Thread:Madkatmaximus/@comment-25625534-20150602104025/@comment-4845243-20150603190917

Haha. Yeah, LSB knows that I can't ignore a good discussion on topics like this. :P

Also, thanks LSB, Melt, and Luke for the kind words.

Let's get down to business, then.

Your experience growing up with conservatism is very similar to my own. My parents never imposed it on me, either. I didn't have a bad experience with conservatism that has rendered me hostile to its ideas, or anything like that. Just, I've had a different experience than you. I have not found paying attention to what happens in the real world to be conducive towards conservatism myself. But, I still have extremely close friends and family members who are very conservative, and I find the ideas intriguing.

I'm also not trying to convey the idea that social conservatives necessarily do not know feminists. It's more homeschoolers that are severely isolated from other viewpoints (as a generalization — it's not always the case), except as they are presented by "worldview" curriculum through an extremely conservative Christian lens. Being good friends with multiple feminists and having heard countless speeches on feminism, I'm less inclined to buy the conservative claims about "the feminist movement." Although you have your sister, I sincerely doubt you've had the level of exposure to various feminists and feminist viewpoints first hand that I have, based on what you are telling me.

And I wasn't trying to imply that you think all feminists are nasty, or anything of the sort, just to clarify.

Alright...so. The biggest issue here seems to be semantic, which is unfortunate as philosophical inquiries are much more intellectually stimulating than semantic quibbles.

You say:


 * The belief that "all people should be equal" with regard to "social, economic, and political rights [...] regardless of their gender" is egalitarianism, not feminism.

A semantic issue, yes. But you don't really seem to be aware of the scholarly literature and how it uses these terms. "Egalitarianism" is primarily (not always) a label for those who believe men and women should be equal partners in the context of marriage/gender roles (contrasted with complementarianism, patriarchy, and hypothetically but nonexistent in the Christian context, matriarchy). I've never actually seen it used outside that context in an academic setting.

So, regardless of whether or not you like the term "egalitarianism" better, feminism makes more sense to me and many others. Is it really a subset of egalitarianism (in its broadest sense)? Sure. But I fail to see how that changes anything whatsoever.

Again, this is about semantics, which while fascinating, are relatively superficial. I think you and I are in agreement on the core philosophical issue — that all persons are of equal value regardless of their gender. Our beliefs on the implications of this and its effect on human rights and whatnot are probably different, I'll grant, and are worth discussing. But the disagreement over "feminism" appears to be semantic, and not metaphysical (about the ultimate reality of the issue).

Okay, now about feminists having priority when it comes to defining feminism. The logic is simple here. If I call myself a feminist, as I have, I mean something. If I'm rational and articulate, I will have a definition that I am using, which I do. Now, if someone who is not a feminist comes along with their own definition and assumes that I am a feminist by their definition, we have a problem. They are making false assumptions, something which hinders communication.

Thus, instead of arguing about the best definition, we should accept the definition offered by the majority of feminists, because we are all interested in discussing what people actually believe, and not what we think they believe based on our own definitions. If a group of people want to take on a label, the rational thing to do is ask them what they mean by that label. Words are flexible, and their meaning is determined by consensus. When it comes to labels, their meaning should be determined by those who use them.

Incidentally, the communication barrier created by insisting on different definitions of labels than those who use them is quite the problem amongst conservatives, especially in the area of LGBTQIA labels...but that's a whole different can of worms.

Let's address your statement about "movements." There is some merit to your claims here. Feminism as a movement has often varied from what actual feminists believe, especially now. That is why there are different "waves" of feminism, etc. One significant part of the contemporary feminist movement, however, believes what I believe and generally share my ideas on solutions to, say, rape culture. But not everyone who claims the label believes everything the various feminist movements have believed.

Let's move on from semantics and the history of feminism to something much more interesting...the nature of equality.

You say:


 * however, "equality" is an extremely fickle word. Is that equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? What is considered a "right," and at what point does it become "equal"? So again, "equal rights" cannot be considered a measuring stick for agreement with the "feminist movement."

Some great questions. I consider equality to be, first and foremost, equality of value. Men, women, and non-binary people are all of equal value. In fact, I believe all people are infinitely valuable as demonstrated by Christ on the cross, when He made the ultimate sacrifice for all human beings. For me, feminism is a natural extension of my cruciform anthropology — everyone, regardless of gender, is so valuable that Jesus, God, was willing to die for us on the cross. That is the most basic form of equality whereof I speak.

But how does that play out politically?

Let me be clear that I do not advocate or demand equality of outcome. I do not advocate for affirmative action. Equality of value translates into the political sphere by making the laws gender-blind. Of course, I advocate for simple laws and simple government intervention. The government, I believe, should only intervene to prevent harm or protect "life, liberty, and property." I personally think that the key to undermining patriarchy is not government. Patriarchy existed before government, and doesn't need the government to continue. The key to solving the problems faced by women is voluntary cooperation and education, in my opinion. The government has proven itself ineffectual in solving problems, and I think it's time that we look elsewhere for solutions.

Also, I have some very interesting ideas about "rights," and what they are, ideas I have articulated mainly in research and writing I have done in the area of animal rights. But this is too much of a digression to get into now.


 * because for all of the feminist activists and organizations that I've seen, legitimate human rights abuses around the world seem to be very low on their priority list.

That's unfortunate. There are some, however, as you admit, that do try and do real good in other countries. But this problem with priorities doesn't really entail we should reject feminism, it just means that we should be better feminists (by which I simply mean we should focus on helping those women who need it the most).

Now for the wage gap. I thought I was clear that I didn't want to debate economics, lol. I actually just asked you if you knew anything about the computer science industry, and you totally ignored my question and went on a rant about the economics that debunk the wage gap, not of which is germane to my question. So do you care to answer my original question?

I think you misunderstood my whole point about microaggression. I said it was an analysis of embedded misogynistic ideas in language. I never said it was about misogynistic ideas embedded in people. As such, most of what you say is not relevant to what I said...

Also, the trigger warning thing has nothing to do with microaggression. It's to make sure that people don't suddenly and unexpectedly read something that reminds them of past trauma and causes emotional/psychological harm. At the very least, show some sensitivity for survivors of assault, please. Don't lump trigger warnings in with microaggression and hypersensitivity. :/

Again, I think you may have misunderstood what I am saying. I never said that our entire culture is necessarily permeated with rape culture, and thus everyone blames the survivors instead of their abusers. I said that rape culture is pervasive, meaning it exists in many places and many forms, but not that our entire culture is a rape culture.

Rape culture as I described it definitely exists. It is ironic that you talk about your own personal anecdotes after showing so much disdain for mine. Since you offer no evidence of your own, I will just state that denial of rape culture has been thoroughly debunked. Many instances of victim-blaming exist, which can be found in the media, in the purity and modesty movement within conservative Christianity, in the policies of many schools which try to restrict clothing choices instead of teaching self-control, and in the total bewilderment of many rapists when they are convicted, as they sometimes (usually with young people) themselves think it was the girl's fault and not their own. I'm not claiming that rape culture is universal, but it does exist, and it is a problem.

You are now claiming that sexual assault is increasing because of society's changing views on promiscuity, pornography, moral relativism, etc., am I correct? That's interesting. But you have failed to provide any evidence of even correlation, let alone causation. I agree that all of those things are harmful, and may contribute to the number of sexual assaults. But sexual abuse also occurs very frequently within deeply "religious" circles. Marital rape is often justified by those who claim to believe in monogamy and moral absolutes. But moral absolutism can be even more dangerous than moral relativism when you have warped ideas like women are property. Women were treated as property for hundreds of years, without any help from moral relativism, and sexual assault has been historically very frequent. It is historically very simplistic and specious to claim that these ideas are responsible for the pervasiveness of sexual assault in our culture.

So yes, I agree that these things are problematic, but I am unwilling to blame them for problems that have existed long before the sexual liberation movements. The amount of sexual and physical abuse justified by "moral absolutes" and "Christianity" is horrific and cannot be easily forgotten, especially as it continues to this day within certain fringe groups.

You say that the religious right and the feminist left should be aligned on this issue. Yes, they should. But they aren't, and it's not just the feminists' fault. The religious right is a bastion of misogyny, one of the few groups that perpetuates rigid gender roles, patriarchy, and ignorance/detest towards LGBT* people, for a few examples. Does this mean that all Christian social conservatives are misogynists? Goodness no. But it is one of the only ideological movements in which misogyny is allowed to exist. It is only within the religious right that marital rape can be provided any sort of intellectual defense whatsoever. It is only within the religious right that calling LGBT* people "abominations" can be excused.

You say:


 *  Forget teaching boys to treat girls with the utmost respect from a young age; instead, educate them about sexuality as early as deemed necessary, and teach them to "not rape" girls.

How is your idea (respect) contrary to teaching about sexuality and teaching not to rape? Teaching not to rape is extremely important, don't you think?


 * Kids need to be taught 1) what it is, 2) what it's for, 3) be smart/self-defense, 4) you needn't be afraid to report, and 5) abstinence is the only guarantee, and it should be primarily incumbent upon the responsible parents, not the state

I agree. I would add that they need a very clear layout of what consent is, what parts should be touched and what shouldn't (to prevent abuse), not only you needn't be afraid to report but that you should report, and they should be taught, IMO, about birth control (not because I think promiscuity is okay, but because it is important knowledge and there are legitimate reasons to use birth control, although if you are Catholic you may disagree on this)...and I think that covers it. But I'm probably forgetting something. :P

About the bottom line, I think I've already demonstrated that there are many feminists, such as myself, who do not support all the solutions you generalize to feminists. I don't reject the idea of a sinful nature, although I definitely have a more Eastern Orthodox understanding of it than you do, I'm sure.

I don't think I have time to get into Pauline theology of gender roles, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it seem.

About gender stereotypes. I agree that there's nothing wrong in people expecting certain things as long as they don't criticize departures from it. However, people do criticize departures from it. This is becoming less of a problem in most social groups, I'll grant you. But in certain circles, especially conservative Christian ones, the criticism does escalate to the level of harmfulness. There are many who really do think we should present in certain ways, and don't merely expect it.

In response to your last paragraph, I agree that feminists shouldn't focus on blaming. Although men and the patriarchal societies we have created are largely responsible for many of the problems faced by women, our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the systems and more importantly, the ideas that create the system. And I think we would agree that these harmful ideas are a result of the human predicament, which includes sin and death.