Defining Feminism: A Riposte to Some Dude on the Internet

I'm a Twitterer and I follow Margaret Atwood. Margaret Atwood is a fantastic writer who once wrote a book that many consider a feminist masterpiece, The Handmaid's Tale. So when Margaret Atwood retweeted a message from a young man who was promoting a short essay he'd written called "Is Feminism the Opposite of Misogyny?", I was inclined to click through.

Unfortunately (given that I read it shortly before I planned to go to sleep), the piece left me angry and upset. I felt that the author was well-meaning but had ended up writing something utterly misguided and rather appalling in its own way. I Tweeted the author in question telling him so, and suggested I'd write up a longer response the next day. This blog post contains my response.

I'll reproduce the original piece in full for you here, copied from http://www.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Feminism-the-Opposite-of-Misogyny

I Googled the term “feminism antonym” – check this out:

Then, I looked up the definition of feminism:

Let’s speak English – I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s. Most of what I understood of “feminism” growing up was that historically, women were treated as “lesser” than men, (in a variety of ways), and that in recent history the balance was shifted to one of equality by way of the “feminist movement.” Roughly. This was, of course, the impression gleaned from living among adult men and women, and not from historical or sociological study – so the particular cultural events involved and their individual significance is beyond the scope ofthis discussion – though not to be denigrated.

Now, I speak English, and I like to think I understand the language pretty well… I also understand other things, and I like to think my understanding of things, (incomplete though it certainly may be), isn’t terribly inaccurate on matters I’ve sought to understand… If “feminism” is the doctrine of equality among men and women, and “Misogyny” is “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women” (dictionary.reference.com) – how can the two terms be considered opposite?

I think the answer is clear – “Feminism” can be considered opposite to “Misogyny” with the help and support of laziness. Other words might include carelessness, ignorance, or even stupidity (a rare case, I’d like to think). Even still, a case can certainly be made for the idea that the actual spirit and thrust behind feminism has been the suppression of masculinity among men and the establishment of femininity in the same role that men had previously occupied. I like to think differently about it though, but hey – why would Google results mislead…?

Think of the word itself – feminism. The -ism of femininity, right? Doesn’t the word itself sort of clearly suggest an inequality in ovarian-favour? C’mon!

Now of course, the origin of the word has a great deal more to do with its historical/sociological significance as a movement to counter a typically male-dominated social paradigm than its actual etymology – somehow “equalism” mightn’t’ve had the intended impact – but if feminism seeks to propound equality between the sexes, (oops, sorry – genders …), then I think equality should be at the heart of the feminist attitude – and while I can’t speak for individuals who consider their equality-based attitudes an aspect of feminism , I certainly can’t fail to notice how weighted both the term and its local effect on social attitudes so often seems to be.

In this day and age especially, it’s easy to get lazy about correct terms and their correct meanings – in the wake of an allegedly misogynistic-paradigm, it’s understandable that super pro-femininity should be the force driving gender-equality – but gender-equality does not mean feminism (in its etymologically correct sense), any more than a culture tending to place women at home with primarily household and family duties means oppression of “the weaker sex.”

Real Words with Real Meanings

It’s still a common social-norm that a man striking a woman, regardless of it being initiative or retaliative, is considered taboo. I can’t speak for the reasoning of others, necessarily, but to me, a bruise on a man’s face doesn’t seem as out-of-place or upsetting as one marring the otherwise alluring sight of a woman’s. Which, of course, is not to say that I don’t see a problem with striking other men arbitrarily – and it’s my personal understanding that striking another in anything else but self-defense is abhorrent.

The antonym of “misogyny” is misandry – simply defined (at reference.dictionary.com) as hatred of males . (It’s curious to note: misogynydoesn’t set off Microsoft Word’s spellchecker, but misandry does…) I almost wonder whether the concept of misandry might just be too practically inconceivable to so-called “free thinkers” to warrant acknowledgement – but like I say, I prefer to think better of people, even as it becomes clearer that most people don’t prefer tothink better .

People call themselves feminists and say that they perceive men and women as equals. Maybe I’m just an annoying stickler for correctness of speech, but nevertheless it is not correct to promote femininity over masculinity in the name of equality – and that does seem to be what feminism does. I know a lot of women who insist on believing themselves equality-minded, while taking as full advantage as they can of whatever privileges they may receive by being considered unequal to the same treatment deserving of men. I know women who declare “sexism” if treating them differently than men is inconvenient for their purposes, but when receiving the same treatment as men is similarly, (or differently) inconvenient, the story changes – “but I’m a girl! ”

Should men consider this the indication of the natural inconstancy of the female mind? Ought we explain it by saying that women are merely fickle, and can’t help it? I think not, because most men (these days anyway), will speak and behave in just the same way. The real reason, I think, is the laziness I mentioned earlier – it’s far easier to let cultural events and social paradigms determine what we nevertheless still call “our” thinking, and seldom do we look further into it than social expectation leads us to.

I don’t hit women, but I don’t hit men either. However, if a man should attack me, I’ll defend myself by attempting to prevent him from injuring me in whatever way is most effective – yet should a woman attack me I’ll likely be careful about defending myself, so as not to injure her, even if I suffer greater injury as a result. Why? The most obvious reason is because I can reasonably expect a woman to quickly change her act when Police arrive, and if she’s bruised somewhere, I’m in big trouble, even if I’m bleeding. Thankfully, I’ve never been attacked by a woman (physically, that is…), and I don’t expect to. I don’t expect to be attacked by a man either, though adolescent-drunkenry has caused it to happen once or twice.

Girl Power!

The idea that feminism is antonymical to misogyny is absurd. When I looked through the rest of Google’s results for “feminism antonym,” I found a website where the question was posed:

Are you a feminist? What is feminism and what is the antonym of it?

There were three answers (check out the last one and feel my frustration!) and the first was from a woman who described herself as not being a feminist, but being a woman who believed in equal-rights, but also enjoyed the gentlemanly courtesy of opening doors for women, standing when a woman enters a room or stands herself, etc – and she seemed to have an honest and legitimate perspective on what it means to be a woman in the world today (the post was from 2008, btw). But then, she disappointed me, badly. Of course, I cannot believe that she was attempting to seriously treat the term literally when she closed her answer thus:

As far as the antonym of feminism… could it be slavery?

No! No madam, dear madam, it cannot. Freedom is the antonym of slavery, and feminism is not synonymous with freedom, though feminism does seem to trysupporting freedom. Might you be representative of an increasingly lazy and inattentive evolution of modern-language? Laziness supports slavery, of course – the more the run of your thoughts is determined by your conditioning and not your deliberate reasoning, the more pliable you are for the forces acting upon you to reshape as they will.

As Polonius to Laertes Said...

It does not do to simply be swept up in the tide of social-consciousness – if we truly be individuals ourselves, and truly bring our individuality to bear in society, then it must be our own reasoning and determination that we bring. Laziness in consideration, understanding and speech too often determines for us what we blindly call our very own selves, and we find ourselves enslaved. The cure for laziness, and indeed the best way to attain to sincere and genuine understanding of whatsoever we seek to understand and convey, is attention.

As physical beings, we are endowed with the miraculous ability not merely to swallow, we chew, we digest, we absorb and transform what we’ve eaten and we expunge waste – why should our absorption of experience and information be any different? Never simply swallow the words and dictums of others, but listen closely to what wisdom might be conveyed by your own discerning reason. To excerpt the admonishment of Polonius to his son Laertes (from Shakespeare’s Hamlet):

…
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement.
…
This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Now, I feel a certain degree of sympathy for this guy, because I think I understand what he was trying to do, and I don't think he was trying to do something malicious. It seems like he wanted to write a dispassionate, objective linguistic analysis of the term "feminism" and its relation to "misogyny" in order to show that if what we want and strive for is gender equality then we should adopt a word which doesn't appear to have a bias in favour of one sex over another. The author uses "equalism" as a possible alternative.

Unfortunately, I believe the author makes a couple of key mistakes that prevent him from representing the impartiality that he clearly wants his writing to emit. He also strays into some matters that are far from relevant to his mission, which was, as he put it to me on Twitter, "[advocate] literal-thinking"and "define words and antonyms". The piece is misguided in its method and its conclusions (or at least, what I understand to be its conclusions, since none were straightforwardly drawn at the end of the essay, the author preferring a heavy dose of flowery prose and Shakespeare).

This is where he makes his first major mistake, which is a factual error:

in recent history the balance was shifted to one of equality by way of the “feminist movement.”

Has the feminist movement sought to bring society from patriarchy to equality? Yes. Has the balance shifted, since the birth of the feminist movement, towards equality? Yes. Have we reached a state of gender equality, as implied by the author? No.

I think it must be difficult, sometimes, for men in patriarchal societies to understand the power they have. They don't feel like they have power. They feel like they are treated just as badly as - hell, sometimes worse than! - their female peers. The feminist argument that women continue to be severely disadvantaged from birth does not convince them. Yet it's hard to escape the facts:

• Despite equal pay legislation, a persistent and significant wage gap (usually estimated at 15-25%) persists between men and women, even when factors like maternity leave and women working part time are accounted for
• Women remain incredibly under-represented in all high-profile professions and in Parliament
• One in four women will suffer violence at the hands of an intimate partner
• Half of all women will experience an attempted or completed rape or sexual assault

There is still deep-rooted and significant gender inequality in this country and the West more broadly, and women are still on the receiving end of the vast, vast majority of it.

His second hurdle is where he states:

a case can certainly be made for the idea that the actual spirit and thrust behind feminism has been the suppression of masculinity among men and the establishment of femininity in the same role that men had previously occupied

He claims he doesn't think this way, but given what he goes on to say -

Think of the word itself – feminism. The -ism of femininity, right? 

it is not correct to promote femininity over masculinity in the name of equality – and that does seem to be what feminism does 

- I rather think he does. 


Feminism does not mean and has never meant the promotion of the feminine over and above the masculine. To suggest that it does paints a picture (and a popular one) of feminists as man-haters, tearing down masculinity to replace it with something they believe to be superior, femininity. This picture is bullshit. The only way I can imagine it being even remotely relevant is in regards to those particular feminists who believe that women have certain special qualities different to men, and that women's perspectives should be valued and appreciated on this basis. But even then, what feminism means isn't properly captured. 


What feminism means is the promotion of gender equality. The author clearly has a lot of trouble dealing with this due to the fact that the FEM of FEMininity is in the word FEMinism. However, I would advise him against putting too much stock into the etymology of -isms. Look at Fascism. We know what Fascism means, right? It's a political ideology which promotes authoritarianism, nationalism, the totalitarian state. But by this guy's logic, it means the -ism of fasc. Where did the fasc come from?


The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate (Wikipedia)


Yeah! It's the -ism of a bundle of rods tied around an axe! ...wait, what?


So why is feminism called feminism if what it's really about is "equalism"? As the author rightly ascertains, it's because historically, the balance of power has been in favour of men. What he misses (remember the first mistake) is that overwhelmingly, it still is. A better definition of feminism than "the promotion of gender equality" might be "the promotion of gender equality through the uplifting of women", because that is correct on both levels - it allows for what the author sees as a "bias" in favour of women, while acknowledging that this "bias" is actually what is needed for equality to be achieved.


Perhaps you are still not convinced, and you think that, since our culture has in many ways bowed to the demand for gender equality, "feminism" is redundant as a term and advocacy of gender equality should be rebranded "equalism". What concerns me about this argument is where you would draw the line. In Somalia, 95% of women still experience genital mutilation in childhood. Are the people there who strive for equality allow to call themselves "feminists"? In China, selective abortion and infanticide of female foetuses and babies is still common. Is it okay to be a ""feminist if you're in China? In Turkey and other parts of the Middle East, women are regularly murdered for "honour crimes" such as making eye contact with men. If I want gender equality there, can I say I'm a "feminist"? (I could go on.)


If your answer is yes, then why should it not apply equally to those Western countries where the oppression of women is still a major feature of our culture, although a better-hidden one? The word "feminism" will only become inappropriate and outdated when there is actually in reality a rough balance of equality between men and women.


To finish off, allow me to deal with the part of the essay the author devotes to hitting women.

It’s still a common social-norm that a man striking a woman, regardless of it being initiative or retaliative, is considered taboo. I can’t speak for the reasoning of others, necessarily, but to me, a bruise on a man’s face doesn’t seem as out-of-place or upsetting as one marring the otherwise alluring sight of a woman’s. 

... 

I know women who declare “sexism” if treating them differently than men is inconvenient for their purposes, but when receiving the same treatment as men is similarly, (or differently) inconvenient, the story changes – “but I’m a girl! ”

... 

I don’t hit women, but I don’t hit men either. However, if a man should attack me, I’ll defend myself by attempting to prevent him from injuring me in whatever way is most effective – yet should a woman attack me I’ll likely be careful about defending myself, so as not to injure her, even if I suffer greater injury as a result. Why? The most obvious reason is because I can reasonably expect a woman to quickly change her act when Police arrive, and if she’s bruised somewhere, I’m in big trouble, even if I’m bleeding. 

Most of the essay is misguided but largely innocuous. Those bits are blood-boilingly vile. Allow me to give you a little much-needed education on violence against women, Dude From the Internet. The reason why a man hitting a woman is considered "taboo" and "upsetting" is to do with the context within which a man hitting a woman usually takes place. When a man hits a woman, it is almost exclusively a man who is in an intimate relationship with that woman, hitting her because that is one of a wide variety of ways of controlling her. Women do not get hit by men due to what you call "adolescent-drunkenry". They get hit by men they love, men who claim to love them, often men they live with, have children with, share a life with. The reason we feel our stomachs churn when we hear of violence against women is not because women are dainty and fragile and have faces that are "otherwise alluring", it's because of what that violence means.


The part about Police behaviour is almost laughable. You would know, if you had researched violence against women like I have, that the way the Police have traditionally treated incidents of domestic violence against women is with flippancy and neglect. Over the last 5-10 years, things have improved, as Police have been more properly trained in the root causes of domestic violence and the appropriate way of dealing with those situations, but they are still far from reliable as a means of women being able to protect themselves from a violent abuser. Again, the reason you would be in "big trouble" is not that women benefit from preference and privilege in our society, but the very opposite - the fact that a man who bruises a woman is overwhelmingly likely to be the abuser, not the abused. 




I get what you were trying to do, dude. You just did it really, really poorly.


As Shakespeare might have said: The End.

AV: Y/N?

In one month, you have the opportunity to vote in a referendum that could change the electoral system used in general elections. Turnout is expected to be much lower than normal general election turnout, which is odd, really, because it's much more important than a single election. The result of this vote could change what British democracy means altogether. But I know that some people don't quite get what it's all about, and consequently can't make their minds up whether to vote, and if so, whether to vote yes or no.

In this blog post I'll be explaining the Alternative Vote (AV) system and comparing it to the current system, First Past the Post (FPTP), which will hopefully be helpful to those who didn't memorise an array of electoral systems for A Level Politics. I'll do a bit of myth-busting regarding some of the claims that have been made by both the Yes and the No side, and then I'll go on to explain why I intend to vote YES for a change to AV.

AV, WTF?

The Alternative Vote electoral system is actually very similar (as electoral systems go) to our current state of affairs. Each geographical constituency is represented by one MP, and if a political party succeeds in winning over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons, they form a government. None of that is going to change under AV.

The only difference is how MPs actually win their seats. Under FPTP, whichever candidate has the largest share of the vote wins the seat for that constituency. Under AV, they have to return a majority - over 50%. The way that majority can be reached, without over half of all voters voting for the same candidate, is by taking into account what people's second, third (etc) choices are. That's why a change to AV would mean changing how you cast your vote.

Instead of deciding which single candidate to cast your vote for, you can rank all the candidates in order of preference. Once all the votes have been cast, the first-choice votes are counted. Assuming there isn't an outright majority, the candidate who got the fewest first-choice votes is stricken from the election, and the second-choice votes of the people who voted for them are treated as if they were first-choice votes. If there's still no majority, you take away the second-last candidate and do the same thing with the second-choice votes of the people who voted for them. And so on and so forth, until a majority is reached.

MYTH-BUSTING

I have been unimpressed with some of the arguments coming from both campaigns so I'm going to sift through some of them and hopefully set a few misconceptions straight.

• Will AV make politicians have to work harder to keep their seats?

Well, yes, perhaps, in some cases. This argument is based on the fact that in order to win a seat a politician needs to get a broader consensus than usual, and cannot just rely on the same 30% of people voting for him who voted for him last time. However, realistically, people's votes are still influenced to a large degree by party loyalty and where they see themselves in the political spectrum, rather than decided solely on the basis of how hard they think their MP has worked. What will happen is that individual politicians will have to do more to reach out to people who don't completely share their political creed. This could be seen as a good or a bad thing - you can imagine it leading to more people feeling involved with politics, or to politics becoming devoid of direction as all candidates fight for the messy middle ground.

• Will AV lead to more hung parliaments?

There's no reason to assume that it would. In the bigger picture, changing to AV is unlikely to make a deep impact on the face of the House of Commons. Most of the candidates who would have been elected under FPTP will still be elected under AV, unless it's a particularly close race. (This might make you think "then why bother?", but that's a different story.)

• Will AV keep the BNP out? Or will it encourage people to vote for them?

Both, oddly enough. Because you can list candidates by preference under AV, you're more likely to express support for a small party than you are under FPTP, which encourages people to vote tactically. So we would probably see a few more first-choice votes for the BNP than the number of votes they currently get. However, because the BNP are usually pretty far down the list of "most popular parties to vote for", they would usually be knocked out of the competition pretty early on. They would have to get over half of a constituency to vote for them (1st or 2nd choice) to get a seat under AV. They're probably more likely to get a seat under FPTP, where they may only need 30%, or even less, to win a seat.

Please remember, as well, that the effects the voting system has on the BNP are equally relevant to the Green Party. To vote based on what you think will keep the BNP out is short-sighted and neglects the real question, which is: what is more democratic?

• Isn't AV really complicated and obscure? Don't only, like, two countries use it?

The way to work out who's won each constituency is a bit complicated, I grant you, but as a voter the change to your ballot slip is pretty straightforward. While only a couple of countries use AV in their general elections, it's very popular as an electoral system for smaller elections - like for political party leadership, or (if you went to the University of York), student union elections.

• Do some people's votes count more than others under AV?

Kind of. You're less likely to end up having wasted your vote under AV, because if you vote for a smaller party, your second choice will be taken into account - it will be as if your first choice never existed. Some people are arguing that that means your vote would be given more weight than the votes of those who voted for more popular parties. It all depends on how you look at it.

• Will AV leave us with politicians who were nobody's first choice?

While it is technically possible that this could happen, it's extremely unlikely - and the politician in question would still have to have a broad base of support from within his constituency, even if it was the support of people who felt they were getting a compromise solution.

YES TO AV

In a month's time, I plan to vote yes in the referendum. Here's why:

• I believe AV reflects the way people actually think about politics. I've never voted for Labour before, but I'd rather have a Labour MP than a Tory. And I would certainly never vote Conservative, but I'd rather have a Tory MP than a BNP representative. Unless you think that every candidate but one is an  incompetent bastard, AV will suit you.
• I want further electoral reform. One of the biggest criticisms of AV is that it doesn't go far enough, and it would be more democratic to have a system that incorporated proportional representation. I agree. AV is not my favourite electoral system and I think there are a lot of issues with it, as I hope has become apparent. But I believe a resounding 'no' vote will shut down the possibility for any electoral reform within my lifetime.
• I believe it's fairer and more democratic for MPs to be elected by an outright majority who are pretty okay with him or her winning, rather than by a smaller faction who are delighted they won while the majority of voters are seething.

My intention has not been to convince you to vote yes - just to try and make the choice a bit clearer. I hope I've done that - any further questions, fire away.