• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Owns Feminism?

calamity said:
This has sort of bothered me for years. Not bothered in the "I really care about this" sense of the word, but bothered more in a "this makes no sense or does it" sort of way. I define a feminist as a woman who cares about the rights of women. IMO, that is the only requirement to be a feminist.

But, apparently, if I stuck to those guns, I'd be manslplaining. There seems to be a bunch of other definitions for a feminist out there which seem to go way beyond the obvious.

So, here are a few questions. Is being a feminist someone, male or female, who toes the party line on abortion and subscribes to all necessary PC catch phrases from equal pay to intersectionalism? Are feminists required to be pro-LGBT? Do they have to be Democrats or Green? Can a feminist be a church going, Jesus loving stay at home wife...or husband? Seriously, just what the **** defines a feminist today?


Anyway, this article is what brought up the above thoughts.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/pro-lifers-womens-march/513104/
Click to expand...

It's generally more meaningful to discuss what someone means when they say "feminism" than it is to try to define a single, essential, universal definition (and, in doing so, make an unusually narrow view). Getting caught up on what the label means is irrelevant, it is generally peripheral to the discussion.

I consider the major defining characteristic of feminism to be advocating for gender equality.

People who are advocating for female domination are actually moving away from what i consider to be feminism. 'Mansplaining' may or may not be an example. In an instance where the man is using his gender, power, or authority in the argument, it might be a feminist usage. In another instance where the woman is grasping at straws while losing an argument to a man, it might be a more female domination usage.
 
Depends on the era really. The original movement and the movement that popped up in the sixties have a great deal of differences in opinion and goals. These days the movement is all about trying to change the behavior of men, sexism towards men, and give me and do me things nonsense. It's been that way more or less since the piggy backers named themselves after a successful movement.
 
I officially own feminism.
 
Absentglare said:
It's generally more meaningful to discuss what someone means when they say "feminism" than it is to try to define a single, essential, universal definition (and, in doing so, make an unusually narrow view). Getting caught up on what the label means is irrelevant, it is generally peripheral to the discussion.

I consider the major defining characteristic of feminism to be advocating for gender equality.

People who are advocating for female domination are actually moving away from what i consider to be feminism. 'Mansplaining' may or may not be an example. In an instance where the man is using his gender, power, or authority in the argument, it might be a feminist usage. In another instance where the woman is grasping at straws while losing an argument to a man, it might be a more female domination usage.
Click to expand...

At some point you reach gender equality and move beyond it. For that matter, some of the efforts feminists like to claim was about gender equality had to nessarcily assume the position that other gender held(according to feminists) for them to be acquired.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I'm no pro-lifer, but can you really chalk millions of women's definition of the starting point of life as "stockholm's syndrome? I usually find your posts on this subject informative and insightful, but in this case, I cannot agree with your argument on this. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, chalking the views of millions of women up to them being stockholm'd is, to my mind, an offhand dismissal of their ability to think for themselves and their own agency in their lives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so. Although I offer a couple possible explanations, that is surely one of the most common.

Come up with some other possible reason why a woman would be willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body. Because I can't.

The idea that any of us are totally independent agents is absolute pure fantasy that we tell ourselves to pretend we're less vulnerable than we are. Humans are social creatures, and we are more affected by the people around us than by anything else.

I've been active in this area of theory for over a decade (jesus I'm getting old...) and I still deal with things every day that I am perfectly aware stem from internal sexism. In some cases, I will probably live and die without ever being able to completely solve some of these issues within myself.

The fact that I'm a social creature and was vulnerable to social training as a child and to a smaller degree as an adult doesn't negate everything I ever think or do. It means I'm human and I'm not as invulnerable as I like to pretend. Neither are you, and neither is anyone else.

And I have a lot better than most women do, both in terms of my upbringing and in terms of the amount of self-awareness I've been able to cultivate thanks to my education.

Just because something doesn't sound nice or make the faux-moderates happy doesn't mean it isn't true. Give me another reason a woman would be willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body.

If you want to get deep into social theory, the fact is that a lot of it just isn't pretty. It's hard **** to read in many cases. But the fact that it doesn't appeal to our desire to think of our social circumstances as acceptable and normal doesn't mean it can't possibly be true.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, I think so. Although I offer a couple possible explanations, that is surely one of the most common.

Come up with some other possible reason why a woman would be willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body. Because I can't.

The idea that any of us are totally independent agents is absolute pure fantasy that we tell ourselves to pretend we're less vulnerable than we are. Humans are social creatures, and we are more affected by the people around us than by anything else.

I've been active in this area of theory for over a decade (jesus I'm getting old...) and I still deal with things every day that I am perfectly aware stem from internal sexism. In some cases, I will probably live and die without ever being able to completely solve some of these issues within myself.

The fact that I'm a social creature and was vulnerable to social training as a child and to a smaller degree as an adult doesn't negate everything I ever think or do. It means I'm human and I'm not as invulnerable as I like to pretend. Neither are you, and neither is anyone else.

And I have a lot better than most women do, both in terms of my upbringing and in terms of the amount of self-awareness I've been able to cultivate thanks to my education.

Just because something doesn't sound nice or make the faux-moderates happy doesn't mean it isn't true. Give me another reason a woman would be willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body.

If you want to get deep into social theory, the fact is that a lot of it just isn't pretty. It's hard **** to read in many cases. But the fact that it doesn't appeal to our desire to think of our social circumstances as acceptable and normal doesn't mean it can't possibly be true.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's clear up some of this emotionally charged rhetoric, shall we?

When you say women are "willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body," what exactly do you mean? A significant majority of the population in America is perfectly fine with abortion if there is a high likelihood that the mother will die in childbirth, hence "medically necessary abortions." Even among the pro-life movement, a large portion of their base are more than willing to accept such cases. Only a small handful of religious zealots would propose that women die before aborting a child, and these individuals are usually reviled by large swaths of the population.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
...
Come up with some other possible reason why a woman would be willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body. Because I can't.
...
Click to expand...

I'd argue it goes far beyond that. Some of these women insist that EVERY woman placed in that situation should be effectively put to death against their will.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Okay, let's clear up some of this emotionally charged rhetoric, shall we?

When you say women are "willing to kill herself for men's interest in her body," what exactly do you mean? A significant majority of the population in America is perfectly fine with abortion if there is a high likelihood that the mother will die in childbirth, hence "medically necessary abortions." Even among the pro-life movement, a large portion of their base are more than willing to accept such cases. Only a small handful of religious zealots would propose that women die before aborting a child, and these individuals are usually reviled by large swaths of the population.
Click to expand...

I'm being very literal, actually. Again, that a social reality doesn't make us feel good about our society doesn't mean it isn't true.

Some aren't ok with exceptions. Also, pregnancy complications can happen without warning, and despite how many men don't realize this fact, I assure you that all women do, and they know what risks they assume when pregnant. All pregnancies carry risk. Even if they allow medical exceptions, women still wind up dying because they have to wait for some man in an office to sign off on their medical paperwork to say they're allowed to have their abortion. Women die waiting routinely in abortion-restrictive countries.

And then we get into the social ripples of that, which result in the deaths of tons and tons of women. In fact, homicide over a woman trying to make a choice her partner doesn't like is the number one killer of pregnant women. Read that again: homicide over choice is the number one cause of death of pregnant women.

No, that's not due directly to the pregnancy itself, but it IS due to a society that puts men's interests in women's bodies above women's lives, isn't it.

And then we have to consider the curious case of the front-line female picketer who has had abortions herself. That's very common. Virtually every abortion clinic sees these women routinely. Virtually all of these women have male family members who have been shoving them onto the front line since they were teenagers.

How safe do you think they feel in their home?

These sorts of situations are actually the main reason America still has a big illegal abortion problem, even in states where access is good. Women don't trust medical providers and don't want any bills showing up because they fear for their lives. So they do it illegally instead, even if there's a sliding scale abortion clinic on the next block.

You have to look at the total social impact of each individual gender-motivated policy. It's a lot bigger than just cases of women dying from pregnancy complications.

Women live in these situations where their lives are being threatened not only by a pregnancy they have no legal control over, but even by their own family. Their own family is more likely to kill them than anyone else if they try to make their own choice. And women know that danger is there even if they don't know the exact statistics.

And you want to tell me that it's simple for women to make uncoerced decisions in that sort of environment?

Hell, how is a woman supposed to even learn what an uncoerced decision IS in that sort of environment?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I'm being very literal, actually. Again, that a social reality doesn't make us feel good about our society doesn't mean it isn't true.

Some aren't ok with exceptions. Also, pregnancy complications can happen without warning, and despite how many men don't realize this fact, I assure you that all women do, and they know what risks they assume when pregnant. All pregnancies carry risk. Even if they allow medical exceptions, women still wind up dying because they have to wait for some man in an office to sign off on their medical paperwork to say they're allowed to have their abortion. Women die waiting routinely in abortion-restrictive countries.
Click to expand...

Emphasis on SOME. These people are not a majority in the US. Possibly in a few fairly isolated regions, but this is not a common opinion in the states, by any metric.

And then we get into the social ripples of that, which result in the deaths of tons and tons of women. In fact, homicide over a woman trying to make a choice her partner doesn't like is the number one killer of pregnant women. Read that again: homicide over choice is the number one cause of death of pregnant women.

No, that's not due directly to the pregnancy itself, but it IS due to a society that puts men's interests in women's bodies above women's lives, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Correction: homicide over pregnancy is the number one cause of death of pregnant women. I will legitimately be impressed if you can find a study that categorizes the intent behind the murders of pregnant women. And no, women being murdered by their significant others' is NOT the result of a society that puts men's interests in women's bodies above women's lives; if anything, it's a deviation from a society that places a far higher value on the lives of women and children than it does on the lives of men.

And then we have to consider the curious case of the front-line female picketer who has had abortions herself. That's very common. Virtually every abortion clinic sees these women routinely. Virtually all of these women have male family members who have been shoving them onto the front line since they were teenagers.

How safe do you think they feel in their home?
So now EVERY woman who actively opposes abortion is a victim of their oppressive family? While I am certain that there is coercion at work in many cases of women picketing abortion clinics (and I guarantee that's at work in a lot of men doing so as well - coercion is not an issue for only one gender, and I can tell you that from personal experience), especially in family dynamics, it's simply demeaning to lump individuals into a single, solid conglomerate based on an opinion.

As for how safe a woman living in an anti-abortion home feels, I imagine it's about as safe as my niece feels in a home that utterly despises her boyfriend (let's just say that they don't want her dating anyone who can't freckle, and are vehemently opposed to her current defiance of that rule): that is to say, perfectly safe, because the vast majority of people aren't psychopaths who would murder their family members. I'm not sure if you're overestimating the comparatively weak western taboo against abortion, or underestimating the strong universal taboo against killing your family members.

These sorts of situations are actually the main reason America still has a big illegal abortion problem, even in states where access is good. Women don't trust medical providers and don't want any bills showing up because they fear for their lives. So they do it illegally instead, even if there's a sliding scale abortion clinic on the next block.

You have to look at the total social impact of each individual gender-motivated policy. It's a lot bigger than just cases of women dying from pregnancy complications.

Women live in these situations where their lives are being threatened not only by a pregnancy they have no legal control over, but even by their own family. Their own family is more likely to kill them than anyone else if they try to make their own choice. And women know that danger is there even if they don't know the exact statistics.
Click to expand...

Another exaggeration. Yes, there are laws that restrict abortion, but there are few, if any women with NO legal control over their own bodies in the United States. As for women being at greater danger from their families, that's still mostly psychopathic SO's that kill their partners in a blind rage. Mentally healthy people in North America tend to value pregnant women over most everyone else, and I assume it's quite similar in other 1st world countries.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well, that took one helluva long time to look up and mull over. Also, I went well over the character count for that post. Here's what I had to snip:

And you want to tell me that it's simple for women to make uncoerced decisions in that sort of environment?
Click to expand...


Where did I say it was?


Hell, how is a woman supposed to even learn what an uncoerced decision IS in that sort of environment?
Click to expand...


How is ANYONE supposed to make an uncoerced decision in such a situation? I live in rural Georgia, where family and religion are far, far stronger driving forces in society than a lot of other regions of the US, and yet I have seen atheists defying religious zealots in their family, women dating men that their parents hated, and numerous other examples of defiance of supposedly all-pervading social influences. Hell, I've had my own heaps of social condemnation that I've had to endure; we all have problems that must be overcome, one way or another. Humans might not exist in a vacuum, but we are not at the complete mercy of our environment.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Well, that took one helluva long time to look up and mull over. Also, I went well over the character count for that post. Here's what I had to snip:
Click to expand...

Well, most of what you've said here just boils down to an argument from incredulity that women might be living very different realities than you are, and may not feel as safe as you do. Or, alternatively, that #NotAllWomen, when I didn't say. That... doesn't address anything I've said?

I mean, fact is, there are a sufficient number of people who don't think killing their own family members is taboo if they're women and pregnant that it makes up the largest cause of death. Do you think women aren't aware of how much their family does or doesn't value their life? I mean, we have people right here on DP who've admitted to coercing and abusing pregnant family members, but they don't see it as problematic at all. It's not taboo to lots of people to abuse pregnant women, and to some percentage of those, to kill them. That's why they keep doing it, dude.

I mean... read about all this stuff I've mentioned. Clinicians have looked at the picketers-in-the-clinic issue extensively, for example. There's a huge illegal abortion industry in New York, and extensive writing on that as well. I mean, that these women would mostly have abuse histories should frankly be beyond obvious when you look at what they're doing to try to keep it secret. Who would risk their life on unregulated drugs from China and back-alley abortions if they didn't think their family is an even bigger risk? If they're not afraid and probably abused, why do they think their family is more likely to hurt them than these illegal, untested drugs?

Also, there are now a number of fairly large states that basically have no abortion access anymore, and hardly any female healthcare at all really. So, no, there are actually a lot of women in America who have extremely limited or non-existent legal control of their pregnancies. It may not be explicitly banned, but it has been effectively removed as an option for many women, after years of slowly accumulating anti-choice policy.

This seems really hard for men, and even some women, to internalize as actually going on because, well... women just carry on with their lives. It's normal, we don't think about it. How bad could it be?

How bad you think things are is dependent on what you think is normal. What many women think is normal would seem kinda bad to you if you were suddenly dropped into it.

Something I've learned about pursuing social theory is that a lot of it is steeling yourself for being really uncomfortable virtually all of the time that you're dealing with it. If you're determined to believe that death of women by murder shoots through the roof when they're pregnant, surpassing even automotive deaths, out of sheer inexplicable coincidence, then frankly there's nothing I can do that's going to make you willing to look at that.

If you are interested, I have a little experiment you can try that can hopefully sort of show you the differences in the way women think due to their social situation. Warning: it is insanely depressing and will probably upset you if you commit yourself to it.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Also, there are now a number of fairly large states that basically have no abortion access anymore, and hardly any female healthcare at all really.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry --- where are these states with "hardly any female healthcare at all"?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, not really.

It's a broad category encompassing social theories addressing issues with how women are treated socially and how to address them.

That's a big category, yes, but so are basically all social concepts on earth.
Click to expand...

It's a label that discribes everything from women's suffrage to manspreading.
 
calamity said:
I've read about them. They seem to be fine with men if the man

A.) Says he is a woman

B.) Is an out of the closet homosexual

C.) Agrees with whatever they are told by them about the Patriarchy and Male Privilege.
Click to expand...

spot on :lamo
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, most of what you've said here just boils down to an argument from incredulity that women might be living very different realities than you are, and may not feel as safe as you do. Or, alternatively, that #NotAllWomen, when I didn't say. That... doesn't address anything I've said?

I mean, fact is, there are a sufficient number of people who don't think killing their own family members is taboo if they're women and pregnant that it makes up the largest cause of death. Do you think women aren't aware of how much their family does or doesn't value their life? I mean, we have people right here on DP who've admitted to coercing and abusing pregnant family members, but they don't see it as problematic at all. It's not taboo to lots of people to abuse pregnant women, and to some percentage of those, to kill them. That's why they keep doing it, dude.

I mean... read about all this stuff I've mentioned. Clinicians have looked at the picketers-in-the-clinic issue extensively, for example. There's a huge illegal abortion industry in New York, and extensive writing on that as well. I mean, that these women would mostly have abuse histories should frankly be beyond obvious when you look at what they're doing to try to keep it secret. Who would risk their life on unregulated drugs from China and back-alley abortions if they didn't think their family is an even bigger risk? If they're not afraid and probably abused, why do they think their family is more likely to hurt them than these illegal, untested drugs?

Also, there are now a number of fairly large states that basically have no abortion access anymore, and hardly any female healthcare at all really. So, no, there are actually a lot of women in America who have extremely limited or non-existent legal control of their pregnancies. It may not be explicitly banned, but it has been effectively removed as an option for many women, after years of slowly accumulating anti-choice policy.

This seems really hard for men, and even some women, to internalize as actually going on because, well... women just carry on with their lives. It's normal, we don't think about it. How bad could it be?

How bad you think things are is dependent on what you think is normal. What many women think is normal would seem kinda bad to you if you were suddenly dropped into it.

Something I've learned about pursuing social theory is that a lot of it is steeling yourself for being really uncomfortable virtually all of the time that you're dealing with it. If you're determined to believe that death of women by murder shoots through the roof when they're pregnant, surpassing even automotive deaths, out of sheer inexplicable coincidence, then frankly there's nothing I can do that's going to make you willing to look at that.

If you are interested, I have a little experiment you can try that can hopefully sort of show you the differences in the way women think due to their social situation. Warning: it is insanely depressing and will probably upset you if you commit yourself to it.
Click to expand...

Josie said:
I'm sorry --- where are these states with "hardly any female healthcare at all"?
Click to expand...

Still curious about this...
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
... If you are interested, I have a little experiment you can try that can hopefully sort of show you the differences in the way women think due to their social situation. Warning: it is insanely depressing and will probably upset you if you commit yourself to it.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely curious about your experiment.

Josie said:
I'm sorry --- where are these states with "hardly any female healthcare at all"?
Click to expand...

In the US.
 
RAMOSS said:
When it comes to the economically disadvantage, Texas sucks when it comes to specifically woman's issues. Since there was massive defunding of planned parenthood, in 2012, the number of women who died because of complications in pregnancy has sky rocketed, https://www.propublica.org/article/...-related-deaths-in-texas-spurs-soul-searching.
Click to expand...

"Not many Planned Parenthood clinics" isn't equivalent to "hardly any female healthcare at all". The vast majority of women do not even go to Planned Parenthood for check ups or prenatal care. Most PPs don't even offer prenatal care.

As for low-income women, we have Obamacare and Medicaid and countless clinics and agencies that support low-income pregnant women.
 
Josie said:
"Not many Planned Parenthood clinics" isn't equivalent to "hardly any female healthcare at all". The vast majority of women do not even go to Planned Parenthood for check ups or prenatal care. Most PPs don't even offer prenatal care.
Click to expand...

Theoretically it isn't. However, when it comes to alternatives in Texas, there aren't any for huge numbers of people.. and that is why the maternal mortality rate doubled since 2010. .. and it is strictly due to the locations where health care is available is not in the poor black areas.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm extremely curious about your experiment.
Click to expand...

As a man, I suggest you augment it slightly because you probably won't get the benefit of the doubt as much as I do. My suggestions would be to either have a woman help you, or to do it online somehow.

So to preface my experiment, I'll just ask you to think to yourself the answer to this question:

What do we call it when someone has sex only because they feel the risk of refusing is too great?

Right. So knowing you, you have the correct answer to that question in your head.

Now, go to any woman you like -- any color, creed, generation (assuming they're an adult who's had sex with men at some point), or political affiliation that you care to. Doesn't matter. Any woman.

Ask her if she's ever had sex because she felt like it was the least problematic or easiest way to get away from a guy, or end a situation. Just like that. You can use those exact words.

I've been doing this for years. In my experience, nearly all women say yes. Like, over 95%. And they say yes in a very matter-of-fact and off-handed sort of way. No expression change, no delay in answering; well, obviously they have, hasn't everyone? Most women have done this numerous times. For some unfortunate women in socially isolating communities, this is the only kind of sex they've ever had in their lives. They don't even know there's any other kind.

I hope your results are different, but I doubt they will be.

(As an addendum: don't react when they tell you yes. Don't look shocked, don't say, "Well that means..." Just let them continue pretending it's normal. If they laugh, laugh with them. If they shrug, move along. Women know inside themselves that it isn't normal, they're not dumb, but they often don't have the luxury of eliminating these situations from their lives. Pretending it's normal is part of how they cope with it. Leave them be.).

So there's my experiment. Good luck, and perform only while of stable mental health.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Theoretically it isn't. However, when it comes to alternatives in Texas, there aren't any for huge numbers of people.. and that is why the maternal mortality rate doubled since 2010. .. and it is strictly due to the locations where health care is available is not in the poor black areas.
Click to expand...

It's not theoretical at all. It literally isn't.

I don't know the stats of healthcare facilities in "poor black areas" in Texas. I just know that there isn't a state in the US where there is "hardly any female healthcare at all" which, apparently, Smoke doesn't want to discuss any longer.
 
Josie said:
It's not theoretical at all. It literally isn't.

I don't know the stats of healthcare facilities in "poor black areas" in Texas. I just know that there isn't a state in the US where there is "hardly any female healthcare at all" which, apparently, Smoke doesn't want to discuss any longer.
Click to expand...

Well, let's just say that since they started closing PP, the maternal mortality rate in texas doubled. .. mostly of preventable issues... and it was mainly due to black mothers dying.. not so much hispanic or whites.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, let's just say that since they started closing PP, the maternal mortality rate in texas doubled. .. mostly of preventable issues... and it was mainly due to black mothers dying.. not so much hispanic or whites.
Click to expand...

Except very few Planned Parenthoods offer prenatal care.
 
RAMOSS said:
THat, actually is a false statement.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. In the entire year of 2014 - 2015, they only provided 17,419 instances of prenatal care. Why? Because most PPs don't offer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom