Dean's World

I have over the years come to the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to determine if anyone is a feminist since it is absolutely impossible for anyone, including self-described diehard feminists themselves, to define "feminist" in any consistent way.

If you simply take the notion that a feminist is one who supports equal opportunity in political and business realms, then obviously she was a feminist.

If you simply take the false notion that a feminist is one who supports equal opportunity in political and business realms, then obviously she was a feminist.

Fixed that for ya.

No, actually, he didn't.

No, you didn't, although I don't know why you're asking me. It's right there in black and white. What you actually wrote, and JR's reformulated interpretation of it, are hardly the same thing.

Furthermore, you were wrong. It's quite possible to consistently define 'feminism'; one such example is "anyone who self-identifies themself as 'feminist'". It's not a very good definition in terms of objective replicability and conceptual differentiation, but it's certainly consistent.

What I think you're trying to get at is that it is effectively impossible to get 'feminists' to admit to the validity of any criticism of 'feminism', per se.

But this is not a problem with the term 'feminism' itself, since by etymological construction it clearly means 'promotion of female interests, or of feminine attitudes, views, philosophy, and so on', and thus in fact does actually have an objective and replicable meaning which succeeds in establishing a useful degree and amount of conceptual differentiation.

Now, people may behave as though some kind of special unique status should be applied to the word such that it does not have a similar meaning to terms like 'christianism', 'caucasianism', or, to be particularly telling, 'elitism', but that doesn't make them right. It does not possess such -- or at least such has not been sufficiently demonstrated -- and therefore should not be so treated.

Thus, the problem lies in people's weaselly dishonest irresponsible behavior, not the word itself. If people significantly support female interests, or the promotion of feminine attitudes etc., specifically because of their feminine characteristics, they are clearly 'feminist'.

However, because of precisely those tendencies on the part of 'feminists' to engage in weaselly dishonest and irresponsible behavior, combined with the modern tendency to treat self-identified supposedly altruistic advocates and activists for minorities with greater deference and laxer standards, the mere use of the word 'notion' alone to indicate the baselessness or frivolity of a belief is insufficient to hammer the necessary point home: that feminism is gender chauvanism, not egalitarianism.

Hence the correction.

Actually, yes, it does contradict it.

You're apparently assuming, wrongly -- and in spite of my having addressed why it is wrong, above -- that "women not currently equal to men" necessarily means only in terms of relatively inferior status or applied to such contexts.

I.e., you are granting 'feminism' a certain special unique extra meaning which is not normally extended to similar terms such as 'christianism', 'caucasianism', or, of course, 'elitism' -- just as I pointed out previously.

However, as has been shown not just by etymology but clearly and repeatedly by past events and the current environment, that assumption is wholly incorrect.

'Feminists' clearly and repeatedly have not been in favor of equality for men in areas where women are advantaged, privileged, or otherwise benefited in general.

Furthermore, it's worse than that; they have in fact clearly and repeatedly opposed equality and efforts towards achieving it for men in such areas: domestic violence, medical research funding and focus, reproductive accountability and choice, child custody, routine and ritual male genital amputation; the list goes on and on.

Additionally furthermore, it's even worse than that; 'feminists' have actively worked and campaigned to repress men and reduce their options, rights, and freedoms in general; to denigrate, slander, objectify, and otherwise negatively characterize males and masculinity, to establish and promote discriminatory anti-male and female-preferential policies and viewpoints, and so on, and so forth.

Ever heard of IMBRA?

Would you like to read what its supporters openly assert?

"The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women 'unspoiled' by American materialism and most troubling, 'uninfected' by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them.

The marriage broker websites promulgate the 'message' that American men are highly desirable outside the U.S. and can have access to women not intent on upholding over 30 years of hard won womens' rights. These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.

Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated."

I hope you're capable of acknowledging the glaring, disturbing similarities between that and what's being done to Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. If not, I suggest you try substituting 'islamist' and similar constructions for 'feminist' and so on throughout it.

No, sir; your position was, is, and shall necessarily remain invalid. It is egalitarian principles and behavior that must be promoted, not 'female interests'; mistakenly and incorrectly conflating the two is one of the classic identity politics language errors.

Again, an egalitarian is in favor of equal rights for all, and egalitarianism is about promoting such, or egalitarian attitudes, views, philosophy, and so on; a 'feminist', in contrast, is in favor of promoting female interests or feminine attitudes, views, philosophy, and so on, and that does indeed by-definition mean regardless of equality, just as it does for all other similarly constructed terms.

It categorically does not mean 'but only in order to achieve equality with men'. There is absolutely nothing inherent to 'feminism' to justify your attached rider of "at least until they reach such equality."

As clearly and repeatedly shown by not only abstract etymology, but by the actual real-world concrete reality of actual real-world 'feminist' behavior as well.

Again, what must be promoted is egalitarian principles and behavior, not 'female interests'. There is no inherent conceptual limit to 'female interests' comparable to that within egalitarianism; 'female interests' does not have any innate braking mechanism.

And we've seen exactly what the promotion of 'female interests', instead, has led to -- the return of debt imprisonment and, effectively, debt peonage; massive increases in unaccountable judicial power; a widespread cultural outright demonization of half the population leading to grotesque increases in fatherlessness, single motherhood, welfare, ghettoization, and the resulting savagely deleterious consequences to children and neighborhoods; the denial of equal protection from genital amputation at the federal level of legislation; the list, as I said, goes on, and on, and on.

Tell me, DH; are you ready for your interrogation by an ideologue from the Tahirih Justice Center serving as the State's representative in regards to the women's rights violations charges brought against you by someone offended by your speech?

Finally, in regards to the origin of 'feminist' movements being egalitarianism, well. . .in much the same way, sir, my delicious supper yesterday evening of steamed vegetables with fresh-ground black pepper, panko-breaded chicken, barley and israeli-style couscous with fresh herbs and romano cheese, and mini mint ice cream bon-bons. . .

. . .was likewise the origin of today's boluses of reeking excrement.