Granted, many women are feminists to an extent, equal, but different, rights for all. But there are women who don't want to be equal. Some are satisfied with status quo, that men should run the show, and some want to overturn male dominance as a relic of a bygone age and create a female-dominant society. Neither of which are feminism.

So,
Are all women feminists? No.
Are all women non-feminists? No.
Are some men feminists? Yes.

"Are women feminists?" or "Are most women feminists?"

There does seem to be counter-examples to the first question if we answer 'yes'. To say that 'most women are feminists', while ultimately impossible to demonstrate, seems to be a reasonable claim in our modern society.

all women are feminists was a typo. "all" is a fallacy in many respects. This is something you and Didymos factored in and rightly so. It is not the case that all women are feminists, because that would be a fallacy which no one would believe. But the abstract principle behind women is what's interesting though compared to the possibility of all or none, some or a few. I agree that all women are not feminists in as much as I agree with the fact that all women are feminists. Maybe it has to do more with the generalization of gender and society more than the possibility of an entire sex classifying under a given doctrine.

I think a wonderful question would be, with respect to those women who are not feminists, "why are some women not feminists?"

Vide, you mentioned slaves wanting to be slaves. Of course not. But I think we can imagine that there was at least one real 'Uncle Tom'. While the case of feminism is less extreme as compared to slavery, perhaps similar environmental conditions that would lead a slave to be content with slavery might lead some women to be content with the degree of oppression and marginalization that sex faces. Indoctrination into the notion that "this is just the way it is" coupled, perhaps, with being a marginalized person who is, as compared to the rest of that population, well off?

If by the act of recognizing that they are treated unequally and resent in some fashion that all women are feminists, yes.

The same applies for all children who recognize they aren't treated equally and realize it an resent it.

The same applies for any demographic.

On the converse i suppose all men who realize they have power just by being men and utilize it, including those men who utilize it for a feminist cause, are misogynists.

As a social scientist who works with marginalized populations as an advocate, I have used feminist theory frequently; it is a handy tool to champion a cause. My problem is not really with the theory it is with the extreme practitioners who would label all women feminists (not calling you one vid) just some people I have read. If a woman is educated about her current 'role' and her possible 'roles' and actively (without overt coercion) chooses to remain in the former role happily, then I assert that she is not discriminated against by men or the system and should not be held to a standard she does not wish to fill just because a 'feminist' thinks she is not living up to her potential.

Cheers,
Russ

Very good point Didymos. If Feminism is "the belief that women, purely and simply because they are women, are treated inequitably within a society which is organized to prioritize male viewpoints and concerns", some women might actually be threatened by feminism if this "inequitable treatment" actually is benefitial or pleasurable or "good" for non-feminist women.

Didymos,

I think that kind of juxtaposition would be very insightful as well. But it's interesting that you bring up the idea of an "uncle tom" for women. I completely agree that there would be the very real possibility that a woman would truly want to be complacent under a male framework. However, I think that the "uncle tom" in the case of women would still utilize feminist tools. If it is the case that women know they are discriminated against and want to change the situation (the feminist mantra), then I would suppose that "Uncle Tommette" would not be a feminist in a general way. But an Uncle Tom in a sense is a feminist if you think about it, although in a twisted way. Uncle Tom behaves in a subservient way to white authority, however that complacency is not done just because of the way things are though. Uncle tom gains recognition as an obedient servant, thus achieving a level of status above his/her peers. If feminism is the recognition of the fact that they are being discriminated against (which Uncle Tom would since he is conforming to a white normative framework) and seeks to change the situation (which Uncle Tom is doing because he is gaining favor within white authority) then "Uncle Tomette" may in fact be a feminist. Albeit not in the classic sense of a feminist, but one none the less. Change is not necessarily always positive, but it is movement in one way or another which is in many respects not unlike feminism. Feminism is a myriad of different branches, most of which do not agree with one another. A simple example is the difference between liberal and radical feminism.

Goshisdead,

But I think I would, under a set of specific definitions, call women feminists. As in the case of Uncle Tom, even though we attribute some level of negativity to him, he is still fulfilling the terms of a feminist. Uncle Tom a) realizes that there is discrimination and b) seeks to change the situation. He realizes there is discrimination and his reaction is not in defiance but compliance, but in being compliant Uncle Tom is changing the situation. I disagree that there needs to be some level of resentment in the mix though, just some realization that there is some inequity. Resentment seems to be a specific branch of radical feminism that does not broadly apply to feminists in general. But that in a way segways towards the point you underline, that radicalism labels all women feminists. I am of the opinion that radical feminism goes a little far a times, but asserting that women are feminists is not radical. If feminism underlines the fact that there is inequity and seeks to change the situation, then any form of activism, both positive or negative, is a feminist movement that benefits women in particular. . Betty Freidan in The Feminine Mystique described women during the 1950's as complacent domestic servants living in a "comfortable concentration camp." But it seems as though, at least in a small way, necessary that that kind of radicalism is around though. Radicalism is confronting a norm in which men expect women to fill a specific role. To a point, if I were to say that women are fully entitled to stay within the role men create for them, all I am doing is protecting Uncle Tommette rather than their right to choose their particular lifestyle, even though that lifestyle is ironically male imposed.

1000th!

How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?



Answer: Feminism never changed anything.



Ok, now that the completely inappropriate joke is out of the way, let me say this:

Not all women are feminists. Prime example is my friend Antonia. She is under the understanding that men are usually correct and that women don't know what they want or what they are talking about. She doesn't trust women in public office and thinks that only men should run the our public affairs.

I have actually studied feminism a great deal and find that it is not only necessary but I am very open and welcome to it. My biggest fear is that the pendulum might swing the other way. In this world of politcal correctness, it seems that the mere act of feminism could very well be bringing more attention to sexism and thus define a world where women get special priviledges. I see this as wrong simply because the ultimate goal is equality. So long as men are afraid to confront a woman in power or confront inequality because it is a woman commiting it, men will find themselves in the same role that women were during the 30's when feminism began.

I am for equality of all sorts. Race, gender, religion; these are all concepts which should be ignored. Any person who wants to do something should have the same rights and abilities to accomlish their dreams. I think that feminism was a great movement and I am all for the original purpose but I feel that it may not be necessarry any longer. I think that the only way we are ever going to be truly equal is to stop paying attention to these equal rights movements and start looking at qualifications in accordance with task to be accomplished. The more attention we pay to not being prejudice, the more prejudice we are creating. It is not the same kind of prejudice however. It is a fear of offending someone because of their envolvement with one of these groups. It is still bringing attention to the prejudice, it is jus a change of climate for the way the prejudice is handled.


How many masculists does it take to change a light bulb?





Answer: None. Their ego won't let them see that the light is out.

i completely agree that not all women are feminists. Some women will prefer a male normative framework and some do not. Personal preference is one thing, but one point of contention is that women in general, no matter the preference, maintain feminist principles. Uncle Tom from the previous analogies, though it may not seem progressive to us, is progressive in himself because he seeks to improve the situation and understands the inequity of the situation.

As to feminism in general, im not really much of a fan. It depends on the specific wing of feminism. Liberal and conservative feminism is readable because there are both practicable and approachable and are addressed in realistic ways. Conservative feminism for example at the close of the first wave (1929) addressed successive issues which culminated in the passing of the 19th amendment (womens right to vote). Now as soon as you get into more radical feministic theories like those of Luce Irigaray or Marie Putnam Tong, then you start entering the grey areas of feasibility in practical theory. One of the more far out ones I liked was Luce Irigaray notion that women should have their own voice, literally. Could you imagine a woman's language? I think I could, but that seems a little far out though. But anyway...

I don't know if I can agree with your conception of equality though. It seems like what you want would be to water down what makes everyone special and unique. In the case of women, this would be disastrous because what it essentially says is that the female sex does require recognition, only assimilation. That was the fundamental problem with African American's issues. Even after emancipation, a drastic change in the constitution with the 13,14,15th amendment and the post war civil rights acts, recognition as equal still to this very day is still an issue... look at white flight. Constant diligence in that respect was needed and I would suspect that that is the case with women as well. The only difference is that unlike African American slavery, women face a much harder battle because the norm is such that women are just expected to be happy the way they are because of historical precedent.

I think you misunderstand me. Let me try to explain a little better.

The only way to remove prejudice is to remove prejudice. You cannot do so while bringing attention to it.

Most of life is like a pendulum. The pendulum swings one way and then, through our general over reaction, we push it back the other way and the weight of the situation carries it to the other side. The only way to stop it is to remove the momentum entirely. We cannot push it the other way, we have to remove the weight which carries it back. We have to remove all thought of inequality to remove inequality. The longer we bring attention to it, the more we push back on it in an attempt to level it out quickly. Not many things in life happen quickly. Often, major changes take generations upon generations. Our problem is impatients. We identified the issue and became aware of it. Now we must work hard NOT to push back against it but to ignore the line entirely. It is the only way to acheive equality.

Prime example: A women's group sued the US Marine Corps because they felt that women should not have to go through the same physical training as a male marine but should be held in the same regard.

Another group sued a local firestation for requiring women to be able to carry just as much weight as a man.

Yet another instance of this is where a women's rights group sued the city of Los Angeles because they required a women to be in the same physical shape as a male police officer in order to pass cadet training.

There are thousands of cases like this where women want the same treatment for less work. In other words, they feel that they should be treated special because of the oppression of women. The same as African Americans, Today, wanting reperations for slavery which they never experienced. I am all about people being equal. The problem is that these Civil Rights Movements do not want equality. They want special treatment to make up for a past which most of them have not experienced. If the purpose is equality then the line should be erased, not inverted.

Did you know that, as a white male in the united States of America, I have absolutely no assistence programs for things like school, equal opportunity employment or even the same tax cuts. I get no benefits what so ever and yet I am still capable of performing my duties and keeping my job while there is an entire ghetto filled with miniroities who are mad because things are not being given to them and even a woman who hates me because she didn't get the job because I was more qualified. She HATES me because I was more qualified and she chalked it up to her being a woman. Soon, as a white male, I will have no way to keep a job at all. I do not want benefits. I just want it to be an even playing field. If you are a woman who wants to be a marine then you go through the same program as the males. If you are a minority who wants a management position then you should have the same qualifications as everyone else. Period.

The more we worry about offending people, the more we end up pushing the pendulum.

While its true that the more attention we give any issue, the more it *becomes* an issue, we can't mix up the legitimate efforts to eradicate hundreds of years of (continuing) discrimination with the petty litigations and griping BOTH genders do.

I feel your pain and you have a point, Icon. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There is a difference between throwing out the baby with the bathwater and realizing the futility of beating a dead horse.

Yes, there is still prejudice. It is a childish thing. And when you have a child who is throwing a temper tantrum, is it best to acknowledge him by patting him on the back or yelling at him? No. The best course of action is to ignore the child. If we ignore prejudice and go about our lives in a fashion which breeds equality then equality will happen. The more we talk about it, the less of it we have.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Talking only brings attention but action bring more action. That is one thing we can always count on. Mankinds desire to one up his fellow man can be used to improve the world if we stop trying to tell you how to live and show you instead.

There is no misunderstanding, just a difference in opinion.

You think (I suppose anyway) that the best way the issue of inequality can successfully be removed is by stopping reactionary movements, like feminism, because these tend to bring about more inequality. Though you acknowledge the importance of the feminist movement, you suggest that the abstract principle of a counter push "swings a pendulum" that reverses the issue rather than eradicating it. Programs like affirmative action (which coincides with your examples), whose interpretation is where I disagree with you, are then abused in some way or another to prolong an issue which could be better dealt with by letting it run its course.

I think that if we let equality naturally infuse into society as I suppose you imply, let things simply run its course, we do nothing but ignore a festering issue. Perhaps this is the historian coming out in me, but historically, that modus operandi never works out right. As I had refereed to in post #10, unique issues do not just diffuse in their own right. The African American issue I had mentioned served as an example of the fact that when society was finally forced to look at African Americans in an equal way, no such view was taken. It took many different laws and movements to equilibrium. The ultimate reason I would suppose is that African Americans (and women) would have to assimilate into a white male normative framework to begin with.

Is that equality? Should women and minorities diffuse and assimilate into a white male normative framework? This seems rather unfair, and this is perhaps why we have radicalist movements which confront normative frameworks of this kind. But this is a matter of our conception of society. I think it is good that you maintain a straight equalistic view of society based on the fundamental notions of equality. But that's not the case.

If you think about it, equality through movement and reaction seems almost fitting given the nature of inequality and sexism in the world. What better way to exercise equalization than with a reaction of some manner similar to the action. Ignoring the issue in many respects ignores the fact that women and minorities are truly recognized, only assimilated into a white male normative framework. Now you bring up issues with physical limitations women have and biased hiring because of that fact. Should a woman be denied a position as a freight technician because she cannot move boxes which a man can? Probably. The job requires that box to be lifted, regardless of sex of the worker. But why stop there, why not also institute a policy which requires both freight technicians to take tests gauging their intelligence and knowledge beyond physical abilities. Big problems from a huge slippery slope on that one.

But as a white male in the United States, you are entitled to a lot more in the United States than minorities ever will. You have the system itself. But not only that, you have the option of working within or outside the system. One example is the race identification on some forms. You could check off white Caucasian, but you could also check off whatever box you want, including the "other" box. But in a wider degree, don't women and minorities want an even playing field as well? To a point, it seems as though you are looking at the issue of equality from a white male perspective... the normative framework which women and minorities find so difficult to break into in the first place. Is it fair to demand equal performance from a person who enters half way through the game? Especially at this period of time when even basic womens working rights are so relatively new. For example, I had a professor named Ingrid Rima who was the first woman to get a doctorate in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Should we have expected equality and an even playing field the moment she received that degree? I cannot list the number of hardships she faced in her field after she received that degree, so expecting equality extends far beyond opening a door.

I am not suggesting assimilation. I am saying that equality is created through acting equal.

Example. When you walk into a room like you own the place, most people treat you like you do because they do not know any better. This is not a "white male normative framework". This is human nature. As far as the white male normative framework you speak of, this is the way things were made but I do NOT agree that this is the eay things are. Where I live the lines have been blurred and a white/black/hispanic/male/female is considered and treated equal in most cases. It is because we have ignored the lines rather than raising them to attention. I work for a black male who is one of the most respected men where I work because he is qualified. I also work with several females of various racial persuassions. No one is treated any differently because no one acts any differently. We are all equal because we act equal. You can call it what you will, an anomaly perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that we removed the lines by ignoring the lines. There is always a fear of differences. The only way to squash that fear is to remove the thought of the differences and focus on the similarities.

But acting equal amongst one another is contingent on a variety of factors, which include mutual respect based on race, sex, etc. If a system is not equal to begin with, how can there be any sort of equality? Its conformity rather acceptance, assimilation rather than mutual understanding.

In your example where someone walked into a room acting like they owned the place and everyone subsequently treated that person as though they did, does that not assume a normative framework? That person that "thinks they own the place" assumes a system in which others are below him. The subsequent projection of superiority on others instills the very framework in question. The example affirms the framework rather than casting it into doubt.

Is that human nature? I agree to some extent. But does the fact that it is human nature make it right? No. The very fact that there is some level of normalcy (the normative framework) makes inequity obvious not to mention the fact that this normative framework is male oriented.

I cannot comment on where I live nor any women or minorities because that conversation enters into the existential fallacies of exoticism and racial induction. You are certainly not implying any of that, but that is the inevitable fate of a conversation born from those perspectives. Suffice to say I disagree with your assumptions on that note.

I like the notion that if we act equal we are equal. It seems like a very pleasant way of looking at equity. And if we ignore the line between the sexes and the races we could very possibly have an equitable society. But then is that a society based off of true equity or of toleration? Is tolerating someone the same as considering them equal? To ignore something does not negate its existence, it only covers the issue in a thin veneer which could crack at some later point.

There is nothing to tolerate if you do not recognize, save superficially, the difference.

Are women feminists? No. The feminists is a human creation that has only been manifest in the public domain to any degree since the late sixty's and early seventies. They were an essential part of the overall ploy to pave the way for legal abortions. Prior to that, the word was non-existent for the most part, as was homosexuality, divorce, daycare centers, single parent homes, AIDS, and abortion.

These are all products of the so called feminist movement. It is easy to understand this once it is understood radical feminism abhors the traditional family. There is plenty of substantiating evidence in their writings to validate it. The traditional family unit pisses them off and if the truth were known, they probably have good reason to think the way they do in that their experiences with "family" proved extremely disappointing. It is easy to mis-construe the responsibility of the male as domineering if one chooses to do so. A woman who efforts to compete with her male counter part creates a "no win" situation for both. The terms "domineering and control" have no place in the family arena. None. Each have exacting roles when understood will result in a devotion of one for the other that will allow them to establish a stable and caring foundation to bring a child into the world.

It has been my understanding and experience, by far, most women long for a strong, assertive, loving and considerate male to take the lead. They give her the security she needs and in return she gives him the love, loyalty and devotion he needs to provide that security. It is a 51/49 percent partnership and the male must earn that extra 1% that will be gladly conceded by his female counterpart for meeting the responsibility that is necessary for that union to flourish.

IMO, the woman should not be burdened in any respect because of the miraculous feat she performs. Of course this is ideally what is meant to be, not what currently is.

Ask any woman if she would love to be in the security of the home or out in the world competing with the male. Provided you don't talk to a dyed in the wool feminist, the answer will be close to unanimous. Both her and her male counterpart prefer it that way. IMO.

I will probably get a little flack, but I call 'em like I see 'em. :surrender:
William

Historically, Feminism has persisted for many centuries if you take into account the essence of the word. Feminism as a movement began in the mid nineteenth century with the notable inclusion of such feminists as Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill extolling womens rights. Under the assertion that women deserved equal rights in all aspects of life, from work to reproduction. After this "first wave" which culminated with the passing of the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote, womens rights lay dormant. Worlds wars and financial issues pushed womens rights to the back burner until the beginning of the second wave of feminism which was spurred on by the inequities experienced during the early stages of the twentieth century. Issues such as reproductive rights, working rights, and many other issues were addressed and many of them addressed by both sexes in particular and governments. The third wave of feminism continues to this very day in some form or another as a means of examining the abstract principles established by the first and second wave. So was the feminist movement a simple ploy to for abortion? No. Feminism is a method of redress for inequality and a desire to change the situation. Merely attributing negative aspects of society on a movement is erroneous to say the least.



But not working rights or even simply the right to own property or vote? Just abortion and stuff like that? Radical feminism does not "abhor the family." If anything, feminists assert that the family is an aspect of femininity which is key to their very nature, however that nature should not be used as a yoke for oppression. I would challenge you to find any sort of feminist literature stating otherwise. On the nature of what a woman is supposed to be doing, I think you will not find many who would openly agree with you on those terms. Women are not simply domestic servants and baby makers.



So in a sense you are saying women want to be domineered? What does a woman need to be protected from when the rubric of a male normative framework like this is present? What else could a woman want but to be protected by a man and become in all sense of the word servile. I strongly disagree with your sentiments. If you juxtaposed yourself in the feminine position, you would be complaining about that kind of inequality for ages.



???



The type of woman you are describing is called an "uncle tom." I don't think anyone would willingly choose inequality.

Are we sure that these attributes comprehensively or accurately define feminism? I can imagine that some feminists aren't especially concerned with the language or attitudes you've enumerated here, but they are concerned with societal protections (eg equal pay) which you don't directly mention.

Doesn't this dilute the meaning of feminism to the point that it ceases to be a useful label? Shouldn't this term connote some degree of conviction that differentiates it from a passive and generic self-advocacy?

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Christine de Pizan (born in 1363) was an out and out feminist by any measure, and her Book of the City of Ladies is one of the great works of medieval literature. Her mission was to challenge misogyny (which society partly attributed to Eve) by recounting the great women of history and literature in a sort of utopia. Certainly didn't lead to a sustained movement, but this is the kind of feminism that you mention -- challenging attitudes -- as opposed to the more modern feminism that seeks to level inequities.