RE: The Lady Doth Protest Too Much
I'd just like to posit something here, it's what I've come to truly believe and I'm happy to hear thoughts on it. Basically, equality is not a laudable or even desirable goal, and it doesn't reflect reality. See, ladies, gentlemen, and experimentersinhumanevolution, we're different. Now, I'm not saying that to typecast people into traditional roles-- that's:
- Unkind
- Vapid
- Denying people the ability to choose for themselves
Instead, I'm commenting more on the discourse. we speak of equality like it's a desirable thing, yet I can really only think of one situation where equality is desirable and that is in courtrooms. Nonetheless the fact remains tha tin courtrooms all over the world, well, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to find the dozens of ways in which men and women are surely not treated equally in court. But I digress.
Now, I've never been female, though as an academic thought exercise, and not as a surgery, it's surely interesting. I have to assume that there are huge parts of the experience of being a human female that are vastly different from the experience of being a human male. I don't know, however, and probably won't know till I can virtualize my sensorium, and even then, who knows, really?
Point is this though: Instead of striving for something like "equality" -- which isn't very specific and well, could lead ladies to get tied up in situations that they'd rather not face by comparing them directly to men -- and vice versa, mind you-- wouldn't it be better to strive for "respect and autonomy for all"?
Lastly, my biggest beef with "feminism" isn't that it exists. It is the ridiculous name! Say what you want, specifically,. for all. Gendering stuff, racializing stuff, et cetera-- it leads to bad outcomes every single time. It's possible to advocate for women while at the same time advocating for the other 50% of the species.
Anyway, good article-- musta been good, because all this popped out of my head after reading!
Thank you for the insights! You are definitely on to something.
I agree on your points. It is better to advocate respect, and autonomy for all-- when I'm referring to women's issues, though, I really don't have much of a choice in using the term "feminism." As much as a disagree with categorizing things by gender, race, etc, I can't think of a better word to use other than feminism when describing the need for women to have political/social/economic rights on par with men.
Here's why not feminism:
....now don't get me wrong-- I'm no "mens rights activist" -- but the divisive language, it can create divisive actions and lead to a divided society.
So, I guess what I am saying is that there really are no such things as women's issues. They're human issues that we're all better off addressing.
I disagree in regards to the idea we ought not identify as feminists. Its important to call things what they are, and in the fight for gender equality, what we are fundamentally opposing is the patriarchy which imposes gender roles upon us all.
You say:
While I agree with you on that point, you conclude that:
Which I could disagree with really depending on what you meant, I don't want to put words in your mouth and fall into the pitfall of slaying a straw-man, but that reads as terribly reductionist. Different minorities are still facing systemic discrimination and we have words for the study of those power relationships for a reason. Systemic discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, class and nationality still exists in the world today and while the struggle to address these things is certainly intersectional, there still exists seperate schools of thought which seek to understand and address these various systems of discrimination.
To identify as a feminist is not in any way to disregard the other inequalities against which we struggle; To be a feminist is simply to recognize that the patriarchy - that is specifically the mechanism responsible for the hierarchical reinforcement of gender roles - is a social poison we must struggle against and is not in any way to the exclusion of the fight against classism, racism, or any other form of bigotry.
While this is true, I think some people have the idea that "some need it more than others." Is it exclusive? Definitely, but that's why we have individual movements.
For example: As a white person, I should have no say on black lives. That doesn't make it any less of a thing, though. Sure, it can be argued that "no one should be shot by police," but the problem with that is, white people aren't as often victimized by police violence... therefore, in my opinion, white people don't have to be included in that movement.
The same can be said for women's rights.
I'm not at all denying what you describe.
I'm advocating that it be done in a non-divisive manner. Highlight injustices piled upon women-- but when asked what your goal is-- think on a species level. We will all be better off that way.
That is valid! For the record, it's the highlight because it's the subject of the article(s). Haha. I do agree with you, though. :)