There's lots of cultures or historical times where people don't or didn't agree. And on the other hand, you can prove the second part easily, for example by looking at the wage gap. That's why I think it's best to mention both.
The wage gap has been studied to death. Like for like, it doesn't exist (within statistical error). However, women work fewer hours per year and fewer years of their lives than men do; and they tend to emphasize the personal (nonfinancial) rewards of careers more than men do. Men prioritize financial reward over enjoyment or other aspects of the job; and they work more hours and more years. When you adjust for those, the wage gap disappears.
I understand that feminists like to say that women work fewer hours and fewer years because society expects them to take on the primary caregiving roles - like it or not - and there's truth in this. Then again, society expects men to take on the primary breadwinning roles - like it or not, and very often backed up by legal compulsion (unlike the caregiving situation). If that's "patriarchy" then the etymology is all messed up.
Most feminists hate the idea of paying mothers to be mothers.
They want subsidized daycare, not direct tax credits to mothers per child.
They want K-12 education spending, but not vouchers that can be used a a mother desires (including homeschool).
Anyone who said that we should just give money straight to mothers for each child they have and let them decide would be considered an anti-feminist traditionalist.
It's best to think of feminism as a movement that seeks to raise the status and resources of professional women at the expense of everyone else, including women who prefer different lifestyles.
The conventional family structure - woman does not need to work and earn money because husband, or extended family, does so - was supposed to be precisely the compensation you are referring to. The key is "does not need to". But if feminists consider this entire arrangement to be oppressive to women (bizarrely they consider any form of dependence or symbiosis to be oppression), then I can understand why they are up in arms. But the alternative they come up with is that the state should take the place of husband or extended family. But then, where does the state's money come from, if not from people (men plus women who are not raising kids) who work and pay taxes?
Currently the wage gap emerges if you look at a nuclear family and declare that the father makes X and mother makes 0. Instead, if more realistically you distributed that income so that father and mother both make X/2, then your wage gap would completely disappear. Heck, it may even skew the other way, given recent employment trends.
The "conventional family structure" may have made sense - or even been somewhat patriarchal - prior to 1850 or so, when a woman could expect to bear and raise 6-10 children; produce all the knitted clothing and cut and sew all the cloth-based clothing for the household; produce all meals from basic ingredients (having grown many of the vegetables and produced the eggs in her own garden); do laundry using boiling water, lye and a wringer; and keep the house clean and tidy.
The trajectory of productivity has meant that today, in a "traditional" household, the "breadwinner" produces all the family's clothing, brings in all the food with much of it in near-ready-to-eat form, and provides capital equipment that keeps the food fresh and turns laundry (and meal cleanup) into trivial chores; meanwhile the mother produces and raises 1.2 children when they are not at school.
As for spending time with the children themselves, I think I recall that modern breadwinner fathers spend more time with their children than female homemakers did even a few generations ago. So, the trajectory away from the "conventional" structure has not hurt children in that respect.
The "traditional" family structure is something people should, of course, be free to choose; but to claim it's the "right" structure - or one that should be imposed by force on unhappy breadwinners, as we do across the western world - is... debatable.
There might be a slight wage gap that is not accounted for due to the legal liability from hiring a woman who can sue for discrimination or sexual harassment if fired.
The wage gap I'm talking about is taking into account different jobs.
My point is, that even if people perform differently (say a male/female weight lifter or soccer player), they should earn the same if the difference is due to gender. The average woman should earn the same as the average men. In my eyes, women are just as valuable as men. Not that they are literally equal.
In the case of the US national soccer teams, at one time the women's team famously earned less than the men would have, if the men had been equally successful (which they were not). This was not sexism, nor a lack of fan interest: it was because the women, who had been offered the same pay deal as the men, chose an alternative pay structure that offered greater financial security but less upside for winning. An irony - not often noticed - is that not only would the women have earned more if they had picked the pay structure the men chose, but also the men would have earned more if they had picked the pay structure the women chose! This is because the women were very successful, but didn't benefit much from it because they had picked a more secure pay structure; the men, on the other hand, picked a pay structure that gave little security but a big upside for success, but were not very successful.)
I understand, and I believe this is unfair. I believe we should strive for equality. If nature doesn't treat us equally, we should compensate with laws, so that it doesn't matter for a child to be born a boy or a girl.
This is confused. I was pointing out a problem with the definition, not saying someone "should" be or do anything (other than change the definition). Bryan's definition has the same flaw.
Well, the analogy is about tainting by association. If Caplan's definition is flawed, it ought to be critiqued on its own merits, and not because some other distasteful entity also uses that definition.
I personally think the word “feminism” should be erased from the American vocabulary. “Feminists” haven’t done anything worthwhile for women since the ‘90s. Where are these “feminists” when it comes to men competing in women’s sports? Winning beauty contests? Woman of the year? Safe bathrooms? Women’s prisons?
Power comes to women when they behave like women:
“Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” Maria Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 2002.
Stop begging the question. You know perfectly well that the reason feminists aren't doing anything about "men competing in women's sports" is that they disagree with you about whether the people in question are men. By framing it as "men competing" you are treating the main point of contention as if it was settled. It isn't.
British feminists have done much better on this issue than American ones. I think it helps that we don't really have a Christian right, so we don't get feminists worrying that they might incidentally be on the same side as them on some issues.
One thing I learned the hard way that today in these topics logic and rational thinking carry no water. Feelings trump logic. This makes these discussions so painful because even if you're opponent is logically fully cornered and checkmate, she will indignantly leave the table convinced that I proved her right. Robin DiAngelo's Kafka trap is a shining example.
Somehow in the past decades we lost our color blindness, Hippocrates' foremost do not harm, as well as our shame of being illogical. And I think it is killing our institutions.
So yes, I think your definition that feminism thinks men are treated more fairly than women is good and defensible, it even gently goes out of its way to not offend. But, you know, feelings. It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!
"It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!"
Is a wonderful phrase.
In general every forced government redistribution racket has two phases.
1) Establish some unfairness that needs to be rectified
2) Enforce rectification
Many generous and good hearted people are often talked into #1, then are surprised when #2 seems to violate important rights, be ineffective at its objective, or some other failing. They then spend a lot of time arguing over #2 as if they have some shot once they have given up #1.
The point is to fight #1 from the start. Don't be understanding and generous. Don't give an inch. That they are not yet talking about what #2s they want to implement is not important, there will be #2s once you give up #1.
One of my main insights in the past decades is that empathy does not scale. Feminists often talk about toxic masculinity but they fail to see that empathy at scale becomes toxic as well.
We've taught boys very well to handle their potentially dangerous strengths. However, we never teach girls that their abundant empathy also becomes toxic when it is not bounded to a small private context. Empathy is a spotlight and spotlights work by obscuring anything outside its cone of light. A person in thrall of empathy is impossible to reason with because the need of the victim is all encompassing and not open for compromise or trade offs. You can't reason with a mama bear when it concerns her child and that is great. However, when she applies that empathy to societal problems, well, then we are where we are today.
The historical solution was that women didn't have the power to turn their empathy into force. This lack of power meant that they could be empathetic without it becoming toxic at the societal scale. Under that context most people considered it a virtue, but that context has passed. With great power comes great responsibility.
This seems entirely besides the point. You claim the goal of your book is to persuade people like your daughter. Ok, maybe you think your definition more accurately reflects usage or whatever. How does that help you convince anyone?
Words are complicated. The issue with the word feminism is that its connected with the movement that challenged some pretty awful laws/norms in the past. That makes people particularly adverse to saying they disapprove of it since it feels/sounds too much like saying they disapprove of the changes that have happened that have resulted in greater gender equality.
Ultimately, I agree with many of your factual claims but you couch them in a way that virtually guarantees you don't persuade anyone. Sure, maybe those people are being irrational but if your goal is to persuade them why not phrase things differently so you have a better chance os success?
I agree that the goal should be persuading, but how do you persuade feminists if you have to accept their self-serving definition of feminism that you yourself do not disagree with?
I mean they might be 'wrong' about the definition of feminism in the sense that they use the word in a way other people don't but definitions alone don't justify any conclusions or prevent communication.
In this case just take their definition at face value (at least hypothetically) and say -- ok if feminism means believing in the equality of the sexes then feminism then what feminism requires now is more concern about the welfare of boys/men, less affirmative action or whatever. If you convince them of your substantive goals who cares what they call it. If they want to call that feminism because of positive connotations with the word so what? You've still convinced them of the appropriate policies, votes and they may not say feminism is wrong but they will say: "those other 'feminists' aren't being real feminists because they aren't really supporting equality of the sexes" and that is probably going to meet more success at convincing their compatriots.
If you don't like that then just use new terminology you've defined yourself. No reason to push against an attachment to what a word means.
--
I mean think of it in mathematics for a minute. If someone has the definition of even and odd numbers switched and stubbornly refuses to change that doesn't prevent you from convincing them of any mathematical fact. You can just take every instance of 'even' and 'odd' in a theorem or proof and replace it with 'divisible by 2' and 'not divisible by 2' or define new terminology (or just say ok if that's how you define even and odd then X follows and just swap the definitions in the proof/statement). You can get them to the same substantive conclusions whatever they call things.
The problem with your terminology is that it sends the message to many people that rather than being someone who supports the gains that in legal and social equality women have made since the 1950s (eg being able to become scientists, doctors etc) but feels the pendulum has swung too far that you're instead someone who wants to roll back the clock and pressure women into being passive and subservient.
Let's stipulate that's irrational and wrong. It's still a bad way to persuade people. It's like running for office using the reverse swastika as a symbol and insisting you just mean to invoke the Hindu symbol for prosperity and good luck. Ok, fine maybe that's how people should understand that symbol but it's not a great way to persuade people to your side.
79% of Republican Men belief women have equal job opportunities.
So 100-79 = 21% of men don't.
40% of republican men favor affirmative action for women.
So about half of the republican men who support affirmative action for women belief such affirmative action would give women who already have equal opportunities and unfair advantage.
I'd be shocked if I thought polling meant a damn thing. Instead it's all just wording and feels that is often quite incoherent.
Explain what affirmative action really means to people (quotas, unfair treatment) and the support plunges in every poll (unless you specifically say that the race or gender of the person being asked will benefit from the policy, in which case it doesn't).
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.
There's a basic difference between extending Enlightenment rational individualism to women and the nihilist-feminist hatred of men."Gender Tribalism" by Peter Schwartz in Ayn Rand's, _Return Of The Primitive_, is close to my view.
I thought the reasoning behind the current definition was to be action biased? Your definition is more so describing the current, instead of actions that need to be taken in the movement.
Kind of hard to reconcile 95% of the population believing that 'men and women should be social, political and economic equals', with 72% of women and 61% of men being in favor of 'affirmative action programs for women.' Affirmative action programs for women (which is to say legalized discrimination against men, based strictly on their gender) are surely one of the leading causes of men and women being not treated equally economically.
Caplan addressed this part of it well in his post on the Titanic -- 'women and children first' occupies a different stratum of the mind than "men and women are political and economic equals" does. If we put them together they are absurd, like "equal rights, equal lefts" showcases.
"Akshully this well known saying that demonstrates well-validated principles of how human societies rightfully recognize that eggs are scarce and sperm is free isn't literally true therefore your point is invalid, checkmate atheists."
Take a look at a sex-ratio map. None of the countries where female infanticide is practiced produces men who let women become feminists. No red herrings please. The point was about the kind of society Caplan was talking about re: the Titanic, not the kind of society that is still practicing infanticide of any kind.
I'm a feminist and I don't agree with your definition, because I don't agree with the claim "society generally treats men more fairly than women". For 2 reasons:
1. I think that certain pockets treat men worse and certain pockets treat women worse. I think it's hard to divide society "generally" here. And when you consider public society vs private society, it gets even harder. I'll remind that it's feminists who first brought up gender roles harming men. Many feminists have sons and husbands they love after all. I think serious feminists should specialize into the gendered-topic where they think they can do the most good. For example, in college I was engaged in a lot of consent and anti-rape dialogue. That was 13 years ago so it was still really neglected back then—people would really argue about it and victim-blame, and you could actually disprove them and change their minds on what type of treatment is possible and ethical in the bedroom and courting. But if I had to pick a topic today to harp on about, it would probably be how messed up dating life and dating culture is (for both genders).
2. Even if I wanted to take the one-sided slant you are, your use of the term "fair" is strange here. I think the word you are looking for is "favorably".
That said, I'm a weird feminist that has stubbornly decided to still call myself one despite some embarrassment around it. For a while I thought, "People misunderstand and misconstrue feminist goals and ways of thinking, and it'll be embarrassing if people do that to me". But then I decided to focus more on how people would be wrong to do that rather than make decisions based on embarrassment. Thing is, that in recent years, I see people pre-dismiss the true and useful points made by self-described feminists because calling oneself a feminist makes one pattern-match a big, bad SJW who doesn't listen and so can't have the full story. So I'd like to remind people that feminists have good points, by naming myself a feminist and being rational anyway, I guess. I have no idea how much of what a feminist says is actually worth listening to (both novel to the listener and correct). It could be anywhere from 0-100%, depending on the feminist, the topic at hand, and the listener. But I think usually there is something there the listener could apply to their own life if they listen. I'm not so worried about people in this blogosphere dismissing the good points of feminists. I think that people here will usually avoid the ad hominem tactic of dismissing [anyone who'd call themselves a feminist] and try to take in good faith what each feminist says to you. But many people don't. You can see their noses wrinkle when the word feminism is brought up, and I just don't think that is fair or likely to lead to good things..? My passive and easy way to help with this problem is to keep calling myself a feminist and change people's minds about feminists where I can.
Another thing to keep in mind is that modern feminism leaks into a lot more topics than you'd think. So I think its usefulness is not done! Feminism as social justice movement has created a lot of spaces where people reflect on gender as it relates to their actual happiness and such (what policy should care about, one day). And just the other day (at a conference of educated people!) I was reminded there is more to do to get feminists ideas out there: A man I was speaking to said he is against polyamory because he thought cheating works better on a society-wide scale.. Agreements to and consenting expectations of the women in your life be damned, I guess? He also said he was against gay marriage because "children need a mother". He thought that gays and lesbians should marry eachother so they can perform traditional gender roles for kids. So, in like 2 minutes that was a lot of topics (monogamy, forced marriage, partner transparency, erasure of gay people, parenting roles, passing the bucks of happiness and freedom onto the next generation) that feminist dialogue can help inform compassionate and useful views on.
So I think feminism's usefulness isn't done. Feminism is theory, but it's also the collected reflections on the all-important feelings and life outcomes of women and men when faced with certain gender roles, laws, experiences, etc. It's provides a toolkit and some answers that I think we should keep at hand while we design modern society. I can definitely see personal freedoms backsliding some before they get better (as with abortion rights), if we don't have people actively on the lookout for gender-based mistreatment. Those people on the lookout tend to be feminists. This is not surprising since we know that giving people a label makes them more attached and invested in ideas.
FWIW, I think the men's rights movement has done some of this right. But they've also done much of it horribly, with much less inquisitiveness, broad of a focus, and dialogue that takes everyone's needs into account and prioritizes freedom over gender roles than the feminist movement. I think there are way more anti-collabrative, self-interested, spiteful, and sexist bad apples among MRAs than feminists. And from what I can make out reading the subtext, I think the men's rights movement's societal endgoal looks a lot less collaborative, fulfilling, emotionally healthy, and happy then the feminist movement's societal endgoal. More a dystopia than a utopia.
Anyway, diversity within the feminist movement isn't so unusual. Feminists have been going by different credos for a long time (third wave called themselves feminists despite not agreeing with 2nd wave feminists, etc).
But it makes it hard to come up with a coherent definition. If I had to try to define it:
Feminist: Someone who believes that men and women should be treated equitably, and that there is still more noteworthy work to be done on this front. They believe that societal changes necessary to increase future happiness and prosperity regardless of gender are unlikely to happen without further targeted action. This action usually includes but isn't limited to: mass reflection and dialogue around shared gendered experiences, large-scale collaboration and study into what gender equity means and how to ensure it, and society-wide interventions (including across cultures). Feminists believe this work is morally imperative. Feminists also believe that ideally changes should be designed and checked with help from people who specifically care about ensuring gender equity as opposed to some other self-interested goal (eg, we can't trust free markets to solve it properly alone). While feminists may disagree on what actions to focus on, they do agree that it is unlikely that systems of gender oppression (of all kinds: micro or macro, anti-men or anti-women, intentional or unintentional) will be noticed, dismantled, and replaced with better systems and culture without the involvement of gender-educated, sociologically-informed advocates. Feminists try to be these advocates as part of their civic duty. This inherent civic duty varies hugely but is always present: Some are hugely-dedicated primary changemakers. But many other feminists aim to be useful mainly privately and when needed in their daily lives, such as by being active listeners on gender issues, to look out for the people in their lives being mistreated based on gender and to say something when they see something, to dismantle sexist tendencies within themselves, and to support efforts to create more equitable systems when suggestions come up in their own sphere (such as workplace or home)."
In other words, yes, most people think that women and men should be treated equally/equitably. But people who call themselves feminists think there is still a reason/need to call oneself a feminist specifically and see themselves as part of a broader movement of people working together (even pretty passively) to ensure positive change around gendered experiences. Feminism is maligned enough now that no one calls themselves one otherwise tbh 😅
I believe my definition also captures feminists' low trust in systems (society, govt, corporations, etc). Feminists don't expect people in charge of systems to notice problems, self-correct, and maintain corrections, and it is this framework which necessitates citizen action (even if it's mild like calling out your buddy on his sexist joke, but it can go so far as micromanaging social change in sometimes misguided ways). Feminists are basically people trying things for themselves. I think it's okay to note that feminism does have more of a focus on women than men. On one hand, this might make sense for now given how socially entrenched the mistreatment of women has been. Backsliding is a real risk and keeping the pressure on and trying to make sure you catch all the injustices toward women which might correlate with all the really bad things we have mostly handled, might make sense for a little longer. Additionally, if you want to do your best work, it often makes sense to focus on things you understand best, and women do understand women's issues better than they understand men's. On the other hand, I wish men would talk more about men's rights under feminism. I used to see that more. I'm afraid the MRA movement swept many men up which is too bad, and some extremist feminists probably accelerated men's aversion to feminism despite the desires of other feminists.
First, I am not sure there is a “best” definition of feminist. The important thing is to define the term as *you* are using it.
Second, for the Washington Post survey, you reference, did they define what they meant by feminist? Otherwise, the responses are useless, since individuals would be answering a different question, depending on the definition of feminist they had in their head.
Third did you consider that many of the individuals who claim to not be feminist, but said that men and women *should* be treated equal, were “lying” or “virtue signaling”?
I disagree with feminists on most object-level policy questions, but I think they're right that society treats men "more fairly" than women. But I think they get the pros and cons of the treatment of each gender quite wrong. Society gives men a sort of harsh-but-fair treatment where they're left on their own, don't get unconditional help from others, are expected to take risks and live with the consequences (e.g. they can start a risky business venture where they'll maybe get rich or probably go bankrupt, and in either outcome people will think they deserved what they got). Women get an unfair treatment where people discriminate against them, but also receive benevolent sexism. I think if you do a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of being male or female, it's actually better on net to be female, which I think feminists would vehemently deny. Part of the issue is that men have far more variance in life outcomes, where they're more likely to be homeless, die, or get rich, and everyone ignores poor/dead people, compares stereotypical female jobs (e.g. nurse, teacher) to higher-paid "male" jobs (e.g. CEO, computer programmer) while ignoring bad or dangerous but common male jobs (e.g. construction, deliveries, manufacturing) and then concluding that men have it better so we should help women with affirmative action.
There's no reason to make things more complicated than they are. If you ask normal people "Do you support freedom?" and 90% say "Yes", that doesn't mean 90% are libertarians. People DISAGREE what "being for freedom" means.
Feminism has a very simple definition that every single feminist all over the world will agree on: (1) Fighting for establishing and/or defending women's rights and (2) Fighting against sexist attitudes against women in society. That's it, no more needed. But then Bryan foolishly seems to argue that everyone agrees what rights women should have and what constitutes sexism against women. This is obviously not true, misogynists don't think that they're misogynists - and here's where the DISAGREEMENTS come up.
Bryans absurd definition of feminism clearly shows where the disagreements are. He seems to disagree with feminists about what things are sexist (two examples: Feminists surely think calling women "hypersensitive" and believing women were freer in the 19th century than today is sexist, but Bryan does both things), and he then uses massive whataboutism to show how men are being treated sexist, and thanks to this (minimizing sexism against women, emphasize sexism against men), men win the oppression olympics, which according to his weird definition of feminism means "feminism is wrong."
The view that men are treated worse than women is absurd, but it's also not a logical argument against feminism (the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women). Feminism is not about who is treated worse. It's about the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women (including Bryans sexism about the hypersensitive women), no matter who is treated worse overall.
Perhaps your definition of feminism is not appealing to feminists BECAUSE it's stated so neutrally. I would guess that more feminists would agree to your definition if it evoked a little more emotion.
What about "Feminism is the view that women are generally treated poorly by our society".
"Feminism is the view that our society generally treats men more fairly than women"
Just curious: why phrase it this way and not "Feminism is the view that our society generally treats women less fairly than men"? Are they equivalent? To me, "more fair" sounds something like "some animals are more equal than others" (from Animal Farm); was that meant to be the implication?
I identify as a feminist and I kind of agree with your position, but I would phrase it as:
Feminism is the view that men and women should be treated equally AND that this currently is not the case.
The first part is unnecessary because nearly everyone already agrees with it.
As Bryan would probably say, that is equivalent to "The sky is blue and men are treated better than women."
There's lots of cultures or historical times where people don't or didn't agree. And on the other hand, you can prove the second part easily, for example by looking at the wage gap. That's why I think it's best to mention both.
The wage gap has been studied to death. Like for like, it doesn't exist (within statistical error). However, women work fewer hours per year and fewer years of their lives than men do; and they tend to emphasize the personal (nonfinancial) rewards of careers more than men do. Men prioritize financial reward over enjoyment or other aspects of the job; and they work more hours and more years. When you adjust for those, the wage gap disappears.
I understand that feminists like to say that women work fewer hours and fewer years because society expects them to take on the primary caregiving roles - like it or not - and there's truth in this. Then again, society expects men to take on the primary breadwinning roles - like it or not, and very often backed up by legal compulsion (unlike the caregiving situation). If that's "patriarchy" then the etymology is all messed up.
Well, biology's unfair too! I think we should compensate for that as a society of enlightened rational beings, that's what I mean by being a feminist.
Most feminists hate the idea of paying mothers to be mothers.
They want subsidized daycare, not direct tax credits to mothers per child.
They want K-12 education spending, but not vouchers that can be used a a mother desires (including homeschool).
Anyone who said that we should just give money straight to mothers for each child they have and let them decide would be considered an anti-feminist traditionalist.
It's best to think of feminism as a movement that seeks to raise the status and resources of professional women at the expense of everyone else, including women who prefer different lifestyles.
The conventional family structure - woman does not need to work and earn money because husband, or extended family, does so - was supposed to be precisely the compensation you are referring to. The key is "does not need to". But if feminists consider this entire arrangement to be oppressive to women (bizarrely they consider any form of dependence or symbiosis to be oppression), then I can understand why they are up in arms. But the alternative they come up with is that the state should take the place of husband or extended family. But then, where does the state's money come from, if not from people (men plus women who are not raising kids) who work and pay taxes?
Currently the wage gap emerges if you look at a nuclear family and declare that the father makes X and mother makes 0. Instead, if more realistically you distributed that income so that father and mother both make X/2, then your wage gap would completely disappear. Heck, it may even skew the other way, given recent employment trends.
The "conventional family structure" may have made sense - or even been somewhat patriarchal - prior to 1850 or so, when a woman could expect to bear and raise 6-10 children; produce all the knitted clothing and cut and sew all the cloth-based clothing for the household; produce all meals from basic ingredients (having grown many of the vegetables and produced the eggs in her own garden); do laundry using boiling water, lye and a wringer; and keep the house clean and tidy.
The trajectory of productivity has meant that today, in a "traditional" household, the "breadwinner" produces all the family's clothing, brings in all the food with much of it in near-ready-to-eat form, and provides capital equipment that keeps the food fresh and turns laundry (and meal cleanup) into trivial chores; meanwhile the mother produces and raises 1.2 children when they are not at school.
As for spending time with the children themselves, I think I recall that modern breadwinner fathers spend more time with their children than female homemakers did even a few generations ago. So, the trajectory away from the "conventional" structure has not hurt children in that respect.
The "traditional" family structure is something people should, of course, be free to choose; but to claim it's the "right" structure - or one that should be imposed by force on unhappy breadwinners, as we do across the western world - is... debatable.
There might be a slight wage gap that is not accounted for due to the legal liability from hiring a woman who can sue for discrimination or sexual harassment if fired.
The wage gap I'm talking about is taking into account different jobs.
My point is, that even if people perform differently (say a male/female weight lifter or soccer player), they should earn the same if the difference is due to gender. The average woman should earn the same as the average men. In my eyes, women are just as valuable as men. Not that they are literally equal.
The reason female soccer players dont make as much as male players is that there isn't the same level of fan interest.
For tennis, I think they make basically the same. Because the fan interest is basically the same.
I would bet the same is true for weight lifter...neither make much of anything because there is no fan interest (maybe endorsements?).
That parenthetical is why Anna Kournikova made more money than you would expect for her ranking.
All of which says that it is a lot more complicated than talent. Or talent and sex.
In the case of the US national soccer teams, at one time the women's team famously earned less than the men would have, if the men had been equally successful (which they were not). This was not sexism, nor a lack of fan interest: it was because the women, who had been offered the same pay deal as the men, chose an alternative pay structure that offered greater financial security but less upside for winning. An irony - not often noticed - is that not only would the women have earned more if they had picked the pay structure the men chose, but also the men would have earned more if they had picked the pay structure the women chose! This is because the women were very successful, but didn't benefit much from it because they had picked a more secure pay structure; the men, on the other hand, picked a pay structure that gave little security but a big upside for success, but were not very successful.)
I understand, and I believe this is unfair. I believe we should strive for equality. If nature doesn't treat us equally, we should compensate with laws, so that it doesn't matter for a child to be born a boy or a girl.
The problem with this definition is that men's rights activists could agree with that too.
This is like saying nobody should be a vegetarian (or love dogs) because Hitler was and did those things too.
This is confused. I was pointing out a problem with the definition, not saying someone "should" be or do anything (other than change the definition). Bryan's definition has the same flaw.
Well, the analogy is about tainting by association. If Caplan's definition is flawed, it ought to be critiqued on its own merits, and not because some other distasteful entity also uses that definition.
I personally think the word “feminism” should be erased from the American vocabulary. “Feminists” haven’t done anything worthwhile for women since the ‘90s. Where are these “feminists” when it comes to men competing in women’s sports? Winning beauty contests? Woman of the year? Safe bathrooms? Women’s prisons?
Power comes to women when they behave like women:
“Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” Maria Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 2002.
Stop begging the question. You know perfectly well that the reason feminists aren't doing anything about "men competing in women's sports" is that they disagree with you about whether the people in question are men. By framing it as "men competing" you are treating the main point of contention as if it was settled. It isn't.
British feminists have done much better on this issue than American ones. I think it helps that we don't really have a Christian right, so we don't get feminists worrying that they might incidentally be on the same side as them on some issues.
One thing I learned the hard way that today in these topics logic and rational thinking carry no water. Feelings trump logic. This makes these discussions so painful because even if you're opponent is logically fully cornered and checkmate, she will indignantly leave the table convinced that I proved her right. Robin DiAngelo's Kafka trap is a shining example.
Somehow in the past decades we lost our color blindness, Hippocrates' foremost do not harm, as well as our shame of being illogical. And I think it is killing our institutions.
So yes, I think your definition that feminism thinks men are treated more fairly than women is good and defensible, it even gently goes out of its way to not offend. But, you know, feelings. It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!
"It is just unfair to take away their motte, leaving their myriad of bailey's without a safe space!"
Is a wonderful phrase.
In general every forced government redistribution racket has two phases.
1) Establish some unfairness that needs to be rectified
2) Enforce rectification
Many generous and good hearted people are often talked into #1, then are surprised when #2 seems to violate important rights, be ineffective at its objective, or some other failing. They then spend a lot of time arguing over #2 as if they have some shot once they have given up #1.
The point is to fight #1 from the start. Don't be understanding and generous. Don't give an inch. That they are not yet talking about what #2s they want to implement is not important, there will be #2s once you give up #1.
One of my main insights in the past decades is that empathy does not scale. Feminists often talk about toxic masculinity but they fail to see that empathy at scale becomes toxic as well.
We've taught boys very well to handle their potentially dangerous strengths. However, we never teach girls that their abundant empathy also becomes toxic when it is not bounded to a small private context. Empathy is a spotlight and spotlights work by obscuring anything outside its cone of light. A person in thrall of empathy is impossible to reason with because the need of the victim is all encompassing and not open for compromise or trade offs. You can't reason with a mama bear when it concerns her child and that is great. However, when she applies that empathy to societal problems, well, then we are where we are today.
The historical solution was that women didn't have the power to turn their empathy into force. This lack of power meant that they could be empathetic without it becoming toxic at the societal scale. Under that context most people considered it a virtue, but that context has passed. With great power comes great responsibility.
This seems entirely besides the point. You claim the goal of your book is to persuade people like your daughter. Ok, maybe you think your definition more accurately reflects usage or whatever. How does that help you convince anyone?
Words are complicated. The issue with the word feminism is that its connected with the movement that challenged some pretty awful laws/norms in the past. That makes people particularly adverse to saying they disapprove of it since it feels/sounds too much like saying they disapprove of the changes that have happened that have resulted in greater gender equality.
Ultimately, I agree with many of your factual claims but you couch them in a way that virtually guarantees you don't persuade anyone. Sure, maybe those people are being irrational but if your goal is to persuade them why not phrase things differently so you have a better chance os success?
I agree that the goal should be persuading, but how do you persuade feminists if you have to accept their self-serving definition of feminism that you yourself do not disagree with?
I mean they might be 'wrong' about the definition of feminism in the sense that they use the word in a way other people don't but definitions alone don't justify any conclusions or prevent communication.
In this case just take their definition at face value (at least hypothetically) and say -- ok if feminism means believing in the equality of the sexes then feminism then what feminism requires now is more concern about the welfare of boys/men, less affirmative action or whatever. If you convince them of your substantive goals who cares what they call it. If they want to call that feminism because of positive connotations with the word so what? You've still convinced them of the appropriate policies, votes and they may not say feminism is wrong but they will say: "those other 'feminists' aren't being real feminists because they aren't really supporting equality of the sexes" and that is probably going to meet more success at convincing their compatriots.
If you don't like that then just use new terminology you've defined yourself. No reason to push against an attachment to what a word means.
--
I mean think of it in mathematics for a minute. If someone has the definition of even and odd numbers switched and stubbornly refuses to change that doesn't prevent you from convincing them of any mathematical fact. You can just take every instance of 'even' and 'odd' in a theorem or proof and replace it with 'divisible by 2' and 'not divisible by 2' or define new terminology (or just say ok if that's how you define even and odd then X follows and just swap the definitions in the proof/statement). You can get them to the same substantive conclusions whatever they call things.
The problem with your terminology is that it sends the message to many people that rather than being someone who supports the gains that in legal and social equality women have made since the 1950s (eg being able to become scientists, doctors etc) but feels the pendulum has swung too far that you're instead someone who wants to roll back the clock and pressure women into being passive and subservient.
Let's stipulate that's irrational and wrong. It's still a bad way to persuade people. It's like running for office using the reverse swastika as a symbol and insisting you just mean to invoke the Hindu symbol for prosperity and good luck. Ok, fine maybe that's how people should understand that symbol but it's not a great way to persuade people to your side.
79% of Republican Men belief women have equal job opportunities.
So 100-79 = 21% of men don't.
40% of republican men favor affirmative action for women.
So about half of the republican men who support affirmative action for women belief such affirmative action would give women who already have equal opportunities and unfair advantage.
I'd be shocked if I thought polling meant a damn thing. Instead it's all just wording and feels that is often quite incoherent.
Explain what affirmative action really means to people (quotas, unfair treatment) and the support plunges in every poll (unless you specifically say that the race or gender of the person being asked will benefit from the policy, in which case it doesn't).
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.
There's a basic difference between extending Enlightenment rational individualism to women and the nihilist-feminist hatred of men."Gender Tribalism" by Peter Schwartz in Ayn Rand's, _Return Of The Primitive_, is close to my view.
I thought the reasoning behind the current definition was to be action biased? Your definition is more so describing the current, instead of actions that need to be taken in the movement.
Kind of hard to reconcile 95% of the population believing that 'men and women should be social, political and economic equals', with 72% of women and 61% of men being in favor of 'affirmative action programs for women.' Affirmative action programs for women (which is to say legalized discrimination against men, based strictly on their gender) are surely one of the leading causes of men and women being not treated equally economically.
Caplan addressed this part of it well in his post on the Titanic -- 'women and children first' occupies a different stratum of the mind than "men and women are political and economic equals" does. If we put them together they are absurd, like "equal rights, equal lefts" showcases.
This was not true in most ships. Men had higher survival rates in maritimal disasters: https://qz.com/321827/women-and-children-first-is-a-maritime-disaster-myth-its-really-every-man-for-himself
"Akshully this well known saying that demonstrates well-validated principles of how human societies rightfully recognize that eggs are scarce and sperm is free isn't literally true therefore your point is invalid, checkmate atheists."
No thanks, bud.
Throughout history, women have been treated as the disposable sex. This can be seen especially through the high rates of female infanticide.
Yes, they kept the boys alive to be soldiers.
"Girls are murdered, boys most affected."
Take a look at a sex-ratio map. None of the countries where female infanticide is practiced produces men who let women become feminists. No red herrings please. The point was about the kind of society Caplan was talking about re: the Titanic, not the kind of society that is still practicing infanticide of any kind.
(I put my own definition of feminism at the end)
I'm a feminist and I don't agree with your definition, because I don't agree with the claim "society generally treats men more fairly than women". For 2 reasons:
1. I think that certain pockets treat men worse and certain pockets treat women worse. I think it's hard to divide society "generally" here. And when you consider public society vs private society, it gets even harder. I'll remind that it's feminists who first brought up gender roles harming men. Many feminists have sons and husbands they love after all. I think serious feminists should specialize into the gendered-topic where they think they can do the most good. For example, in college I was engaged in a lot of consent and anti-rape dialogue. That was 13 years ago so it was still really neglected back then—people would really argue about it and victim-blame, and you could actually disprove them and change their minds on what type of treatment is possible and ethical in the bedroom and courting. But if I had to pick a topic today to harp on about, it would probably be how messed up dating life and dating culture is (for both genders).
2. Even if I wanted to take the one-sided slant you are, your use of the term "fair" is strange here. I think the word you are looking for is "favorably".
That said, I'm a weird feminist that has stubbornly decided to still call myself one despite some embarrassment around it. For a while I thought, "People misunderstand and misconstrue feminist goals and ways of thinking, and it'll be embarrassing if people do that to me". But then I decided to focus more on how people would be wrong to do that rather than make decisions based on embarrassment. Thing is, that in recent years, I see people pre-dismiss the true and useful points made by self-described feminists because calling oneself a feminist makes one pattern-match a big, bad SJW who doesn't listen and so can't have the full story. So I'd like to remind people that feminists have good points, by naming myself a feminist and being rational anyway, I guess. I have no idea how much of what a feminist says is actually worth listening to (both novel to the listener and correct). It could be anywhere from 0-100%, depending on the feminist, the topic at hand, and the listener. But I think usually there is something there the listener could apply to their own life if they listen. I'm not so worried about people in this blogosphere dismissing the good points of feminists. I think that people here will usually avoid the ad hominem tactic of dismissing [anyone who'd call themselves a feminist] and try to take in good faith what each feminist says to you. But many people don't. You can see their noses wrinkle when the word feminism is brought up, and I just don't think that is fair or likely to lead to good things..? My passive and easy way to help with this problem is to keep calling myself a feminist and change people's minds about feminists where I can.
Another thing to keep in mind is that modern feminism leaks into a lot more topics than you'd think. So I think its usefulness is not done! Feminism as social justice movement has created a lot of spaces where people reflect on gender as it relates to their actual happiness and such (what policy should care about, one day). And just the other day (at a conference of educated people!) I was reminded there is more to do to get feminists ideas out there: A man I was speaking to said he is against polyamory because he thought cheating works better on a society-wide scale.. Agreements to and consenting expectations of the women in your life be damned, I guess? He also said he was against gay marriage because "children need a mother". He thought that gays and lesbians should marry eachother so they can perform traditional gender roles for kids. So, in like 2 minutes that was a lot of topics (monogamy, forced marriage, partner transparency, erasure of gay people, parenting roles, passing the bucks of happiness and freedom onto the next generation) that feminist dialogue can help inform compassionate and useful views on.
So I think feminism's usefulness isn't done. Feminism is theory, but it's also the collected reflections on the all-important feelings and life outcomes of women and men when faced with certain gender roles, laws, experiences, etc. It's provides a toolkit and some answers that I think we should keep at hand while we design modern society. I can definitely see personal freedoms backsliding some before they get better (as with abortion rights), if we don't have people actively on the lookout for gender-based mistreatment. Those people on the lookout tend to be feminists. This is not surprising since we know that giving people a label makes them more attached and invested in ideas.
FWIW, I think the men's rights movement has done some of this right. But they've also done much of it horribly, with much less inquisitiveness, broad of a focus, and dialogue that takes everyone's needs into account and prioritizes freedom over gender roles than the feminist movement. I think there are way more anti-collabrative, self-interested, spiteful, and sexist bad apples among MRAs than feminists. And from what I can make out reading the subtext, I think the men's rights movement's societal endgoal looks a lot less collaborative, fulfilling, emotionally healthy, and happy then the feminist movement's societal endgoal. More a dystopia than a utopia.
Anyway, diversity within the feminist movement isn't so unusual. Feminists have been going by different credos for a long time (third wave called themselves feminists despite not agreeing with 2nd wave feminists, etc).
But it makes it hard to come up with a coherent definition. If I had to try to define it:
Feminist: Someone who believes that men and women should be treated equitably, and that there is still more noteworthy work to be done on this front. They believe that societal changes necessary to increase future happiness and prosperity regardless of gender are unlikely to happen without further targeted action. This action usually includes but isn't limited to: mass reflection and dialogue around shared gendered experiences, large-scale collaboration and study into what gender equity means and how to ensure it, and society-wide interventions (including across cultures). Feminists believe this work is morally imperative. Feminists also believe that ideally changes should be designed and checked with help from people who specifically care about ensuring gender equity as opposed to some other self-interested goal (eg, we can't trust free markets to solve it properly alone). While feminists may disagree on what actions to focus on, they do agree that it is unlikely that systems of gender oppression (of all kinds: micro or macro, anti-men or anti-women, intentional or unintentional) will be noticed, dismantled, and replaced with better systems and culture without the involvement of gender-educated, sociologically-informed advocates. Feminists try to be these advocates as part of their civic duty. This inherent civic duty varies hugely but is always present: Some are hugely-dedicated primary changemakers. But many other feminists aim to be useful mainly privately and when needed in their daily lives, such as by being active listeners on gender issues, to look out for the people in their lives being mistreated based on gender and to say something when they see something, to dismantle sexist tendencies within themselves, and to support efforts to create more equitable systems when suggestions come up in their own sphere (such as workplace or home)."
In other words, yes, most people think that women and men should be treated equally/equitably. But people who call themselves feminists think there is still a reason/need to call oneself a feminist specifically and see themselves as part of a broader movement of people working together (even pretty passively) to ensure positive change around gendered experiences. Feminism is maligned enough now that no one calls themselves one otherwise tbh 😅
I believe my definition also captures feminists' low trust in systems (society, govt, corporations, etc). Feminists don't expect people in charge of systems to notice problems, self-correct, and maintain corrections, and it is this framework which necessitates citizen action (even if it's mild like calling out your buddy on his sexist joke, but it can go so far as micromanaging social change in sometimes misguided ways). Feminists are basically people trying things for themselves. I think it's okay to note that feminism does have more of a focus on women than men. On one hand, this might make sense for now given how socially entrenched the mistreatment of women has been. Backsliding is a real risk and keeping the pressure on and trying to make sure you catch all the injustices toward women which might correlate with all the really bad things we have mostly handled, might make sense for a little longer. Additionally, if you want to do your best work, it often makes sense to focus on things you understand best, and women do understand women's issues better than they understand men's. On the other hand, I wish men would talk more about men's rights under feminism. I used to see that more. I'm afraid the MRA movement swept many men up which is too bad, and some extremist feminists probably accelerated men's aversion to feminism despite the desires of other feminists.
First, I am not sure there is a “best” definition of feminist. The important thing is to define the term as *you* are using it.
Second, for the Washington Post survey, you reference, did they define what they meant by feminist? Otherwise, the responses are useless, since individuals would be answering a different question, depending on the definition of feminist they had in their head.
Third did you consider that many of the individuals who claim to not be feminist, but said that men and women *should* be treated equal, were “lying” or “virtue signaling”?
I disagree with feminists on most object-level policy questions, but I think they're right that society treats men "more fairly" than women. But I think they get the pros and cons of the treatment of each gender quite wrong. Society gives men a sort of harsh-but-fair treatment where they're left on their own, don't get unconditional help from others, are expected to take risks and live with the consequences (e.g. they can start a risky business venture where they'll maybe get rich or probably go bankrupt, and in either outcome people will think they deserved what they got). Women get an unfair treatment where people discriminate against them, but also receive benevolent sexism. I think if you do a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of being male or female, it's actually better on net to be female, which I think feminists would vehemently deny. Part of the issue is that men have far more variance in life outcomes, where they're more likely to be homeless, die, or get rich, and everyone ignores poor/dead people, compares stereotypical female jobs (e.g. nurse, teacher) to higher-paid "male" jobs (e.g. CEO, computer programmer) while ignoring bad or dangerous but common male jobs (e.g. construction, deliveries, manufacturing) and then concluding that men have it better so we should help women with affirmative action.
There's no reason to make things more complicated than they are. If you ask normal people "Do you support freedom?" and 90% say "Yes", that doesn't mean 90% are libertarians. People DISAGREE what "being for freedom" means.
Feminism has a very simple definition that every single feminist all over the world will agree on: (1) Fighting for establishing and/or defending women's rights and (2) Fighting against sexist attitudes against women in society. That's it, no more needed. But then Bryan foolishly seems to argue that everyone agrees what rights women should have and what constitutes sexism against women. This is obviously not true, misogynists don't think that they're misogynists - and here's where the DISAGREEMENTS come up.
Bryans absurd definition of feminism clearly shows where the disagreements are. He seems to disagree with feminists about what things are sexist (two examples: Feminists surely think calling women "hypersensitive" and believing women were freer in the 19th century than today is sexist, but Bryan does both things), and he then uses massive whataboutism to show how men are being treated sexist, and thanks to this (minimizing sexism against women, emphasize sexism against men), men win the oppression olympics, which according to his weird definition of feminism means "feminism is wrong."
The view that men are treated worse than women is absurd, but it's also not a logical argument against feminism (the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women). Feminism is not about who is treated worse. It's about the fight for women's rights and against sexism against women (including Bryans sexism about the hypersensitive women), no matter who is treated worse overall.
Perhaps your definition of feminism is not appealing to feminists BECAUSE it's stated so neutrally. I would guess that more feminists would agree to your definition if it evoked a little more emotion.
What about "Feminism is the view that women are generally treated poorly by our society".
"Feminism is the view that our society generally treats men more fairly than women"
Just curious: why phrase it this way and not "Feminism is the view that our society generally treats women less fairly than men"? Are they equivalent? To me, "more fair" sounds something like "some animals are more equal than others" (from Animal Farm); was that meant to be the implication?