the heart of equality
it isn’t even a radical notion for feminism to be about females; otherwise why should we differentiate between feminism and egalitarianism? (The Arbourist)
Depending on your experiences in life, you may see problems in society through one particular lens. Your lens may be sexism, classism, or racism, to name but a few of the most popular.
If you think most of the problems in society are due to discrimination and inequality you might think that this is a sex issue. Once your biological sex is identified, your future is set, and for women it’s a struggle to be treated like a full human being by the rest of society. Gender roles enforced by an eternity of male-led societies ensure that doors are closed before you even get started; your appearance identifies you as the weak underdog at every level of society.
If you think most of the problems in society are due to discrimination and inequality you might think that this is a class issue. Once you are born into a particular area, it’s hard to get out and be treated like a full human being by the rest of society. Limited access to decent education can close doors before you even get started; your accent or neighbourhood could identify you as ‘undesirable’ even if you overcome these initial hurdles.
If you think most of the problems in society are due to discrimination and inequality you might think that this is a race issue. Your skin colour determines immediately what opportunities are available to you and it’s a struggle to be treated like a full human being by the rest of society. Discrimination is deeply rooted, ensuring doors are closed before you even get started; your appearance identifies you as of lesser worth even once you get going.
If you were born into a position of privilege, or if you are one of the relatively few people who manages to evade the disadvantages inherent in being a certain sex, skin colour or class, you might think that everyone who is moaning about their perspective on life is suffering from ‘victimhood’. You might think they just need to get off their arses and do something positive.
You’d be wrong. All these lenses are a true reflection of the barriers faced by many people who fall into these groups.
But the problem with lenses is that people tend to use just one. They forget that the most pressing issue for them doesn’t exist in isolation. Every one of these worlds of disadvantage and discrimination impacts on the other. Equality for humans cannot be reached by shutting out the concerns of other groups: be that by belittling the uphill struggle that individuals from any group who are discriminated against face, and sneeringly labelling it ‘victimhood’; or by cordoning off one area of concern while perpetuating discrimination against any other disadvantaged group.
I could be wrong, but I’d like to think the very essence of the campaign in the name of feminism is egalitarianism. If not, what kind of wonky ‘equal’ treatment are we seeking?
Feminism and different kinds of Pride are also about valuing group characteristics. Feminist care ethics postulates and values distinctive female ways of thinking and relating, “Feminist counselling stresses interconnected opposites and power from within, over patriarchal models of competing opposites, hierarchies and control over people and things”. Feminist theology creates new rituals and different ways of seeing God, eg in the Christa, the feminine form of God within humanity.
Disability studies widens the concept of normal: people are disabled by the responses of others as much as by their physical condition, and we all can make our world more accessible to everyone. I love the word “neuro-diverse” and see Asperger’s syndrome as a gift not a disability- where those with it have difficulty in “normal” society, we all lose out.
LikeLike
I remember it being a revelation to me when I first properly considered the differently abled perspective – which so many people write off as PC nonsense. The idea that we could live in societies where people using wheelchairs could get about just as easily as people using their legs. The idea that we can view any group of people previously pitied as disadvantaged or odd and be pleased with the diversity and valuably different outlooks they bring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if I should be here.
I spent Sunday with lovely people, in a state of delight. I had a deep conversation with a young cis woman about her experiences of “passing” or not passing. Debates in various places last week got me down, and now The Arbourist with so many words and comments: you quote “male pretendbian”, a slur, and he wriggles out of justifying the slur while justifying all the verbiage around it. So I may have pushed Victoria into choosing a side. If she comes out as properly trans-exclusionist, I will die a little.
LikeLike
Yes, sorry, I didn’t specifically mean to bring it all up again. I only used his quote because it sparked me off thinking about tunnel vision people can get in their thinking. It’s all part of his brand of feminism being like a religion, the way he cites what the theory has proved from his point of view. It’s simply ridiculous they way he’s dodging it all, indignantly asking for quotes, then ignoring it when they are provided (I think, need to scroll down). It shouldn’t get you down though, most people don’t agree with those aspects of his ideology. The fact they ‘allow’ him to be so horrible, and then slippery with it, is disappointing. But I’ve come across this tendency to avoid confrontation so often in life now, and in even more severe cases, that it doesn’t surprise me. He’s an alpha male – blaster of his truth and unrelenting in his bombastic displays of ‘truth’. We’re animals, most of us are followers, we generally fall into line. I’m reminded of Storyending’s tale and how men try to control discussions, I should dig it out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
Big axe to grind, bound to be fallout.
I think you would ask for the same courtesy, given the somewhat hostile environment. Trying to stick to what was said becomes difficult during heated discussions.
And this speculation as to my character has what to do with the arguments? 🙂 That’s all good though, just checking on how the painting of my portrait of evil is going.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you feel it’s painting a portrait of evil simply because you are behaving like a man, and you are telling trans people they essentially don’t exist or matter.
Here’s what brought you to mind from another post:
“And those techniques mostly involved interrupting. Shutting down his irrelevant lines of thought before he could complete them. Dismissing his rebuttals. Derailing his derail attempts. Refusing to defend myself and my claims. Keeping on the attack rather than the defense. Basically, I treated him as he has always treated me – as men always treat women. And it worked. It didn’t gain me respect necessarily, and it didn’t feel ‘natural’ to me, but it shut him up. Instead of the male voice, I eventually got silence.”
This idea that I have to defend what I say by providing quotes, on several occasions now when you know full well what you believe. It’s really, really weird. Derailing the heart of the conversation by going back to the rally call of ‘all women are victims and I’m fighting for all women’. You’re not, you’re attacking trans women. I’m running around defending every comment I make and you STILL duck and dodge around the issue, while preaching your ideology. It’s getting creepy. Just be straight. How far have you really fallen into the murk of all this? You never challenged the comments that claim trans women are rapists – is that tacit support? It certainly seems like it. You can clear it all up without the need for this inconclusive back and forth of your dodging and witch hunt claims.
LikeLike
I’ve owned three businesses, and was an equal partner in a 4th business. When it came to naming those businesses, I was advised by the experts about the importance of naming the company so that people will have a fairly good idea about what you do or represent by the name of your company.
So, it is my opinion that if feminism wasn’t primarily about equal rights for females, then it should have been named egalitarianism. I agree with Arb in this instance.
Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/feminism?s=t
What so wonky about that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, consider for a minute if we’re fighting to have equality of treatment with men, but men in general are treated in a less than ideal manner. What does that achieve? Feminism is about people, it makes no sense to insist that women are the only concern and that if we have equality of treatment with men (however bad that might be) we’ll be done. Sure, you have to focus on women to understand where the relative inequalities are based on sex, but not to the detriment of anyone who doesn’t fit in the ‘woman’ box.
And this is obviously also pertinent in terms of what people like Arb promote, when he tells us not only that women should be our only concern, but that they, on behalf of all women (not people) can exclude whoever they judge unfit to join the ‘woman’ box. It’s harmful nonsense. I’m disappointed someone with your usually sound judgement has fallen for such wonky and discriminatory thinking.
LikeLike
Well Violet, maybe I’m just not understanding your point. For example, LGBT rights are primarily about LGBT rights, or am I missing something? I’ve no doubt that the LGBT community support egalitarianism, but their focus is on equal rights for LGBT. And please note that I said, “I agree with Arb in this instance.”
Feminism has become so diluted and divided, no wonder there is so much confusion. Again, feminism is as the definition above states. It does not state that women should have more rights than men or anyone else for that matter.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I see it as one of many branches of egalitarianism that needs to consider all people. Focusing on the needs of women in isolation makes no sense to me – we are human beings. In terms of this post, I used the quote as a jumping point to look the importance of every aspect of inequality in human society (I hope). But obviously using Arb as the reference point brings up the specific nature of our recent discussions around the horrific attitude towards trans women that he supports.
LikeLike
” Focusing on the needs of women in isolation makes no sense to me – we are human beings.”
That’s like telling the LGBT community that focusing on their needs in isolation makes no sense to you. Of course we are all human beings, but not everyone sees women as fully human, deserving the same rights as men, just as many don’t see non-whites as fully human or LGBTs as fully human.
We still have a lot of work to do before women across the globe are seen as fully human.
“A recent World Bank survey of 173 countries found that no fewer than 155 still had at least one law impeding women’s economic opportunities. Women face gender-based job restrictions in 100 countries, often confining them to low-paying activities, more often than not in the informal sector. In 18 countries the law gives husbands the right to prohibit their wives from working outside the home. These legal differences have long-lasting economic and social consequences.”
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/dec/03/women-legal-discrimination-worldwide-consequences
LikeLike
@NN
Well said.
And again well said. 🙂
Careful though, NN, advocating for women to be seen as fully human as the basis of your feminism can get you into trouble around here. 🙂
LikeLike
@VW
Feminism is about liberating women from the oppressive structures of patriarchal society.
The only one mixing equality into the definition of feminism is you VW. And getting more ‘equality’ out of system that is fundamentally unequal by its very definition is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. :>
I think you’re going to have to quote where I said that, otherwise you’re just making stuff up. 🙂
Tsk tsk indeed NN. Clearly, only the VW approved brands of feminism must be followed. 🙂
LikeLike
Wow, you’re all for wasting time and trying to hide your true beliefs. It’s very odd. Here are just a couple of gems from Roughseas post about the trans woman that immediately spring to mind:
“I’m curious because as to what exactly the problem is here – lesbians are females who are sexually attracted to other females. Men cannot be lesbians by definition. So “Male pretendbian” seems accurate given the current definitions.”
“The heat and fury of the situation comes forth when (mostly) transwomen (men) get the notion that somehow because they identify as women – they should be treated as actual biological women.
Opinion is all over the spectrum on this question, but the radical feminist analysis, which is critical of the social construct of gender as whole, tends not to endorse the claim that transwomen are *actually* women.”
Interesting to note how you distance yourself from it both times. It’s radical feminist theory, an accurate definition, not your beliefs. Why are you so afraid to be direct about it? Why do you demand quotes when you know it’s true?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
What exactly is the problem with the above statement? Please describe, empirically, how this is an inaccurate statement.
This is a statement to a dude who had little to no background about the issues at stake in the thread over at RS’s. Again, as explanation as to what was happening, it is accurate statement.
And again, in explaining theoretical stances, that is an accurate statement.
Because it’s nice to know exactly the statements one is being tarred and feathered with, but more importantly it allows others to judge for themselves the merit of what you say.
It is also educational for women who might have gender critical notions to see exactly the sort of reception/response they get for challenging the current orthodoxy. 🙂
LikeLike
“Current orthodoxy”- what? Do you never read anything except TERF blogs?
You have not heard, then, about the bathroom bills considered or passed in US state legislatures. The far right is desperate to protect their women against us, and to use us as an indication of the looney-leftery of Mrs Clinton if she supports us at all. That is your orthodoxy. You had heard, though, about Stephen Harper’s moves against us, possibly including his law to prevent us getting on an aeroplane in Canada.
LikeLike
When someone born with male genetalia tells us their body doesn’t express who they are inside, and they want to to express themselves and be treated by society as a female, is it beyond your understanding that doggedly continuing to insult their wishes by insisting they are a man, is unpleasant/harmful/hateful? Given where we are in society, if much of their life has revolved around trying to gain acceptance from themselves and from others, do you think it’s fitting to continue mocking and deriding their understanding of themselves? As such, you are ‘curious’ to know why there is a problem slurring how someone identifies themselves? And then you insist on calling her a ‘man’ simply because we assume she was born with a particular set of sexual organs. Honestly, it makes a mockery of any discussions about what gender is, when you can’t unlink a gender/sex labels from the physical appearance. All of us who have read more about the T*RF fringe know the even fouler waters this ‘theory’ swims in. You’re being as vague as you possibly can and throwing around ‘witch hunt’ to avoid saying clearly what you think.
“It is also educational for women who might have gender critical notions to see exactly the sort of reception/response they get for challenging the current orthodoxy.”
Do you know what a typically male, patronising and arrogant statement that is? Luckily the clever man is here to assist in educational exercises for women. Yuck. Sometimes I think you mean well, and other times you remind me through and through of every patronising, sexist Christian male preacher I’ve met in my life. I’m surprised you don’t hate gay people too, just as well your ‘gender critical theory’ doesn’t tell you they are damaging to women too.
LikeLike
What Arb proposes isn’t *equal rights* for females. He actually advocates for something that has nothing to do with equality. In using that phrase, he’s playing word games; and when he writes 1500 word comments, he’s trying to manipulate discussions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@NN
Thank you NN, for the simple revelation that indeed feminism should be centered around the needs of females.
Not a thing. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree, Arb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s wonky about that is that “females” is the current term used by trans-exclusionists, rather than “women”, because they continually claim that “females” excludes us trans women.
LikeLike
Clare, that’s something I wasn’t aware of. I used “females” in context which had nothing to do with trans-exclusionists. By definition the term “female” includes both girls and women, which is why I used it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
I’m sorry if I inadvertently offended you.
LikeLike
You did not offend me. Of course feminism is about equal rights for females; but the dispute with The Arbourist is whether it then necessarily excludes me. I like to feel I am an honorary woman, an asylum seeker rather than a colonist, and that my lot are an anomaly, not worth any particular objection to my presence anywhere because it is so unlikely; and that we subvert Patriarchal expectations by doing the opposite; and that if I can be fully myself that is an example of freedom for everyone; and that whatever justification trans-excluding women may have, The Arbourist, a man, is merely a bully picking on one of the weakest groups he could find.
Where am I going with this? I am not sure.
I am more or less OK, whatever you think. I did not think you were trans excluding. You had agreed with The Arbourist’s words, and I had no reason to suppose you knew the code-word’s coded meaning. And I am grateful to you for clarifying.
LikeLike
“If not, what kind of wonky ‘equal’ treatment are we seeking?”
Good question. A better question would be, why are women so envious of men, men who have shorter life spans, who are more likely to die from suicide, homicide, and combat? What does “equality” really look like?
This is interesting too, “If you were born into a position of privilege, or if you are one of the relatively few people who manages to evade the disadvantages inherent in being a certain sex, skin colour or class, you might think that everyone who is moaning about their perspective on life is suffering from ‘victimhood’. You might think they just need to get off their arses and do something positive.”
I was not born into a position of so called privilege, and yet I do, I think we live in a society consumed by perceived victimhood, that rewards sitting on your arse and lamenting your lot in life. I think that is incredibly damaging to those of us on the bottom. One might even say, those who sit up high in their ivory towers lecturing the rest of us about alleged privilege and hierarchies of oppression, are our greatest enemies of all.
LikeLike
You make half a decent point Insanity. Feminists aren’t envious of men though. We expect equal treatment in areas where we can perform equally. We expect equal representation in areas of decision making. We expect to be treated as people. It’s not difficult – there’s no underlying biological difference that, even by your standards, could exclude us from expecting any of that.
Seeing as you’ve assigned yourself to the bottom rung of society’s ladder, you should do a post on what you view are the avenues out. Try to avoid suggesting praying. 🙂
LikeLike
While I do agree for the most part, there are always a select few who do play up victimhood for personal gain and take advantage of movements that are intended to help a segment of people gain greater equality.
I’m actually enjoying a campaign by a couple strong critics of feminism who are actually trying to raise money for women in countries where women are in a position of being strongly oppressed. They’re doing it like a competition against a certain mainstream feminist who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars on Kickstarter a few years back (while aiming for only $6000) who failed to even come close to delivering what she had promised in that campaign. She is now asking for another $200,000 in a similar campaign.
The feminism critics are already out-fundraising her two-fold with the proceeds going to the International Women’s Health Coalition.
LikeLike
Hmm, I’m not sure how anyone can be a strong critic of feminism and garner any semblance of respect. A critic of the idea that women should be treated equally to men? Or a critic of one person’s approach to campaigning for that?
LikeLike
They aren’t opposed to equality, they are opposed to the feminists who go beyond that and misrepresent or make bigger issues where there isn’t (much of) one but who gain notoriety in the movement using such twists of information.
LikeLike
it isn’t even a radical notion for feminism to be about females; otherwise why should we differentiate between feminism and egalitarianism? (The Arbourist)
Nonsensical if not simply ridiculous. We differentiate feminism from egalitarianism simply in that it’s the fight for the equal treatment OF FEMALES. Historically every sector of society had to unite and fight in their particular collectives to obtain rights. That’s from coal miners to ethnic minorities to sexual minorities. That doesn’t mean those movements AREN’T about egalitarianism. But of course we have Arb to share with the world his extraordinary logic-defying insights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly! It’s so mind-numbingly stupid it could only be said by a man. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
Amazing how quoting someone out of context can make them seem ‘mind-numbingly’ stupid.
Quote mining is a fairly dishonest intellectual practice – to make a entire post about it – what does that say about you? 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you think the additional context you’ve kindly provided changes about perceptions of your position. You’ve said the same thing on several occasions (to paraphrase) that the only concern for a feminist should be women, and further suggested that your definition of a woman is the only one that counts. What have I picked up wrong about that? You believe that as a feminist it’s not your place to consider the disadvantages that other groups, such as trans people, face in society. Is that right too? You further believe that trans women are not ‘real’ women, and in fact present a serious threat to ‘real’ women. Is that right too? You can feel free to correct me at any point, instead of waffling vaguely about how awful life is for women and that’s the only thing you can talk about, while stabbing little darts at people like Clare. Come out! It must be tiring hiding such a discriminatory light under your bushel. 🙂
LikeLike
@VW
Considering the quote you used was addressing the idea of individual versus class analysis, I think it would be pretty important.
Feminism? Centered on women? Unpossible!
You mean the one that biology and science approve currently approve of, guilty as charged. 🙂
The term you are looking for is intersectionality, and contrary to your caricatures of what I believe or not, it is a part of my analysis.
What science, Arb? The one that tells us there is a biological basis for transgenderism?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm
If gender is a social construct, why not “biological sex”?
http://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/
“If Clare cannot answer questions regarding her statements, and have to rely on others to run interference for her, that is indeed her choice.”
Clare has answered your questions and attempted to discuss things with you on numerous occasions. She doesn’t ‘rely’ on anyone. There are just enough of us who are disgusted by your beliefs who aren’t scared to confront you on them. Because you’re a man, many other people have made the confused mistake that you are an Expert. Mark my words, if Roughseas was behaving in the same way as you, openly saying what you are saying, she would be challenged by more blog buddies. People don’t like confrontation with men, but they’ll take on a woman in a heartbeat.
Oh, and yes, what a surprise, looking for more quotes to waste my time. Anyone who’s interested can scroll back through the comments in the last 10 or so posts, and on Roughseas horrible post, to see what darts I’m talking about. My favourite was the one where you appeared on my post, ignored the post completely and jumped in attacking Clare personally, specifically trying to undermine what trans women are. I’m not going to quote you, why put such foul words up again? Let me find a link to your fellow feminist Storyending’s post where she describes how men derail discussions …
LikeLike
“The Arbourist”- have I missed any questions regarding my statements, from you? It must have been that I was completely bored by your walls of text. Please, do, ask me any questions you like, about my comments.
LikeLike
What’s putting a happy face after a passive aggressive comment? Charm? Intellectual honesty? Shouldn’t you be staying a good long way away from that topic?
Your comments use one manipulative technique after the next. Information bombing, quote bombing, fallacies no end; and you display a blatant bias for the people who are members of your sectarian belief system (as does Roughseas), no matter the quality of their behaviour. What does that say about you and your group?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@PA
Hmm, almost like context might make a difference. The rest of the stuff before the quote VW posted here.
Arb: “Women are more than half the population of the globe. In almost every society women exist in, they form the lowest class and position in society. Changing the conditions that cause this situation to exist seems like a good place to focus one’s attentions.”
VW: “Good place to focus. Not the only bad thing in the world.”
Arb: I agree. But feminism should centre women, their needs and their priorities.
VW: ”There are individual situations that need to be comprehensively assessed as and when they occur.”
Arb: An exclusive focus on the personal can cause one to overlook the larger system problems that face women. And again it isn’t a even a radical notion for feminism to be about females; otherwise why should we differentiate between feminism and egalitarianism?
And here we have you going on –
There is nothing nonsensical, nor ridiculous in trying to highlight the importance class analysis regarding the problems women face.
Not reading for comprehension, as you demonstrate clearly in your comment, is not my problem. 🙂
Your charitable attitude and commitment to arguing in an adult manner, in this thread, and others, is noted.
LikeLike
You seem to be labouring under the delusion you’re speaking from some sort of authority on the matter. That seems to be the TERF mindset. You “own” feminism. You have a perspective and you’ll repeat the talking points ad nauseum to exhaust people into agreeing with you.
What your last comment did was simply present a false dilemma. Feminism “or” egalitarianism. Nevermind that nowhere does Violet say Feminism shouldn’t be about women. She simply said women aren’t the only oppressed class. And no- women are not universally at the bottom. Just ask Trayvon Martin or David Joseph, or the Children of the Candelaria Massacre.
Sorry but I’m not going to be charitable with someone pushing a sectarian vision that actually hurts feminism and turns people away from it.
LikeLike
@PA
*shrugs* – Have I ever claimed to be the authority on radical feminism? Nope. Do I espouse tenets of radical feminist theory, as an ally, yeppers. 🙂 Perhaps if I had been raised by feminists, and idolized them growing up I would have more authority? I’m not sure, but RF literature and theory is freely available on the interwebs, I think I’ll just stick with that.
Perhaps the presence of a strong theoretical base is causing some confusion, as much of second wave RF is thoroughly modern as opposed to much of queer theory which has a deeper foundation in post-modern thought.
Being male, by definition, I can have no claim in feminism. But happy to take the slings and arrows from people such as yourself, so women don’t have to. 🙂
… you just can’t help yourself, can you?
First of all, you say have no claim on feminism, then you go on to dictate to the world your narrow definition of feminism. Then you deny appealing to the false dilemma fallacy- but you actually do it again:
Feminism is the movement to liberate women from the oppressive structures of society.
Egalitarianism is political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth.
You oversimplify the definitions to make it seem like the ideologies are mutually exclusive. I’m not sure if you’re trying to deceive readers or if you’re genuinely confused. The Oxford dictionary itself describes feminism as: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the EQUALITY of the sexes. But no, let’s set all definitions and opinions aside because the great Arb has spoken.
As for 800 women who died in childbirth today or FGM- neither are evidence of females being universally at the bottom of the social structure. Have you heard of Dalits? The treatment of Indonesians in the Philippines? How over 90 countries have laws criminalizing gay sex, some where it’s punishable by death? So no, you can’t make an arbitrary selection on which is the most oppressed- especially not if it just *happens to match* the ideology of the group you’re a part of.
It would be equally biased and irresponsible for me to say LGBT people are the most oppressed group in society. Generalizations of that sort are incredibly misleading and irresponsible.
And just so we don’t waste too much more time on this fruitless exchange, try looking over your comments before you send them. You’ll find they’re invariably contradictory i.e. you mention two cases in which women suffer and then tell me “I’m sure mentioning a few more single instances will strengthen your case.” Amusing, huh? You can mention two cases and the point is made, your opinion is the law. Someone else mentions two cases and it’s two measly cases and mentioning more proves nothing! LOL. Get a grip.
LikeLike
Pingback: On the bottem rung of society’s ladder | See, there's this thing called biology...
Pingback: On improving societies we live in | Random thoughts