Feminism
My old view
First off, let me say that, coming into this issue, I was a rather uninformed observer. My perspective on feminism basically had a few core thoughts, with varying degrees of strength. I hadn't considered the validity of these assumptions. I just admit that I had them:1) Feminism is an extreme perspective where women insist on their own dominance and superiority over men.
2) Otherwise healthy women (and only women) fall into this trap of calling themselves feminists because they feel like it makes them strong women.
3) Feminism is potentially dangerous to men because of the anti-male mentality of feminists.
A New View
After spending dozens of hours researching the issue online and in books and articles, I have changed my perspective. A more accurate set of assumptions about feminism might look like this:1) Feminism is a diverse set of views that are unified by the belief that ALL people (not just women) should be treated equally.
2) Every reasonable person, whether they are willing to admit it or not, is a feminist... because anyone who believes that people shouldn't be treated equally is kind of a jerk.
3) While some feminists, and some forms of feminism are anti-male, these views are not held by the majority of reasonable feminists.
Quickly, I'd like to qualify #2 from this second set, because it could potentially offend some people. I see two main reasons for this:
A) Someone might not wish to be associated with feminism, and they may feel that it is presumptuous of me to say what their view is.
B) Others may have philosophical arguments that, while respecting all people, demonstrate how equality is not real.
In response to A, my purpose in saying this isn't to define your views. Rather, it is to define feminism. Before doing a little deeper research, I viewed feminism as potentially quite extreme. However, most modern feminists are not. Historically, I think feminists tended to be necessarily more extreme, because to take a stance that specifically challenged the dominance of men WAS extreme, and required extreme people who were willing to be seen as a little crazy in the culture they lived in. The current reality is not like that. For the most part, modern feminists are philosophical and work with the established social system, despite its flaws.
In response to B, the philosophical arguments suggesting that equality is not real are equivocating. Feminists are NOT saying that women are men (except really crazy feminists, who are rare). Feminists are NOT saying that there is equality between people within our society. Feminists are NOT saying that men and women face the same challenges, or have evolved the same way, or think the same way, or experience life the same way. Actually, most feminists agree, even argue, that women are very different from men, that society treats people unequally, that men and women face unique challenges, that they have evolved to be very different entities, think very differently, and experience life very differently. Some historic feminists have gone so far as to say that women interact with language so differently that even the definition of a sentence is based on how a man views language - which is a claim that is not subtle or trivial, and has many implications.
Feminists are not saying that people are equals in that sense. The feminist idea is that everyone deserves the same degree of respect. Respect is not simply liking someone. It is letting them speak, it is hearing their view, it is allowing them to have the autonomy that you want for yourself.
Women are from Venus
For a moment, let's consider a race of alien beings that come to earth. They seem friendly, so in our great kindness, we build them houses, teach them, and incorporate them into human society. We are friendly and welcoming in every way we can be. What are the moral implications of what we've done? The unwritten assumption is that we don't know anything about them. We have no idea what their natural habitat is. We don't know how their brains work, or how successful our educational system will be with them. We don't know anything about their culture, and impose our "superior" cultural view upon them.This example is good for 2 reasons. First, feminism asserts that women are different organisms from men, with different needs, different views, a different voice, different desires, etc. Second, society has almost always been patriarchal, with men leading the governments, writing the literature, and teaching in schools. If women really are quite different, then they are being raised in a society that is alien to them.
Now, in this example, if the aliens were feminist, they wouldn't suddenly grab their phasers and take over human society. They would write books, do research, make speeches, make blogs, make youtube videos. Because 1000 years down the line, even the aliens don't remember who they were. The question is, "How can a person truly know herself if she has been raised by aliens?" What are women really like? We can't possibly know, because they've been raised by a masculine culture. They have men's ideals, men's educational values, men's history, men's sexuality, etc. This is not to disparage men or men's views at all. It is simply recognizing that there is a potential alternative, and respecting that view.
Are feminists just angry people?
Imagine how angry a macho man might be if he were suddenly forced to wear pink bunny pajamas with a purple bow, and then told to watch the Bratz cartoon for the rest of his life. He'd bust some faces! Some women, when coming to the realization that they are trapped on a man's planet, get angry. Their anger is extremely understandable. The only problem is if they try to blame their anger on a particular person. Cause, like I've mentioned in the past, human society is a giant machine with cogs constantly moving and no direct way of altering its function.However, feminism is not angry. Particular people may be angry, which I think, as an outsider, looks a little crazy. But feminism is not a philosophy about violently revolting against men. It is a philosophy about discovering what women (and all people) really are, and letting them blossom for themselves.
But feminism is somewhat more complex than this
Before I move on, I'll add that this is one view of feminism, which encompasses a great many views on feminism that I consider to be very reasonable. There are also feminists that I flat out disagree with. However, my purpose today is to demonstrate how feminism is a really reasonable thing, and I feel that by arguing about the feminist views I disagree with, I would be undermining my argument at this point. I'm not saying all feminists are reasonable. I'm saying that YOU can be a feminist without being a weirdy.And lastly, before I move on, let me also point out that I'm not an expert on feminism. Would a "true" feminist describe feminists differently? Yes. Would an expert on feminist theory describe it differently? Yes. But part of the point of my blog post is to enable the non-expert, non-feminist to recognize the value of feminism. Perhaps feminism's greatest weakness is its image to the uninformed. So, in this case, my feeble voice on the issue is superior to the expert and the life-long feminist.
Sexism
Prejudice + Power, and why I disagree with the feminist definition
Let me emphasize that sexism goes both ways. I will be referring to sexism by men against women, but I feel very strongly that sexism by women against men occurs and is equally wrong. At least some feminists hold a specific definition of sexism that says sexism is a one way street. This is because the group that has the power in society (i.e. men) are able to employ sexism in a powerful and damaging way, whereas those without power (i.e. women) cannot do the same.At first glance, this notion seems ridiculous. If someone is sexist, they're sexist, and it's wrong either way. If a man doesn't get a job because he's a man, it is sexist, even if he were the only man to ever receive that sort of treatment. The fundamental feminist ideology, the equality of all people, tears down this definition. A true feminist can't simply make excuses for excluding men from the definition of "all people".
However, they aren't specifically being anti-man when they say this. Instead, they are trying to develop a vocabulary that is capable of addressing the many facets of the arguments. Sexism, in the feminist sense, refers specifically to prejudice on the basis of gender by a group that has the power to do something about their prejudice. In contrast, sexism against man is termed merely prejudice, because there is no power behind it.
I disagree with this idea. I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of accepting or disagreeing with this idea. But, men are not in charge by definition. They have historically been in charge, and they are still in charge in many ways. But that does not mean that women have no power over men, or that prejudice against men is impotent. The assumption that men need no defense, need not be included in definitions that apply to everyone else, and need not have equal consideration... to me, it comes across very oddly. It seems like a special effort by women who fear that their own tools to escape from prejudice will be used against them.
I am empathetic to this feeling, and I feel that they deserve protection from such a short-circuit. But I also feel that feminism is not simply about the relationship between men and women as it stood 1000 or 100 years ago, or as it stands today. Feminism has the capacity to address the societal relationships between all peoples forever more. Furthermore, women do have power, even if the division of power is not equal. And some men are powerless. As society progresses, it becomes more and more dangerous to simply assume that men are in power.
After all, even if "men" are in power, a man need not be. Consider the case of a man who is good and kind to all he meets, but he is subjected to gender-based prejudice that results in great loss. The loss isn't lessened by the fact that he's a man, or that some men have power, or that some men abuse power to hurt women, or that there is more male literature, or that there are generations of authority behind sexism against women. His experience is equivalent to that of a woman who faces the same experience. Some feminists would disagree with this, because of what I've written in the prior sentence. Prejudice and power have harmed him, and I'd darn well call that sexist.
As with everything, I'm still learning about this. I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of what I'm saying. I'm no expert. But I hope you will equally consider my thoughts. I really doubt I'm the first to argue this case against the feminist definition of sexism.
Sexism as an impersonal cultural issue
I will begin with a statement that I think would be somewhat shocking to someone who knows how I feel about sexism: Sexism is not something to feel guilty about. Now, why do I say that?
In part, it is because sexism is not the same as sexist acts. Sexism is a cultural view, not necessarily a personal one. Sexist acts, on the other hand, are personally performed. A boss might not hire someone because she is a woman - that's not only sexism. It is a sexist act. It also happens to be based on an inaccurate cultural idea that women are not as capable as men. Did the boss create that idea? No, not necessarily. The boss simply lives in the culture that promotes the idea. As long as the boss doesn't act on those cultural impressions, then the boss is helping to solve the problem rather than propagate it. Thus, the boss would neither be responsible for the thought, nor be supporting its advancement.
Likewise, sexism is not the same as sexuality. A man may find a woman very attractive (and you will find upon further inspection that many do). This is not wrong or bad. This may be an obvious statement, but I think that sometimes people smear the good and the bad, and it can be very confusing. A boy or man should not feel guilty about finding a woman attractive -- where would the human race be if this weren't the case?
However, our actions must be more refined than our experience. A man who seeks to act on his attraction for a woman should do so in a way that respects her. In some cases, that simply means not acting on the attraction at all, ever, as in the case of a professional relationship. Consider also the case when he has authority over her. It is not sexist to feel this attraction. It actually isn't necessarily sexist per se to act on it. But it can be inappropriate, and it can be sexual harassment. It would only be sexist to feel that a man should be able to act on their sexual feelings in an inappropriate situation where a woman could not.
A person should not feel guilty about what our culture is, because you and I didn't make it. But, we should feel compelled to fight against the negative, and fight for the positive. It would be more reasonable, though not completely accurate, to say that we should feel guilty about the culture that exists after we're dead. What will we help to create?
Can sexism be personally constructed and held on to? Yeah. So stop that.
Results and being open minded
I don't know if all feminists want everyone to start thinking like feminists. I occasionally get the sense that some feminists see feminism as a club. A girls club, making up for thousands of years of boys clubs. Similarly, I get the sense that some feminists don't care how empowering women affects men. If it turns out that men become slaves in a few generations, it wouldn't bother them at all. I think that's not at the core of feminism, and the anti-male attitudes make it really hard for many people, especially men, to take on feminist ideas.
But, like I said, I think there are some feminists who want feminism to remain that way. They want it to be unappealing to men; they want it to be a club for women. Why? Leaving men out of the feminist movement is leaving out half of your potential supporters! By adopting anti-male attitudes, you are leaving behind the universal truths of feminism, the potentially world changing ideas, in favor of a girls club. To be anti-male is not only sexist (SEXIST), it is anti-feminist.
I want to learn more. I want to empower women (as a group). I want to reduce sexism. I want my wife, my sister, my sons' future wives, and any of my female descendants to live in a world where they are at home, truly happy, and fully themselves. I view this issue as larger than myself and my own self-interest. I am open minded. Shouldn't that be appreciated by feminists?
To which, my apologetic reply is: We need to start where we are. Give men a break as we seek to be part of the movement to overcome the social issues that we did not create. Nobody can change 1000 years of history, or provide an additional 1000 years of history without the passage of time.
