"Not a feminist, but": A guide to what feminism is and isn't

So, if anybody hasn't noticed by now we seem to be having a wave of feminism threads sweeping the fora.

A thing I keep seeing in these threads is an attitude that I will paraphrase "I'm not a feminist, but...". "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal rights for women." "I'm not a feminist, but only because I don't like Andrea Dworkin." "I'm not a feminist, but only because I'm intimidated by all the people who don't like feminism."

These all reveal pretty big misconceptions about what feminism is. To discover whether or not you are a feminist, answer this one question:

Do you believe women should have all the rights that men have?

If you answered yes, congratulations, you're a feminist! There's nothing on this test about porn, or abortion, or even Gor! And saying "I believe in equal rights for women but I'm not a feminist because I don't like Andrea Dworkin (or Catherine Mac Kinnon, or Valerie Solanis)" is as silly as saying "I believe in the divinity of Christ but I'm not a Christian because I don't like Pope Alexander VI

." (Oh, and incidentally, to discover whether you're a masculinist, reverse the genders in the question. There's a subtle but important difference that I might cover later.)

(Oh, and if you don't agree with this definition, you're going up against sources like The Cambridge dictionary and Merriam-Webster

---

By definition alone, the vast majority of Westerners are feminists. Sarah Palin is a feminist. Sarah "abortion should be illegal including in cases of rape" Palin is a feminist *

. You may be thinking at this point, "geez, isn't such a broad definition of feminism kind of pointless?" And the answer is, yes and no. Yes because a definition that includes Sarah Palin really doesn't say much (although it does say some very important things: men shouldn't be able to hit women any more than women should hit men; it would be unjust for women to be paid less than men, whether or not you think they are paid less), but also no, because:

In a similar way that all you need to believe to be a Christian is that Christ was divine but there's a few secondary beliefs that most Christians hold (and a ton of beliefs they disagree on), there are a few other beliefs that don't define feminism, but the archtypical feminist would hold. This is not to say that you must agree with any of these to be a feminist, but if you don't you are something like a penguin is to birds, or a platypus is to mammals. Don't worry, most of them aren't controversial:

• Women have not already achieved at least some rights that men have.
  • Whether or not you believe men have an advantage over women or not doesn't matter; it's less common but still perfectly ordinary to believe that society screws both men and women over equally.
  • Whether you believe it's men's fault doesn't matter; it's actually vastly more common to blame society in general rather than men as a class.
• People should be able to refuse sex no matter what.
  • Corollary:Rape is bad.
    • Note that this is not "rape of women is bad". No feminist I have ever heard thinks rape of men is excusable, and many go out of their way to condemn it.
    • Metacorollary: The victim of the rape should not be blamed for being raped.
• Women
  ^{and men, but that rarely comes up}
  should have sole control over their bodies.
  • Abortion should be (mostly or entirely) legal.
    • BUT women should never ever ever be forced to get an abortion.
    • Also notice it's "should be legal" and not "is moral".
  • Contraceptives should be entirely legal.
• It's bad to hit or otherwise abuse women. (or men, but again that doesn't come up much.)
  • Exceptions will usually be granted to this rule in situations where it is not bad to hit men either, such as war or self-defense.
• I may be missing something; if you think of something that obviously should be on here but is not, tell me and I might add it.

---

Now Sarah Palin's position within feminism can be defined more clearly; she hasn't voiced any public opinion on most of this but she's definitely against women controlling their bodies and so she's way on the outskirts of the class. This feels more right; at least, it would be a little weird to claim one of the most politically active women in America didn't think women should have equal rights, but it would also feel weird to claim a die-hard social conservative is as much of a feminist as Betty Friedan.

You'll notice porn still hasn't appeared. I mentioned disagreements within feminism before; one of the most widespread disagreements is about porn (and behind it, about sex in general). The positions range all over the place, from "porn as it is is perfectly fine" to "porn would be perfectly fine if there was more of it for women" to "some porn is okay and other porn isn't" to "porn is universally demeaning to women" to "porn is the single most evil thing on the planet". But the positions are distributed more towards the left of the scale nowadays, and only Andrea Dworkin ever believed that last one.

You'll also notice, if you've been following some of the debates on here, that a lot of feminist terminology doesn't appear on that list. The reason is that "privilege" and "patriarchy" mean nothing more than the first bullet of the list, and no feminist would care much if someone disagreed with the word they were using but not the observation. (And as long as I'm on this, I've deliberately set a high bar for "consensus". There are things most feminist bloggers would agree on besides that, but there aren't more things that most people who have taken a woman's studies class would agree on.)

---

And finally, if you are about to make a long post saying, "but that doesn't seem like anything I've ever heard about feminism or from feminists", the reason is that you've either been listening to people-who-want-to-tell-you-what-feminism-is instead of actual feminists, or else only listening to a very narrow band of feminists and concluding they represent the entire movement*

^{This is as fallacious as listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and concluding that all Christians seem to want to bomb Mecca.}

. This goes double if all you know about feminism is Andrea Dworkin quotes, and triple if you think "all sex is rape" is one of them.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Meh. Whenever a question of ideological definition like this comes up, I'm tempted to just say "family resemblance!" and be done with it.

I think one of the mistakes that the feminist movement has made is to exclude people based on their views on abortion. Abortion is a very complex and controversial issue.

Making someone's status as a feminist dependent on their views on abortion will alienate people who otherwise agree with feminism. (In the US, the percentage of people who identify as pro-choice and pro-life are nearly equal.)

You can agree with equal rights for women, and be pro-life, pro-choice or undecided on the issue of abortion.

I'm not sure it's realistic for women to have all the rights men have, just as I don't think that it's realistic for men to have all the rights women have, if only because biological differences alone create things that just do not have an opposite-sex equivalent, (or if they do, then what qualifies as equivalent is uncertain, if not flat-out subjective) like pregnancy for example. People are individuals, above all else, but at the end of the day we are also biological mechanisms and this has implications we should not ignore.

However, an ideology so vaguely defined as even that just seems like it is open to those who would take advantage of its vagueness by Moving the Goalposts.

"the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state"

"1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

Given that the bolded definition is by far the more practically meaningful one, I'm not sure why you're surprised that more people use it, or why you'd prefer the definition that by your own admission essentially dilutes the term into meaninglessness.

Wow, guess I'm not a feminist then. That's surprising *

^{I believe rights are a bad framing that's been particularly popularized by America and I don't want to promote rights for *anyone*. Responsibility > Right. Fulfill your responsibilities in dealing with others and do as you will.}

Promoting equal opportunity and power balance, sure. I do that.

I think purposeful (maybe not ORGANIZED) activity has to be part of the definition — merely sympathizing or desiring is not enough... so I think Mostly Benign has a point there

edited 9th May '11 8:37:01 PM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

@MB: Do you consider someone who believes in Christ but doesn't go to church to not be a Christian? Or do you believe someone who reads TV Tropes but doesn't edit is not a troper?

If not, how can you believe someone who believes in equal rights for women but doesn't act for them is not a feminist?

@LM: Betty Friedan would've agreed with you.

EDIT: BUT there is a very good reason feminists are so extremely for abortion. I want to tell you to read The Bell Jar, but since I can't expect you to do that I'll have to summarize:

Before Roe, women had a fundamental limit on their freedom to have sex when they wanted by the fact that bad luck with a condom could leave them with an 18-year-long massive money sink that men didn't have to worry about. Even worse because condoms were still a bit taboo back then, and most women didn't have jobs that would let them support a baby on their own, which would leave them essentially chained to the father for support.

Roe was thus a very major victory for women's freedom of choice in every way, not just in the specific ability to choose to abort a pregnancy, and many feminists are loath to be allies with anyone who would want to repeal it.

edited 9th May '11 9:07:42 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Sorry, but, I'm with Mostly Benign here.

When people think about feminism, they generally think about the movement itself and particularly the vocal members, and thus if they disagree with any aspects of it they feel reluctant to be associated with it, even if they agree with some or even most of the base tenets.

I mean, I feel the same way personally—I call myself a feminist because I technically am one, but I have yet to come across any visible feminist movement that didn't have some aspect that annoyed me. I feel like "equalist" might be a better descriptor for me anyway, since I'm on the side of all equality movements.

To extend from your analogy, someone who believes in Christ but doesn't go to any church actually may not consider themselves a Christian, because they don't agree with any of the formalized moral and ritual structures of any of the Christian branches. They may consider themselves a Deist or something else less structured instead. Or, they may call themselves a Christian, but make it clear that they don't associate with any of the visible branches that they know of.

@Lady Momus

I do agree with him on the abortion front, though. At the risk of coming off No True Scotsman, I have to say I think that thinking abortion should be outlawed is one area that just isn't compatible with being a feminist, because that means you think women shouldn't be allowed to have the same sexual and reproductive freedom as men. Yes, obviously free and easier access to contraception is the best method to reduce unwanted pregnancy, but no method is 100% perfect. And IMHO it's unreasonable to expect women to be abstinent to avoid pregnancy, even in situations where having sex would be perfectly normal and expected.

It's one of those necessary evils to get around areas of biology we can't otherwise do anything about.

edited 9th May '11 10:28:52 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Well, I believe women should have all the de jure rights that men have. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

I'm an atheist, so I don't feel particularly well qualified to debate the finer details of Christianity, but it is my understanding that typically, Christianity embodies a belief in the divinity of Christ in the context of what that divinity means according to the Old Testament, and a commitment to at least try and follow the teachings of Christ as they are laid down in the New Testament. For example, I would consider a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but to whom that divinity means being one of the Aesir or a Herald of Galactus, and who conducts themself in accordance to La Veyan Satanism, to not be a Christian in any meaningful sense.

Overall, both political movements and religions tend to be relatively complex systems of beliefs and behavioral codes, with self-identification being an important part of both.

That is perfectly fine. We need a new name then, though, to identify the ideology that axiomatically assumes that women are and have always been victims of evil males and patriarchy, and are thus morally, and probably in all other respects (except power), superior to males. You know, the one that's usually called feminism and that most publically recognized feminists stand for.

I've noticed that when people say "I'm not a ____, but...." the next thing they say is incredibly whatever they filled the blank with.

And in the name of Tropes, I will punish you!

I agree with every point except the pro-abortion-rights point. I see abortion as being a place where "equal rights for men and women" are meaningless because abortion rights are meaningless for men personally because of obvious biological limitations. As a result, the issue is not "should men and women be equal", but rather, "is abortion a right".

edited 9th May '11 10:36:37 PM by PDown

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

I just can't see how abortion can't be a right.

Like I said, while regular contraception use is far more ideal, it's still not perfect.

Nor is telling women who want/need to be absolutely sure about not getting pregnant to just abstain from sex realistic either. Since that means more than just avoiding the pre-marital sex that everyone thinks about when they think of abstinence, but also affects married women who don't want/can't support children or for whom pregnancy would be dangerous. Can we honestly expect them to never have sex even with their husbands, just so they can be absolutely sure of never experiencing a contraception failure?

edited 9th May '11 10:49:57 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

TBH, my view on abortion is as follows:

1)If you need one, get it as quick as you can to get it on the lighest possible part of the gray moral spectrum. Second term and I'd be having severe doubts, third term and I'd consider it tantamount to actual murder. Really, first term is ideal if the abortion is necessary at all. Please make first-term abortions as avaliable as possible.

2)Please, please get one (or put your baby up for adoption) instead of becoming a bad parent.

3)Most of the arguments in favor of abortion are fallacious and emotion-based.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

A great number of fetuses are female you know.

Any way regardless of abortion rigths I think it's a poor argument to claim that women have the right to something simply because men are doing it. Should women have the right to rape someone? Or inflict domestic abuse? Or profit in white slavery? I hope not.

edited 9th May '11 11:06:36 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Yeah, that'd be a false dichotomy missing the option of "take away the right from men".

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

I'm a feminist and I'm pro-life.

I think it's not a good idea to exclude people based on that. Just because someone believes life and all the rights that go with start at a certain point has no bearing on whether or not they think women are inferior to men, or do not deserve all the rights men have.

Be not afraid...

Yeah, we're talking from the POV of giving women the right to do something men are allowed to do that we think is something human beings in general should be allowed to do.

Which is different from claiming we should let women do things men do that they're actually not allowed to do, or is harmful to society for them to do.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Letting aside the issue whether abortion should be allowed or not, I would dispute the assertion that most feminists (defined as per the OP, that is, as the people who believe that men and women should have the same rights) think that abortion should be allowed, and that disagreeing on that — while not inherently contradictory — makes you

among feminists.

I find no fault with the OP's definition of feminism; but according to it, most people in Western countries are feminist, including most religious people and most anti-abortion ones.

According to your definition my 72-years-old aunt, who happens to be a nun, is a feminist. That is fine, as she certainly agrees that she is one too; but her opinion about abortion may not be entirely favorable.

edited 9th May '11 11:07:13 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I dislike the "anti-abortionist activists think are doing this to keep women oppressed" mentality. Especially becuase abortion in some cases is heavily in favor of misogyny (China and India say hi). But a life is a life to some people. These people can support the idea of adoption which prevents the harm of a teenage mother.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

The problem is, by being anti-abortion, you're basically saying that women don't have the same rights as men when it comes to sexual freedom. That they're forced to either be abstinent their whole life even if they're married or in a similar intimate relationship, or be forced go through pregnancy against their will if attempts at contraception don't work. There's just no way I can possibly square that with being feminist, even in the basic sense.

Especially since there's the fact that being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to think abortion is moral, good, desirable, etc. You can just recognize it as a necessary evil of a last resort to deal with the fact that we can't just flip female fertility on and off with a switch.

(And that's not even getting into women who actually would want children, but either will die if they go through pregnancy, or become pregnant with a baby that will be stillborn or die early in infancy.)

Edit: Note that I'm not really trying to argue against being pro-life, or that being pro-life necessarily means you're being oppressive or can't think women should have rights in other things, just that I don't see it as being compatible with feminism.

edited 9th May '11 11:13:29 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Um, men do not have such "rights" to consequence-less sexual freedom. If some guy gets a woman pregnant, he has no say on whether the child should be kept or aborted and is bound by law to provide for the child, in the limits of his possibilities.

This is precisely as it should be, and I am not complaining about that, but your premise is still wrong.

Also, people's rights stop when other people's ones begin, and the right to live is perhaps the most fundamental one of the rights.

Hence, if we assume for a moment that embryos have rights, it follows at once that abortion should be illegal, as women's right to manage their intimate relationships and their consequences cannot certainly trump some other person's right to be alive.

EDIT: If you disagree with the premise, that's a whole other discussion; but "feminism" + "embryos are people" + "killing people should be illegal" is not an inherently contradictory worldview, and it does imply that abortion should be illegal.

edited 9th May '11 11:21:46 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

There's a really thick dissonance here, because there's a point that I see as a fallacy while you don't. I see abortion as being a point that has nothing to do with gender equality. Even the most fervent feminists acknowledge the literal physical differences between males and females. Males cannot become pregnant by definition. Abortion seems like a way to hastily patch this up, and reduce even the obvious natural differences between males and females at the cost of human life. Are men and women mentally identical? Yeah, pretty much. Morally identical? Yeah. Physically identical? No, and this means that women do have to deal with things that men don't have to (and vice versa).

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

But that's not an artificial stricture imposed on women by society. It's just the way biology is. It's unfortunate that that means women have less freedom, but hopefully we can come up with some other way to combat the injustice.

Be not afraid...