You might as well define libertarianism as the view that most governments are not minarchies, utilitarianism as the view that pleasure is not maximized and pain is not minimized, Marxism as the view that the proletariat does not own the means of production, etc. Like these, feminism is a normative position, not an observational one. That…
You might as well define libertarianism as the view that most governments are not minarchies, utilitarianism as the view that pleasure is not maximized and pain is not minimized, Marxism as the view that the proletariat does not own the means of production, etc. Like these, feminism is a normative position, not an observational one. That's why feminists reject your definition even though they agree with the content of your proposed definition—that society generally treats men better than women. If they disagreed with the content of your proposed definition, they would probably not bother being feminists, because there would be little to nothing left for a feminist movement to do.
As for those who claim not to be feminists and yet also claim that society should not treat men better than women: clearly they do not think the definition of feminism is that society should treat men and women with equal fairness. But why think these non-feminists are right about the definition of feminism? If a lot of people thought all goverments should at most protect their citizens from violence, and then also claimed to not be libertarians, would you then be telling libertarians they have their definition wrong and they need to come up with something else since there's this contradiction between the professed beliefs and political identities of self-proclaimed non-libertarians?
"they would probably not bother being feminists, because there would be little to nothing left for a feminist movement to do."
1) All movements eventually become a racket, activists have stuff to do whether we think those things are worthwhile.
2) Even if you think men and women are treated fairly, your goal as a feminist could be for women to be treated MORE fairly than men (men treated unfairly). You wouldn't SAY this is what your doing (even to yourself), but an outside observer would characterize it that way.
Candice Lightner founded MADD and then left the organization after she achieved her goals, which was to strengthen drunk driving laws and to have it taken seriously.
MADD was becoming neo-prohibitionist and she opposed that.
You might as well define libertarianism as the view that most governments are not minarchies, utilitarianism as the view that pleasure is not maximized and pain is not minimized, Marxism as the view that the proletariat does not own the means of production, etc. Like these, feminism is a normative position, not an observational one. That's why feminists reject your definition even though they agree with the content of your proposed definition—that society generally treats men better than women. If they disagreed with the content of your proposed definition, they would probably not bother being feminists, because there would be little to nothing left for a feminist movement to do.
As for those who claim not to be feminists and yet also claim that society should not treat men better than women: clearly they do not think the definition of feminism is that society should treat men and women with equal fairness. But why think these non-feminists are right about the definition of feminism? If a lot of people thought all goverments should at most protect their citizens from violence, and then also claimed to not be libertarians, would you then be telling libertarians they have their definition wrong and they need to come up with something else since there's this contradiction between the professed beliefs and political identities of self-proclaimed non-libertarians?
"they would probably not bother being feminists, because there would be little to nothing left for a feminist movement to do."
1) All movements eventually become a racket, activists have stuff to do whether we think those things are worthwhile.
2) Even if you think men and women are treated fairly, your goal as a feminist could be for women to be treated MORE fairly than men (men treated unfairly). You wouldn't SAY this is what your doing (even to yourself), but an outside observer would characterize it that way.
Candice Lightner founded MADD and then left the organization after she achieved her goals, which was to strengthen drunk driving laws and to have it taken seriously.
MADD was becoming neo-prohibitionist and she opposed that.