Centrism

[Goldentony]

But are there any people who are fiscally left wing but socially traditional?

nonces
lib dems
astronauts

[chveik]

Some women don't believe that though and they can still be feminists.

no. 'i'm fighting for the liberation of women except those i don't like' is not feminism

i don't accept this relativist talk. there are some objective truths in this world.

[Kermit the Frog]

I'm not trying to exclude anyone. I'm trying to explain that your opinion in a single issue does not define your opinions on any other issue. Some feminists vote Tory, some vote Green. It doesn't affect their feminist beliefs.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that you're 'just simply trying to explain x'. I think you're being coy

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women.

No. Feminism doesn't just mean "wants good things for women" - its not just Platonic Good wearing a pink bow. It's a specific thing, specific people doing specific actions and writing specific texts about specific ideas. Those specific ideas will forbid you from being a tory or a libertarian if you hold them unless your beliefs are under nuclear-strength bad faith.

Feminism has historically been overwhelmingly concerned with women's legal status. Suffrage, right to education, right to work, free speech, legal rights as victims, rights of free movement, rights outside of marriage, reproductive rights, right to religious practice etc. I forget who said it but.. paraphrasing something I half remember.. its this relatively tight focus on legal status that makes feminism different from other emancipatory struggles like labour movements, anticolonial, antiracist, etc. even more so than it being about women are such. It's probably true that feminism is concerned with improving the legal status of certain demographics of women than it ever has with raising quality of life and emanicipation in general. Sometimes codifying legal status for one set of women will infringe on another's.

As such its fault lines today all relate to legal status in one way or another. My right to an education comes before your right to religious practice, my legal status comes before your right to identity by declaration, etc. Which is the marxist or radical complaint against it really, you can't guarantee peoples freedom or standard of living by guaranteeing them rights and status in a political order that was set up to treat them badly in the first place.

[jamiefairlie]

No. Feminism doesn't just mean "wants good things for women" - its not just Platonic Good wearing a pink bow. It's a specific thing, specific people doing specific actions and writing specific texts about specific ideas. Those specific ideas will forbid you from being a tory or a libertarian if you hold them unless your beliefs are under nuclear-strength bad faith.

Feminism has historically been overwhelmingly concerned with women's legal status. Suffrage, right to education, right to work, free speech, legal rights as victims, rights of free movement, rights outside of marriage, reproductive rights, right to religious practice etc. I forget who said it but.. paraphrasing something I half remember.. its this relatively tight focus on legal status that makes feminism different from other emancipatory struggles like labour movements, anticolonial, antiracist, etc. even more so than it being about women are such. It's probably true that feminism is concerned with improving the legal status of certain demographics of women than it ever has with raising quality of life and emanicipation in general. Sometimes codifying legal status for one set of women will infringe on another's.

As such its fault lines today all relate to legal status in one way or another. My right to an education comes before your right to religious practice, my legal status comes before your right to identity by declaration, etc. Which is the marxist or radical complaint against it really, you can't guarantee peoples freedom or standard of living by guaranteeing them rights and status in a political order that was set up to treat them badly in the first place.

I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.

[Buelligan]

The movement (IMO) is not really about what Emmeline would've done.

Not really, feminism is/was about improving the situation of women. Whether you're a racist or a homophobe doesn't preclude you from being a feminist.

I don't agree I'm afraid.  Speaking as a feminist, the feminism I adhere to and have supported all my thinking life is the pursuit of equality. 

IMO, any behaviour which denies equality to others undermines feminism and certainly calls into question the bona fides of the person doing the denying.

[jamiefairlie]

no. 'i'm fighting for the liberation of women except those i don't like' is not feminism

i don't accept this relativist talk. there are some objective truths in this world.

Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.

[Autopsy Turvey]

transwomen are women

Some women don't believe that though and they can still be feminists.

What's more, many transwomen don't believe that, often because they are feminists. It's a funny old world!

[jamiefairlie]

The movement (IMO) is not really about what Emmeline would've done.

I don't agree I'm afraid.  Speaking as a feminist, the feminism I adhere to and have supported all my thinking life is the pursuit of equality. 

IMO, any behaviour which denies equality to others undermines feminism and certainly calls into question the bona fides of the person doing the denying.

That's a valid perspective but so are others. Who gets to claim the title for their views?

[Buelligan]

There is no title.  There can be no claim.  There is simply logic versus emotion and ignorance.

Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.

I don't think this is a useful argument, a Christian can believe fervently in the death penalty - does that mean that it's possible/acceptable/normal for a Christian to believe taking another human life is correct?  No.  No, it does not.  It means they're doing it wrong.  Quite likely because they're a dim-witted nasty arsehole (rather than a follower of Jesus the Christ).  There, I've said it.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I doubt that many of the suffragette leaders weren't Tories.

In the UK most were liberals with socialist sympathies, with a few socialists and red thrown in here and there, and some Fenians in Ireland of course.

But even if so where belief in a universal right to vote (for white citizens) over 100 years fell on the political spectrum doesn't really mean much mapped on today's political axis. Around that time a lot of feminists were in temperance movements too, especially in the USA.

I think its best if you don't see it as whether you stand for or against a legal/equality/rights issue, but whether you see that issue as existing at all. And if you're a "classical liberal" or "radical centrist" or anything like that, than you're failing acknowledge failures and conflicts of legal status can exist, so I don't see how you can say you're feminist? It's one thing to say there are pro-sex work and abolitionist feminists - that's two sides of an issue before sides agree is real. But in a lot of cases (eg activism against transgender rights and opposition to rights of immigrants) its a denial that any issue existed in the first place, a refusal to take sides because taking sides would acknowledge that a problem of rights or status is in fact real.

[Huxleys Babkins]

If you're a feminist that excludes certain "types" of women, you're not a feminist, you just subscribe to a milder form of misogyny but the progressive label makes you feel better about it.

[jamiefairlie]

There is no title.  There can be no claim.  There is simply logic versus emotion and ignorance.

I don't think this is a useful argument, a Christian can believe fervently in the death penalty - does that mean that it's possible/acceptable/normal for a Christian to believe taking another human life is correct?  No.  No, it does not.  It means they're doing it wrong.  Quite likely because they're a dim-witted nasty arsehole (rather than a follower of Jesus the Christ).  There, I've said it.

Ok, I happen to agree with you but can you not see that those are our opinions not facts? Ironically unless you believe in God, there is no absolute truths about morality, just differing views. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? It's just all opinion.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Its a bit like saying you can be a Marxist and not think accumulation is a thing, because you think people in low paying jobs should have nicer houses. Its not about desired outcomes. Just vaguely wanting nice things for all women isn't feminism.

[jamiefairlie]

In the UK most were liberals with socialist sympathies, with a few socialists and red thrown in here and there, and some Fenians in Ireland of course.

But even if so where belief in a universal right to vote (for white citizens) over 100 years fell on the political spectrum doesn't really mean much mapped on today's political axis. Around that time a lot of feminists were in temperance movements too, especially in the USA.

I think its best if you don't see it as whether you stand for or against a legal/equality/rights issue, but whether you see that issue as existing at all. And if you're a "classical liberal" or "radical centrist" or anything like that, than you're failing acknowledge failures and conflicts of legal status can exist, so I don't see how you can say you're feminist? It's one thing to say there are pro-sex work and abolitionist feminists - that's two sides of an issue, but in a lot of cases (in the case of activism against transgender rights) its a denial that any issue existed in the first place.

But that's my point, you're defining feminist in a particular way that others may disagree with. The term itself has become so plastic that it's not really helpful any more. The same applies to socialist and capitalist, they've become so stretched to accommodate so many issues that they've become pointless

[chveik]

What's more, many transwomen don't believe that, often because they are feminists. It's a funny old world!

go back in your bin

[jamiefairlie]

Its a bit like saying you can be a Marxist and not think accumulation is a thing, because you think people in low paying jobs should have nicer houses. Its not about desired outcomes. Just vaguely wanting nice things for all women isn't feminism.

And who gets to define feminism? Especially if it change over time?

[imitationleather]

And who gets to define feminism?

Glinner

[Video Game Fan 2000]

But that's my point, you're defining feminist in a particular way that others may disagree with. The term itself has become so plastic that it's not really helpful any more. The same applies to socialist and capitalist, they've become so stretched to accommodate so many issues that they've become pointless

Its only plastic if you don't define it based on the actions and writings of specific women. I don't think its good faith to say it just means "generally good things for women" because Lean Ins and Resists say it means that, when there is a dense intellectual debate and political practice behind it.

It seems ironic that agreeing with feminism this way means treating the work of women as somehow less intellectually or political valid than of men, so it just means vague good things. We wouldn't talk about male legal scholarship or activism in this way, disability activism being "it just means everyone should be treated well at work" etc. We tend to only do this with the intellectual output of women. In this case, women worked really hard to make feminism not only into a conviction but into an intellectual framework. I gotta respect that, even if I disagree with much because I'm a ridiculous commie.

[chveik]

Yes there are but not in terms of human beliefs. People can hold highly seemingly contradictory beliefs. Just because you hold one particular belief does not mean you hold another. Even the word feminism or socialism are in many ways unhelpful. It's best to focus on specific single points rather than cobbled together idealistic causes than are often construed differently by different people.

the fact that people's views can be inconsistent doesn't change the meaning of clear concepts like feminism and socialism (you can disagree on certain points but not on the abolition of private property and on the accumulation of capital). it is the definition of current centrism to want to get rid of those words, because it would highlight their hypocrisy.

[Buelligan]

Ok, I happen to agree with you but can you not see that those are our opinions not facts? Ironically unless you believe in God, there is no absolute truths about morality, just differing views. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? It's just all opinion.

Not really.  To be a Christian, you need to follow the teaching of Christ.  Christ made it quite explicit that people should never ever kill one another - there is no wiggle room.  If you want to have the death penalty or lots of other dodgy shit, you have to accept that your Christianity has to go.

It irritates me that people spend so much time what-if-ing, codifying feminism, turning it into The Girls Big Book of Rules - like a man might do, really.  Women have struggled for generations for equality but society, culture, has not remained static.  What use is some long great specific list of things we want or can do in the face of the endless changing kaleidoscope of human mores?  Bugger-all use.  We don't need to get bogged down in all these little sub-clauses.  Feminism is simple - it's the same for every generation, everywhere where sexism and patriarchy exist - we want equality.  And that means everyone gets it.

[Kermit the Frog]

And who gets to define feminism? Especially if it change over time?

Really wish you'd get to the point, which is that you are sceptical about the degree to which feminism should embrace trans rights and that this is what animates your desire to string out these banal categorisation quibbles, and stop clogging up the thread with this chin stroking relativist piffle. Be more courageous

[jamiefairlie]

Not really.  To be a Christian, you need to follow the teaching of Christ.  Christ made it quite explicit that people should never ever kill one another - there is no wiggle room.  If you want to have the death penalty or lots of other dodgy shit, you have to accept that your Christianity has to go.

It irritates me that people spend so much time what-if-ing, codifying feminism, turning it into The Girls Big Book of Rules - like a man might do, really.  Women have struggled for generations for equality but society, culture, has not remained static.  What use is some long great specific list of things we want or can do in the face of the endless changing kaleidoscope of human mores?  Bugger-all use.  We don't need to get bogged down in all these little sub-clauses.  Feminism is simple - it's the same for every generation, everywhere where sexism and patriarchy exist - we want equality.  And that means everyone gets it.

But the teaching of Jesus contradict the teaching of God in the bible, so which do they follow?

Is feminism not just egalitarianism then? Why does it need its own separate term?

[Kermit the Frog]

Real AS level Politics shit going on in here. And what even is 'a fact'? Are laws really real?

[jamiefairlie]

the fact that people's views can be inconsistent doesn't change the meaning of clear concepts like feminism and socialism (you can disagree on certain points but not on the abolition of private property and on the accumulation of capital). it is the definition of current centrism to want to get rid of those words, because it would highlight their hypocrisy.

Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Why does it need its own separate term?

Start with its concern with legal rights and status and reactions to laws regarding womens property in the mid-19th century.

Suffrage wasn't just about political eglaritarian it was ensuring one particular right in a specific way.

Compare the feminist position on these things to the anarchist one, which was the IdPol v Class Politics of its day for the chattering classes. Its never just been a vague and plastic term, its always meant specific things.

[jamiefairlie]

Start with its concern with legal rights and status and reactions to laws regarding womens property in the mid-19th century.

Suffrage wasn't just about political eglaritarian it was ensuring one particular right in a specific way.

Compare the feminist position on these things to the anarchist one.

Yes I agree, it's about legal rights for a specific group of people, not about equality in general.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I'm saying its concern with legal rights and status makes it a distinct intellectual and political tradition.

Other movements wanted to emancipate women and improve the status of women, feminism distinguished itself from them clearly.

[jamiefairlie]

I'm saying its concern with legal rights and status makes it a distinct intellectual tradition.

I agree.

[Kermit the Frog]

Right but when those terms have to include new circumstances not addressed in the original charters, what then? Who gets to decide the socialist position on this issues?

What new circumstances specifically? We're so close to something actual