Feminism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Feminism » Feminism

Feminism

FreeRadical
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 51

Posted 08/03/08 - 08:43 AM: Subject: Feminism	#1
Feminism I'll make this succinct. I am a proponent of extensive and equal rights for women. I do, however, take issue with the semantics. Why must it be called feminism? Surely the feminist agenda is encompassed by broader liberal (to specify: the correct definition of liberalism, not its current American usage) or socialist paradigms? I concede that there are needs that are specific to women, but aren't there "needs" that are specific to everyone? To my mind it corrupts a more individuated conception of rights.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 08/04/08 - 01:12 AM:	#2
Feminism as you've defined it is consistent with extensive and equal rights for everyone, including women. In fact, it follows necessarily that to propose equal rights for women is to propose equal rights for all. For, if rights were unequal for some, then they would also be unequal for women, even if they happened to be better for women. That version of feminism does not need the premiss that women have specific needs. It does not even need the premiss that no group suffers worse discrimination than women. It only needs the premiss that there are at least some areas where women experience unjust discrimination. For example, women's pay is unequal and it is on average less than men's pay for the same work. That's why people campaign for better and equal pay for women. In theory, a rights-egalitarian could campaign for worse and equal pay for men for equal work. But it would not be a very popular campaign with either men or women. I think you are saying that everyone experiences discrimination in some way. I'd say that's probably true. But you also seem to say that a campaign to eradicate particular kinds of discrimination for some (i.e. women) will undermine the aim of equal rights for all. There might be something in that, but it's not obvious to me. Rights are not a zero-sum game. You can give women equal rights without having to steal some rights from disabled or Black people to make up the difference. It's not as if we have to have a certain amount of injustice in the world and if women don't get it then someone else will have to suffer. I don't think that's your assumption, but it's not too clear what you're getting at.

FreeRadical
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 51

Posted 08/04/08 - 06:28 AM:	#3
FreeRadical wrote: Cuthbert wrote: Feminism as you've defined it is consistent with extensive and equal rights for everyone, including women. In fact, it follows necessarily that to propose equal rights for women is to propose equal rights for all. For, if rights were unequal for some, then they would also be unequal for women, even if they happened to be better for women. That version of feminism does not need the premiss that women have specific needs. It does not even need the premiss that no group suffers worse discrimination than women. It only needs the premiss that there are at least some areas where women experience unjust discrimination. For example, women's pay is unequal and it is on average less than men's pay for the same work. That's why people campaign for better and equal pay for women. In theory, a rights-egalitarian could campaign for worse and equal pay for men for equal work. But it would not be a very popular campaign with either men or women. I think you are saying that everyone experiences discrimination in some way. I'd say that's probably true. But you also seem to say that a campaign to eradicate particular kinds of discrimination for some (i.e. women) will undermine the aim of equal rights for all. There might be something in that, but it's not obvious to me. Rights are not a zero-sum game. You can give women equal rights without having to steal some rights from disabled or Black people to make up the difference. It's not as if we have to have a certain amount of injustice in the world and if women don't get it then someone else will have to suffer. I don't think that's your assumption, but it's not too clear what you're getting at. No. You miss my point. I have an issue with "feminism" as a part of a jaundiced nomenclature. I do not think that it need exist a separate theoretical movement. I think that there is a predicated discrimination, however subtle, embedded in the terminology itself. Surely the goals of feminism are encompassed by broader egalitarian paradigms or movements. I thought that it was very clear.

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 185

Posted 08/04/08 - 06:56 AM:	#4
Really? Why is it called "her"pes or "dick"tionary? Granted I agree with you I think feministic issues are very broad and should take on a more general human rights perspective but generally speaking it doesn't and is primarily concerned with promoting and establishing the rights and equality of women in society. I think your more of a human rights advocate like myself than anything else. Edited by et cetera on 08/04/08 - 07:02 AM
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 08/04/08 - 07:43 AM:	#5
No. You miss my point. I have an issue with "feminism" as a part of a jaundiced nomenclature. I do not think that it need exist a separate theoretical movement. I think that there is a predicated discrimination, however subtle, embedded in the terminology itself. Surely the goals of feminism are encompassed by broader egalitarian paradigms or movements. I thought that it was very clear. Yes, then you made yourself clear. That's why I gave an argument that there is apparently no discrimination predicated in the version of the feminism you outlined. That's because feminism as you've defined it entails exactly the kind of broader egalitarian paradigm that you support. Here's the argument I gave: - "...it follows necessarily that to propose equal rights for women is to propose equal rights for all. For, if rights were unequal for some, then they would also be unequal for women, even if they happened to be better for women." I gave a second argument, anticipating the objection that feminism focusses on rights for women at the expense of others' rights in a broader paradigm of equality. Here's that argument: - "Rights are not a zero-sum game. You can give women equal rights without having to steal some rights from disabled or Black people to make up the difference. It's not as if we have to have a certain amount of injustice in the world and if women don't get it then someone else will have to suffer." So it seems that you got your point across quite clearly. It is that feminism entails discrimination by singling out women in a special effort to equalise their rights. It therefore does not need to exist, because its goals are covered by broader rights movements. Perhaps you mistook disagreement with your point for a misunderstanding of it.

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 535

Posted 08/04/08 - 01:18 PM:	#6
The connotation of Feminine and Woman isn't subtle. The connotation that equality is only for the objectified unequals of the superior being is subtle. I referenced a class in Sociology I had to drop recently. In it, my teacher claimed she was a feminist. I thought 'Oh boy, this is going to be a cool class. Someone that gets Ethics!' Then, of course, she said that the women of the world should grab guns and kill all the men in the world- because they do outnumber men. So, in fact, she was just a dirty Sexist. When Bias has a shadow to hide behind [this case being 'equality' or whatever] then it does some pretty absurd things. It didn't help that She just divorced an Irish Hubby [I'm Irish] and Ranted on and on about how the Women's Rights were more important than Black Rights and I sat Right in front of her because I thought it was going to be a fun class. I think People's Rights are the Same thing across the board, regardless of orientation, color, or gender. This made me contrary to her novel idea that Women were superior to everyone else. It was all fun and games until I said anyhting [She referred to me as Gandhi in class; what a Joke]. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- I recently worked on a writing internship this summer. Breaking my hand on the 4th of July kinda hampered my contributions... whatever. But during it, I researched and wrote about all the campuses around town. One of the Campuses was located in the Ghetto [lack of a better term]. The population was predominately black, the area was relatively poor, and the school had- get this- an "African American Cultural Center" Maybe it isn't too clear, but African American Culture, as far as I could understand from the center, was the Civil Rights Movement Center. That's right: Civil Rights are only for Black People. Now, when I was 12 or so, I wondered why White People were marching with Black People and MLK. The answer is obvious now; it wasn't a racial clash- it was a clash of Ethics. And Ethics transcends the Objectification of Race. So long as we say 'so and so sector of society is a little down and out; maybe they should have more rights' we are fooling ourselves. As soon as we say 'hey, we all deserve the same rights' then we are moving somewhere. --------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Following that up, our website had a summary of the Center. Here it is: The African-American Cultural Center at the Eastview Campus strives to increase understanding in the ACC and Central Texas communities of the culture, history and contributions of African-Americans. The African-American Cultural Center offers many opportunities: * A comfortable academic environment as they pursue their educational goals * A respect for, knowledge of and appreciation for their heritage * Opportunities for faculty members to increase their awareness of and sensitivity to cultural dynamics * Mentoring * Retention activities I'm sorry, but everytime I hear Them/They/Those People in reference to Black People, I smell Racism. Especially when the subject at hand is American History. If America is indeed a melting pot, Why do we objectively refer to a race as if we are deterministically secularly divided by color. Are we fated to be Racist? Like I said, I smelled Racism. Of course, I couldn't convince any of the 'Successful White People' I was working with on the Internship that this was the case. Oh well. I'm done with Community College. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ I guess that means I agree with both FreeRad and Cuthbert. And Et Cetera as well.
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2152

Posted 08/04/08 - 05:57 PM:	#7
ManiacJack wrote: I'm sorry, but everytime I hear Them/They/Those People in reference to Black People, I smell Racism. Especially when the subject at hand is American History. If America is indeed a melting pot, Why do we objectively refer to a race as if we are deterministically secularly divided by color. Are we fated to be Racist? I think this is the closest anyone has come to a better answer. My view has been that all the "-isms" and "-ists" are just smokescreens for the real issue, although the real issue is plainly stated. It isn't an issue over discrimination because of some physical attributes, you can easily find counter-examples. The issue is and always was economic. It was always those with economic power and elitism oppressing and creating a poor infrastructure to support their wealth, and the poor getting fed up with it and demanding better economic opportunities. Race and gender was just used as justification -- because with out it, they wouldn't have any justification for elitism.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.