whether you're talking about feminist histories as they really happed, feminist theory as we ideally aspire to and whether the feminist in question is prepared to acknowledge their own location within intra-feminist power relations.

No one correct answer. In much the same way punks disagree endlessly about what punk is, and frankly punk does "really" include groups about just moshing out and/or more political ones, but we can all probably draw the line at Avril Lavigne. Where, Patriarchy is Avril Lavinge, but Green Day / white liberal feminist remain up for debate.

I think "colourblind" feminists are kidding themselves, because patriarchy and the majority of people don't have their sexual politics outside racism.
And I'm right. Like everyone else :P

Going through your points

[alias_sqbr]

-Absolutely.

-Good point. Something I've had pointed out to me is the way that feminism etc is belittled by the "Ok, sure, that guy was acting a sexist/racist etc way, but he's just a prat, on the whole sexism/racism etc aren't a problem" when there's this huge power structure relying upon and reinforcing these attitudes, but it's so pervasive you don't notice it 'til you look.

-Mmm, I can see that.

-You lost me a bit there (like I said, low reading comprehension!), but I do agree that some feminists do seem pretty blase about anything except gender, even when it's them doing the oppressing. e.g. the "Gay men should shut up about slash" argument can get pretty dodgy.

*is in basic agreement with, and educated by your post*

And I'm right. Like everyone else :P

Me too! :)

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

For me feminism is about ending discrimination based around gender distinctions.

Gender discrimination affects men and women, of course, but often more detrimentally (and obviously) for women so a lot of effort gets channelled there.

I find that many people who think about discrimination in one area become engaged in other areas of anti-discrimination work as well. (But not necessarily).

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

Some really interesting points raised. However seeing the large number of "womens only" spaces and groups out there that discriminate against men and intersex and intergendered people who are also against gender based oppression I would have to say that I personally (as someone who is anti-feminist) have to say that feminism is only about women.

[alias_sqbr]

There's a difference between feminism as it it is defined and feminism as it is practiced. I mean I dislike a lot about the feminist movement as it is run (though not as much as you!) and still call myself a feminist, same way that as a christian I had a lot of problems with the church but still called myself christian... up until the point I no longer believed in God, when I no longer fit the definition.

I agree that feminism as practiced is almost entirely about gender, and can be unfairly discriminatory towards men (and transexuals), but the question is: is this just a byproduct of feminists being people (and thus selfish and bigoted) or is it an intrinsic part of the nature of the movement? Can I say "I'm feminist, but I'm not one of those feminists" or should I say "I'm kind of feminist, except for a few things..."? These sorts of questions keep me up at night :)

Admittedly, one of the things I don't like about the feminist movement is the somewhat sneaky way it tends to mess about with definitions depending on what's convenient(*) so it's not like it's either of our faults for using the "wrong" definition. But if you are anti-feminist, how are you defining the term?

(*)though I'd say part of this perceived hypocrisy is just due to me encountering feminists from diverse arms of the movement with contradictory attitudes