On Myopia
El Borak has this to say about my last posting, in which I reject the dictionary for a broader view of the term "feminism:"
Insisting that one need know what subspecies of feminist is being 'invoked' is like demanding that before you can do anything about the ants in your kitchen, you must determine which of the 12,000 species you are having trouble with. The truth is that it doesn't matter which: once you note that what is crawling across your counter is an ant, it's not necessary to wiki before you reach for the Raid.El Borak's right in that I wouldn't look up the type of ant before reaching for the Raid. But luckily, feminists aren't ants.
I find it necessary to alert El Borak, before he stamps out all feminisms equally, that he may want to take a closer look at Difference Feminism. The dictionary might say something different, but Difference Feminism, per Wikipedia,
is a branch of feminism that stresses that men and women are essentially very different beings, instead of past feminisms of equality that stress a fundamental sameness between men and women in some way.Difference Feminisms include New Feminism, a branch that holds dear John Paul II's The Theology of the Body, and whose followers celebrate motherhood and are primarily pro-life. Of course, these gals also believe that women should be considered equal to men--different but equal, but still equal. Since I know from his previous post on the matter that El Borak finds that equality deal troublesome, I might ask him to look at cultural feminism,
the theory that there are fundamental personality differences between men and women, and that women's differences are special and should be celebrated. This theory of feminism supports the notion that there are biological differences between men and women.Again, though, I can imagine El Borak might protest, not only because I'm still using Wikipedia, but because these gals celebrate that certain special something about women without so much as even baking a little cake for men (at least so far as I can tell from Wikipedia) .
But maybe El Borak is tired of Wikipedia. So how about this blurb on Moderate Feminism from Feminist Utopia:
This branch of feminism tends to be populated mostly by younger women or women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They tend to question the need for further effort, and think that feminism is no longer viable.They think that feminism is no longer viable? But they're called feminists? And wait--there are feminists like the New Feminists that follow religious teachings? And still others who agree that men and women are different? Well, now, these seem like women that El Borak might be able to start talking to--they share a few (thought not all) beliefs with El Borak, which is always a good place to start a conversation. I might also point out to El Borak that an important difference between ants and feminists is that he wouldn't reason with an ant before exterminating the ant. No matter now many times you tell an ant that it does not belong in your kitchen, the ant is still going to come back. Feminists, though, are a sub-group of women, part of the larger species known as human beings. Human beings have the power of reason, and so I have a hunch that E Borak could, were he to view feminism as a continuum and not some hard and fast rule, sit down and reason with some feminists. I've even got a hunch that he could change a few of their minds, if he fancied a discussion.
But if that argument isn't enough to convince El Borak that I should just submit myself to the dictionary, let's head over to this Fox News article about Christian Feminism:
"Feminism" is more than just a word, and we need more than just a dictionary definition to understand its compexity.Feminism can be defined as the belief that women should be liberated as individuals and equal to men. It is only natural for there to be disagreement over what a personal ideal like "liberation" means and how a basic concept like "equality" should be defined. Indeed, it would be amazing if every woman who cared about liberation and equality came to exactly the same conclusions.
For example, what does equality mean? Does it refer to "equality under just law" -- under laws that protect person and property? Is it "socio-economic equality" that requires legal privileges for the disadvantaged and government control of the marketplace? Perhaps it is the cultural equality in which attitudes and social expression need to be controlled and "politically corrected?"
Disagreement on complex political terms and social issues is not only inevitable, it is healthy because it fuels open, honest discussion.
posted by k @ 7:17 AM
10 Comments:
K writes: "I might also point out to El Borak that an important difference between ants and feminists is that he wouldn't reason with an ant before exterminating the ant. No matter now many times you tell an ant that it does not belong in your kitchen, the ant is still going to come back."
And no matter how many times I tell a feminist she DOES belong in my kitchen...
I'm kidding, okay? Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself...
You make a good point: "Feminism is more than just a word, and we need more than just a dictionary definition to understand its compexity." This is absolutely true, but one does not need to understand or reference its complexity to talk about it in general terms any more than one needs to understand who celebrates Michaelmas to speak generally about Christianity.
But your Fox article makes my point perfectly: "Feminism can be defined as the belief that women should be liberated as individuals and equal to men. It is only natural for there to be disagreement over what a personal ideal like "liberation" means and how a basic concept like "equality" should be defined. Indeed, it would be amazing if every woman who cared about liberation and equality came to exactly the same conclusions."
What's that? It's a pithy one-line definition of feminism - showing it can be done - followed by an admission that going deeper than that will get you no further.
If the feminists themselves cannot agree what 'liberation' or 'equality' means - while accusing Ole' El B of thought crimes for not agreeing with something they cannot define -, if they are broken into myriads of competing subspecies arguing over those definitions and means for accomplishing the general goal, then talking about the general goal in general terms and summing it up with the general title is a reasonable way to get to the argument, rather than arguing endlessly about definitions, which was the origin of my refusal to define feminism any more than my dictionary does in the first place.
Nice blog, BTW.
Borak,
I appreciate your reasonable response here, but speaking only for myself, my original objection to your logic was not that everyone has to define feminism to talk about it, but rather than Vox's original claim that feminism destroys cultural values and therefore is responsible for sex slavery, -does- depend upon a common understanding of what feminism is.
Since the definition you referenced above does not seem to be a relativist definition at all (in that in posits an absolute) it can hardly be the femism that Vox referenced, so obviously he at least is not buying your definition.
Though I would be happy to agree to it as a working definition if you care to discuss the issue further.
The problem I see here is evident if we transfer some of El Borak's logic and language into a different discourse (which I produce here in a persona that is not mine):
If the Christians themselves can't decide what the truth is about redemption, faith, and soteriology, then it falls to us secular humanists to define them as a general group in order to talk about what's wrong with them.
You see the difficulties with this approach, I hope.
El Borak-
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. While I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the Fox News quote, I do agree very much that working definitions are crucial in moving an argument forward. In the case of what we've seen going on between Vox & EB, I do think that (as you suggest) a sub-argument about the species and genus of feminism would deter them from the larger subject they wish to discuss. And so, as you suggest, setting a working definition--whether it be from the dictionary or from Wikipedia--would help to move their discussion forward.
"If the Christians themselves can't decide what the truth is about redemption, faith, and soteriology, then it falls to us secular humanists to define them as a general group in order to talk about what's wrong with them.
You see the difficulties with this approach, I hope."
No, no, no, that is precisely the truth. Christians cannot decide exactly how redemption works, or what is involved in faith, which accounts for the literally dozens of schools of theology (sound familiar?). What is faith to a Catholic? Is it the same as for a Baptist? Yes and no, the general definition, "confident belief," is probably shared. Yet if we try to define it too specifically, we are liable to exclude many of the faithful.
The same is true with such words as "church," which to the Catholic means all the members of the true faith, yet to a Baptist means the collection of individuals who have saving faith. The same is true of the diety of Christ. Trinitarians will deny that JWs are Christians because they do not hold to it, yet JWs are lumped so in general discourse.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06176/701009-85.stm
In other words, Christians cannot even unanimously decide what a Christian is.
Therefore when one is speaking of these things, one is left with two choices: define it specifically and either exclude much of your intended subject or involve them in internicene argumentation, or define it generally, which has the downside of inexactitude even while it succeeds in including practically everyone.
Therefore it does fall to the speaker, humanist or not, to choose which approach to definitions one is going to take, and that will rely on how general one's argument is designed to be. If you're going to talk about why Christians are wrong, in general, then when someone asks you to define Christians you would probably be wise to avoid any definition so precise as to allow someone to come back and say, "but that's not what *these* Christians believe," because there probably is a denomination that disagrees.
Keep it general and you can argue about Christians in general. Make it too specific and the Baptists will hound you for accusing them of being Catholic.
Because a Judeo-Christian worldview can prevent sex slavery no more than feminism can cause it. These concepts are, as discussed above, nothing more than convenient labels meant to spare us endless footnotes. The danger comes only when the label is taken for an absolute. The danger only comes when the label itself erases the meanings behind it. To limit the meaning of a term is the worst kind of censorship because it inhibits the exchange of ideas. In 1984 Orwell describes what happens when the meanings of words are limited--meaning too becomes stiffled, and with the stiffling of meaning is the stiffing of freedom. But 1984 ends happily--with an appendix about the history of Newspeak, the existence of such appendix written in something other than Newspeak implying that Newspeak is itself history.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home