Are there different types of feminism accetaple to liberals?

[CTLawGuy]

This is inspired by the now really long thread about women who don't consider themselves feminists. I think there is some confusion over the definition of the word.

What I see when I read the gender-relations threads on DU (in general), I see two schools of thought on gender equality.

I've named them:

Collectivist Feminism and Libertarian Feminism

Collectivist Feminists (ColFems) believe


-All individuals are morally inseparable from their gender class

If I am a man, I benefit from the actions of any and every other man with regards to gender relations. If any man discriminates against any woman, I am morally responsible, because I benefit. Conversely, every woman loses out when ANY woman is discriminated against. I am tied to my gender class.

-The gender classes are in a power struggle, and said power struggle is a zero-sum game

A long time ago, males began to immorally pilfer social power away from the female class. This process continues up to this day, hampered only by feminism. Any social benefit received by males as a class is necessarily a harm done to the female class.

-Males, and every male person by extension, by instituting this taking of power, are concluded to be hostile to the female class, This hostility is either overt, repressed (denial) or rejected (accepted as present, but conquered by other moral forces within a particular man).


ColFems are wary of male sexuality for the above reason. they believe every man has a socially ingrained and trained disrespect for women. If a man is sexually aroused by a woman, it is because he is trying to derive a social advantage from her. ColFems believe men use sexuality, through a process called "objectification", to retain and increase their advantage over women.

-Sexism is the means by which men keep their advantage over women.

It follows that women cannot be sexist, because they are at a power disadvantage. It makes no sense to have a system to maintain a power DISadvantage.

-feminism is a means to take back power from men. It is focused on eliminating men's advantages, and controlling men's behavior.

Every advantage a man has (and every man has), was derived from the detriment of a woman (and every woman). The ColFems strategy is to convince men to recognize two things: (1) they are part of the dominant group that is unfairly penalizing the oppressed group and (2) they have a socially ingrained sexist nature which they must reject, and learn to freely give power back, even if it means disadvantaging themselves and repressing their nature.







Whew! Now, libertarian feminism (LibFems).

-All individuals are morally independent

People are judged only by their own personal actions. A man in New York does not benefit when a man in Seattle unfairly denies a woman a job. Only the man who unfairly got that job benefitted. If a woman in Minnesota is sexually harassed by her male coworkers, the woman supervisor in New Mexico who works in a respectful environment is not harmed.

-Gender classes do not have singular interests

A LibFem understands social power in terms of tangibility and locality. If a group of male soldiers in one barracks doesn't want women in their unit and acts to indimidate any that DO get in, they have a common interest and wield power. they are local to each other, and the interest is tangible (definable). the female target of their actions is tangibly harmed. A white conservative christian male preacher and a poor inner city black male grocer do NOT have a singular interest. They do not interact with each other and have VERY different views and perspectives. Just because two people are the same gender, does not mean they want the same things.

-Males and females are in cannot in general be hostile to each other

Since men and women do not have singular interests based on gender class, its impossible for the ColFems conception of hostility to be tenable. In regards to "objectification", LibFems see male sexuality as normal and not threatening, inasmuch as it does not cause a local and tangible social harm to any woman or women (ie sexual slavery). Male sexuality is not based on an inherent hostility toward women.

-Sexism is the defense and promotion of a set of antiquated and authoritarian gender roles fashioned over time.

Sexism constrains both men and women into certain roles set for them by society. Women stay home and care for children and do housework, while men do outside work to support the wife and children.
Both men and women can be sexist, since they can both advocate for rigid gender roles, and there are many conservative women who do just that.

-feminism is the means by which women are empowered to be freed from these gender roles.

LibFems believe women should be given the choice of how to direct their lives. this new choice does not necessarily hurt men, because social power is not zero-sum but rather local and tangible. It doesn't mean men are NEVER disadvantaged by feminism. It depends on the circumstances. It is not a necessity though. The strategy for accomplishing feminism's goals is by educating people (of both genders, because even women *cough* Ann Coulter *cough* can hold sexist views) and by keeping sexists away from political power.


-------------

Well, let me know what you think, which school you belong to, and if you think Ive got some aspect of either school wrong.

[distantearlywarning]

1. I think I'm a libertarian Feminist.

I have met the Collectivist Feminist type several times in academic settings and have often found them strident and out of touch with reality.

[CTLawGuy]

5. yeah

thats usually where the colfems hang out, in academia.

[Timebound]

2. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

I guess that makes me a Lib Feminist.

[CTLawGuy]

3. yup

but the notion is hardly radical.

[Nevernose]

4. By that famous/infamous definition

By that famous/infamous deifinition, I can be a (male) feminist and, while in The Lounge, still discuss which women I find attractive?

Thanks for the clarification!

[KnowerOfLogic]

6. Fems in the second category don't necessarily believe that one man

can not benefit by the sexism of another man or society in general, i think. People in the majority/power group benefit all the time by their membership in that group, even if they themselves do not actively discriminate. I don't see how this point can even be disputed. Regarding the first group, personally, i wouldn't even call these people feminists, and i think they don't even represent a drop in the bucket in terms of the total "feminist" population, but of course they get all the news, cuz, well, we know who's defining the issues and controlling the news these days. Feminism, or whatever you want to call it, has always been about *equal rights for women,* nothing more and nothing less; and those whgo opposed equal rights for women have always tried to make it out to be some woman against man thing. Here's a choice quote from the floor of the US senate (1866); just goes to show that at every step of the way there are those who play the "man-hating" card.

Mr. Williams (US Senator, 1866): When God married our first parents in the garden, according to that ordinance they were made “bone of one bone and flesh of one flesh”; and the whole theory of government and society proceeds upon the assumption that their interests are one, that their relations are so intimate and tender that whatever is for the benefit of the one is for the benefit of the other; whatever works to the injury of the one works to the injury of the other. I say, sir, that the more identical and inseparable these interests and relations can be made, the better for all concerned; and the woman who undertakes to put her sex in an antagonistic position to man, who undertakes by the use of some independent political power to contend and fight against man, displays a spirit which would, if able, convert all the now harmonious elements of society into a state of war, and make every home a hell upon earth.

(I should say that his point was that only women who desire to "fight against man" would be asking for the right to vote.)

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

7. I'm somewhere between the two

I believe (and I don't think it's much of a stretch) that there are inherent advantages to being male in our society that all males benefit from. I also think that a lot of (straight) male sexuality depends upon the subjection/objectification of women.

But I'm not going to hold individual men responsible for society - especially not if they're working to try to change the system. Where sex is concerned, that's a person-by-person basis as well.

Also, thanks to the efforts of the 70's feminist movements, society has moved from valuing men to mostly just valuing the unencumbered person (single/no kids). This still usually ends up working against women more often than not - how many men have ever felt they needed to choose between having a career and having kids? - but those women who choose to conform to the "ideal" can still enjoy about 90-95% as much success as men. Men who choose to be more involved parents (by going part-time or whatever) face about as much career suicide as women.