Marc David Barnhill suggests that “intersectionality” is relevant to this issue, and I replied that in a way that’s another way of talking about mattering and the mattering map.
Some intersections are relatively trivial. Some places on the mattering map are very small, or picked out in frivolous colors. It’s possible to be very passionate about Star Trek or Shakespeare or hip hop or Emmylou Harris while still being perfectly willing to make alliances with people who hate the cultural products you love and love the ones you hate. It’s not just possible, it’s easy. Lots of categories are like that. They may be important for friendships, but they’re not important for alliances.
But when the issue is about equality – it’s different. People aren’t differentially treated according to whether or not they like Breaking Bad or Project Runway or the golf channel. (Broadly speaking. There are issues about culture as class marker, but not the way there were when every gentleman knew his Homer and he didn’t mean Homer Simpson.) People are differentially treated according to what sex and race and sexual orientation and class they are, among other things. That fact makes it much harder to forge alliances with people who want to treat others with contempt and people who dislike being treated that way. (That’s an over-simple schematic. People can dislike being treated with contempt while still wanting to treat others with contempt.)
So that’s why there are deep rifts.
Also, what about the people who claim to be on your side when it comes to, say, treating women equally, but have a hideously warped understanding of how gender, feminism, patriarchy, discrimination, etc. even work? And who resist any and all attempts to clue them in, preferring to call themselves things like “equity feminists” so they don’t have to learn or change?
The Mattering Map is a good way to look at it. I think that sometimes we underestimate the importance of ideology. We want to treat ideological differences like differences in musical taste when actually they mean our entire world-picture is different. Sometimes I think folks fail to appreciate how key that is.
“preferring to call themselves things like “equity feminists” so they don’t have to learn or change?”
The trouble is it is not always obvious who needs to do the learning or the changing, but we can still be allies while the argument is had so long as we agree on fundamentals, surely
“I think that sometimes we underestimate the importance of ideology.2
That is true, it is a known problem of Marxist critiques and why the let has struggled to understand religion (Rawls suffers from it too), but it has a flip side which is even more of a menace on the internets I think, and that is the tendency to mistake very small differences for ideological divides, it is a kind of vanity. As the saying goes: ‘the fight is so bitter because the stakes are so small’.
Minnow @ 3 & 4
“we can still be allies while the argument is had so long as we agree on fundamentals, surely”
I am a feminist, and I disagree with the fundamentals of “equity feminism”, which have, as A. Noyd put it, “a hideously warped understanding of how gender, feminism, patriarchy, discrimination, etc. even work.”
I think you might be mistaking an ideological divide for a very small difference. Is that a kind of vanity too?
@Minnow – September 25, 2013 at 3:06 am (UTC -7)
@fork – September 25, 2013 at 4:38 am (UTC -7)
Actually I think we can agree that both problems occur: people sometimes argue bitterly over what are really small differences, and people sometimes fail to recognize profound ideological differences, thus putting themselves in an untenable alliance. Determining which differences are important (or as Ms. Benson might say, filling in ones own Meaning Map) can be a lifetime project.
“I am a feminist, and I disagree with the fundamentals of “equity feminism”,”
I doubt you do. Generally, if your positions seem incomprehensible to a sympathetic outsider, there is a good chance that you are into Monty Python People’s Front of Judea territory.
I think that you and equity feminists would all agree with the fundamentals: women ave historically been disadvantaged in all human societies but should be considered the equal of men in all respects except natural endowments and be accorded equal legal and moral rights and opportunities. We should all work towards that end.
Minnow,
You really are clueless and sounding quite condescending. Maybe dial that down a little?
Clueless maybe, but I don’t think I am condescending to anyone.
@Minnow – September 25, 2013 at 5:55 am (UTC -7)
How do you know? Maybe @fork has well-defined reasons for disagreeing with “equity feminism”.
It’s possible atheist, but I doubt it because I have never met a feminist who disagreed with those fundamentals (and I have met a LOT of feminists). I bet Fork really disagrees with fine ideological distinctions that have come to seem like fundamentals to her because she is so close to the issue. Anyone who has been involved in fringe left wing politics will know how this goes. I remember a huge argument and split over whether a letter of support for a foreign government that would almost certainly never read it should read ‘we fully support …’ or ‘we support fully …’. Both sides went to the mat and near enough came to blows.
@Minnow – September 25, 2013 at 6:33 am (UTC -7)
That particular event does indeed sound like a Monty Python skit.
That was by no means the worst. It is experience of that kind of factionalism that makes me so wary about these feminism wars. I also think that many of the participants in the latest quarrels are oddly naive about power as a motive given the nature of the debate. A lot of the squabbling looks like tactical power politics for control of a movement to outsiders. I have seen a lot of that elsewhere. Ideological passion can disguise those motives even from ourselves sometimes.
Minnow @7
I find your statements a bit condescending because of this:
I know several women who identify as equity feminists, while they believe that women should be able to work, and work in any field they choose, they also feel strongly that women are “naturally” drawn to and good at particular types of work and NOT drawn to others because “biology/genetics/our prehistoric ancestors”.
Many people in education , government and other decision making positions also seem to have this gender essentialist attitude and unconscious bias. The decisions they make just perpetuate this attitude. (And all this completely erases the many people who do not conform to the gender binary fallacy society teaches us, some of my friends and coworkers do not easily or comfortably conform to our arbitrary boxes for gender)
Some examples of gender bias at work:
Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians
Gender Bias in Hiring Even Scientists Do It
From the second article:
In raising a daughter, who is currently studying Physics and Environmental engineering , on a scholarship, I can not tell you how many times she was told as a child/teenager that she should go into teaching or early childhood education because she was good with kids. Funny they rarely mentioned that maybe she might want to go into the sciences/math/engineering (even when she made it to the state level in the science fair…)
Maybe having parents who gave her tool kits, chemistry sets and science experiment books, along with the Barbies, Beanie babies and nail polish helped her figure it out.
Conversely friends of hers who happened to be boys and who happened to be good at traditionally female jobs(childcare nursing) have received a whole lot of pushback and derogatory comments about what they want to do.
tl;dr Maybe we shouldn’t stick labels on people and maybe we should realize that making assumptions that this group of people is “naturally” good at whatever and “naturally” NOT good at whatever, is wrong.
@Minnow , I am not saying that is what you think just that it seems to be what quite a few equity feminists think.
Embrace, I do sympathise with what you say but I think it illustrates what I mean. Those are interesting and important debates but nonetheless the fundamentals are shared, your equity feminist friends may think women prefer certain roles for biological reasons (and, to be fair, that may be true, the question isn’t settled) but nonetheless they will want all women to be able to perform any role in society they choose and are fit for.
Minnow,
That would make them factually wrong. Sex does not determine interest or ability. So called, “equity feminism” isn’t feminism at all. It’s the same ol shtick repackaged as something friendly to women. Benevolent sexism is still sexism.
my experience with people who lay claim to “equity feminism” is that there are 2 types.
1) the misogynist assholes who know they are misogynists but want to confuse the onlookers.
2) the misogynist assholes who might not realize that it’s actually misogynistic (no bets) to claim that equality before the law is not only sufficient, but is the hard limit to equality. They do not believe in cultural or systemic equality. Bias & violence, etc against women is fine so long as it’s done in a way that circumvents the law, and anyone that notices that this is not equality is to be attacked.
“equity feminism” is neither “equity” nor “feminism”
@Minnow
No, see, a belief in gender essentialism is a non-shared fundamental based on an equity feminist’s warped understanding of the world. It’s a dealbreaker because it deeply affects how they try to enact other, shared fundamentals. They end up working against the other ideals they profess because of their failure to understand how reality works.
Similarly, me and a republican might share fundamental beliefs about how preserving the environment is important. But if that republican denies climate change, then they’re going to end up working against effective measures to preserve the environment. They’re not my ally.
Or, me and an antivaxxer might share fundmental beliefs about how parents have a responsibility to look out for the health of their children. But we’re not going to be able to work together because the antivaxxer’s beliefs in pseudoscience makes them work against a child’s best interests.
What you’re essentially saying—whether you realize it or not, O High and Mighty One—is that if two people agree that there are terrible beings in the world, one shouldn’t mind riding pillion behind the other as he tilts at windmills. And that’s stupid.
Minnow: the fundamentals are not shared. In the particular split under discussion, “equity feminism” is code for not really feminist at all. It accepts the “fundamentals” of feminism circa 1920, perhaps, but nothing more “radical” than that.
You seem to think you know more than everyone else about this, but as far as I can see you know less.Equity Feminist sounds like a weird real estate thing. “I only listen to feminists who own houses!”
Back on Topic:
Minnow, you don’t get to decide which issues are big issues, and which issues are small issues for other people. Thats a very condescending attitude. Telling other people that the disagreements that are important to them are just “Peoples front of Judea” territory is really pretty messed up.
Minnow, hope you don’t think we’re dogpiling here but my preferred version of feminism is pretty fundamentally different from the equity flavour, and I don’t think that’s a minor squabble. The conversation generally goes something like this:
Equity Feminists (EFs): Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome.
Me and Mine (Ms): Hard to say until we have equality of opportunity.
EFs: We DO have equality of opportunity!
Ms: I don’t think we do.
EFs: The law says we do.
Ms: That’s a good start! But the law can’t erase bias and harmful stereotypes. Those still exist.
EFs: No they don’t! You see sexism everywhere because you have a victim mentality. You’re the REAL misogynist.
Ms: *sigh*
Oops! That did turn into a bit of a dogpile – this time I cross-posted with not one but two people, Graculus and A Noyd. If I’d known that I would have skipped the last sentence, at least.
I don’t mind ‘dogpiling’ if that just means lots of comments aimed against a point of view, people should say what they think!
This is odd though:
“Minnow: the fundamentals are not shared. In the particular split under discussion, “equity feminism” is code for not really feminist at all. It accepts the “fundamentals” of feminism circa 1920, perhaps, but nothing more “radical” than that.”
It seems to concede that the fundamentals are shared even if there are differences. I don’t know if ‘equity feminism’ is code but I would be interested in a real example of one whose feminist fundamentals differed from those of other people on this thread.
“Minnow, you don’t get to decide which issues are big issues, and which issues are small issues for other people. ”
No, but I am sure we can agree on what thee fundamentals are. For example, equality in law should precede protest at stereotype, even if the latter is very important . I mean, the fundamental problem for women in Saudi isn’t harmful sterotype, but their inequality at law. That’s right, isn’t it?
By the way, bear in mind that what we are talking about here is whether people agree enough about feminism to be able to work as allies on a different issue. It really seems strange to me to suggest that you cannot work with someone on promoting secularism (say) because they disagree with you over whether the data on stereotype threat holds up (but nonetheless are passionate about women’s rights and equality).
“For example, equality in law should precede protest at stereotype, even if the latter is very important . I mean, the fundamental problem for women in Saudi isn’t harmful sterotype, but their inequality at law. That’s right, isn’t it?”
How can you really separate these though? The inequality at law is usually justified by stereotypes – discrimminatory laws are for women’s protection because women are weak, women don’t care about politics and so don’t need the vote, etc. etc. The legal struggle has always and will always be bound up with struggle against harmful stereotypes.
Also, my understanding of the the etymology of the term was that Christina Hoff Summers coined the term as a way to separate good “equity feminism” from bad “gender feminism”. So if we’re in People’s Front of Judea vs. Judean People’s Front territory, who got us there?
And I don’t think that it *is* in that territory.
Minnow that’s not at all what we’re suggesting. The point is, there are lots of energetic haters of feminism and feminists who call themselves “equity feminists” while either 1) harassing us* or 2) cheering on people who harass us. No of course we’re not talking about just plain equity feminists; we’re talking about people who are loudly and harassingly opposed to feminism (while calling themselves equity feminists).
That’s the context of this whole discussion.
*”us” being Freethought bloggers, Skepchick, Atheism Plus, feminists, etc etc
FloraPaste is correct, Sommers coined the term. And, it should be pointed out that nobody except Sommers and a fringe of MRAs, libertarians, and other anti-feminists have cottoned on to the term “equity feminists” because it’s effective camouflage against being accused of just being against women’s rights. Conversely, NOBODY self-identifies as a “gender feminist,” a term Sommers also invented.
@24 Minnow
Also bear in mind that a substantial number of the folks who use the term “equity feminist” are actively attempting to thwart the goals of those they dismiss as “gender feminists.” The disagreement is over core principles, not peripheral fancies.
Gender Feminist: Hey, let’s get together to work on removing the ten commandments from this courthouse.
Equity Feminist: Sure, that’s a great idea, and while you’re at it, a gnarly mob of rock-dwelling troglodytes will be using social media to harass and degrade you. But we can work together on the ten commandments thing. Also, you are a cabal of radical fascists attempting to overthrow democracy, so we’re going to photoshop your face into grotesque sexual situations to amuse ourselves while we start petitions to have all of you denied speaking engagements at notable conferences. But definitely, let’s be allies.
Gender Feminist: …no thanks.
Equity Feminist: NOOOO! A House Divided blah blah blah…
And those terms are nonsense. Probably shouldn’t have used them.
There’s often crossover. Like say the effort to get more women involved in secularism. People who style themselves equity feminists (and even those who don’t) try to push the idea that women just aren’t interested because they’re women, and deny the environment’s hostile to them. Or not in any significant way that really needs to be addressed. Because laws and science.
Another issues is the subtle shift “equity” feminists make between “equality of opportunity” and “equality under the law.” This is a non-trivial distinction and conflating the two is a fundamental problem for their view.
Just consider the phrase “separate but equal.” The damn word “equal” is written into the law. I suppose the “equity” Civil Rights supporter would argue that nothing more need be done. There was no law restricting black people from voting, so SUCCESS!
This is a broader issue with the glibertarian intellectual base of so much of this anti-feminist blather of late: an assumption is made (or a belief dogmatically held to) that the only source of oppression is the government, therefore once governmental laws have been drafted correctly, the world is in perfect harmony.
It’s a massive exercise in denying history and reality, in general.
athest @#6:
See Sayre’s Law:
This is far more true on the ‘low value, high intensity’ side of things than on the ‘high value’ side of things, of course. But some of the stories I’ve heard about SF Fandom politics… for example, there used to be two different Star Trek clubs in Toronto due to groups of people refusing to talk to each other.
One of the things I learned back in University was that there are people out there for whom their sole goal in life is to find a small enough pond that they can be a big fish in it.
Minnow @7:
Your “fundamentals” are just an attempt at covering up fundamental differences.
But what about here and now?
I feel so honoured!
Which can include whatever you want it to include.
So explicitly sexist laws is the only kind of sexism we can all agree about. Except if those laws can be explained away by some reference to different natural endowments, obviously.
Emmylou Harris – yay!
Uhh.
I’m so unhip that when you say “Dylan”, I think you’re talkin’ about Dylan Thomas. This man ain’t got no culture.
(Adapted fron P Simon, Or when I was Robert McNamara’d into submission) (Or maybe some other song. I already said I’m unhip, OK?)
The main articles says “That fact makes it much harder to forge alliances with people who want to treat others with contempt and people who dislike being treated that way. ”
Not sure if Ophelia would have intended this description to cover equity feminists, but it’s pretty obvious from the comments that forging an alliance with such people is out of the question for many.
“Also bear in mind that a substantial number of the folks who use the term “equity feminist” are actively attempting to thwart the goals of those they dismiss as “gender feminists.””
I am sure that is true and that there is a genuine and meaningful intellectual division. I didn’t mean to get into a defence of equity feminism which I know little enough about but to argue that it is unlikely that anyone who calls herself a feminist, even an ‘equity feminist’ is at such odds over fundamental issues to be beyond the pale as an ally in a different sphere. I still think that is the case after this discussion. I can see why some on here may not want to ally with certain equity feminists in an organisation of feminist activists(because they will never agree on where and how to be active) but I can’t see why they wouldn’t feel able to work with that person as an ally in a different cause. It seems to me that that way factionalism lies. I have seen it many times in politics.
I am a feminist. Until recently, I thought that the adjective “equity” would explain that I do not consider women inherently superior (or inferior) to men, that I do not consider men to inherently to be enemies, and that I do believe that patriarchy is inherently harmful to both women and men. (Also that “equity” was not satisfied by legally mandated gender equality.) Having seen the definitions here, I guess I need to find a new adjective.
@ minnow #7
Note particularly the phrasing — “women … should be considered the equal of men in all respects … ” —
That phrasing betrays a bias right there. It takes men as the default and then looks to see how women should be treated … i.e., equal to (iow, “like”) men. How about “women and men should be considered equal” ? Or “men and women should each be treated equally”? that is, if you really want to show that you consider them, you know, equal.
I don’t know about other causes, Minnow, but as far as the atheist cause goes, I don’t see the point of working with people who are actively trying to undermine feminist activism. First of all, I consider making the atheist movement more hospitable to non-white non-male people an urgent project of major importance at the moment. The atheist/skeptical “movement” as it exists currently is bound for stagnation if the leadership don’t change their ways quickly. Remaining a movement by white men, of white men, and for white men will guarantee its irrelevance and thus its failure. A movement is a thing that gathers and organizes people in actions to make the world a better place. Without feminism, the A/S movement will not succeed in meeting that goal, particularly considering how deeply intertwined misogyny is with religious attitudes.
Second of all, and I think this gets to the heart of your puzzlement here, the term “equity feminism” is really a smokescreen label to provide cover for the inherent misogyny of insisting that the struggle for women’s equality is finished, therefore any further activism by feminists is really them working towards female supremacy. That is the genesis of “equity feminism:” people who don’t want to do anything to advance women’s status needed an excuse, so they seized on this idea of legal equality being the only thing that matters. In their minds, since legal equality has been attained, no further action is necessary. They will actively work against anyone trying to do anything besides ensure that women have the right to vote and own property. That is the entire definition of equality that they are willing to work with. Such people cannot be allied with, not by me anyway, because I consider advancing the status of women, as well as trans* people LGBQ people, people of color, etc., an essential part of any movement. I suppose, if I were organizing a protest against climate change, and some libertarian
anti-“equity” feminists wanted to invite their club members and hold up signs or whatever, that would be OK, but that would literally be the extent of it. Organizing WITH them? Working in the same room, trying to divide up tasks and make decisions about communication, etc. Completely out of the question, since their authoritarian, social-sciences-denying style would clash consistently with the basic goals of the movement itself.I can’t imagine what could possibly be lost by excluding such people. You seem to think it would be a loss, but I haven’t seen you explain what that loss might be yet.
@theobromine:
It’s kind of like a twisted version of euphemism creep. Except that instead of previously non-insulting words being used as insults and slurs and thus becoming unusable if you don’t want to be insulting, it’s potentially useful distinctions being taken over by people who want to demonize the other side, and thus becoming unusable if you don’t want to be lumped in with the demonizers.
The term is a deliberate sop to the insidious, destructive myth that there is a sizable portion of feminists who seek female supremacy.
Minnow (#37)
Normally, someone who is so deeply ignorant as yourself might recognize that arguing while still deeply ignorant is inappropriate and ineffective.
Yes, “equity feminists” are at such odds over fundamental issues that they’re not people we can work with. This is not a supposition. This is not a hypothetical. This isn’t an example I pulled out of my ass. The people who call themselves “equity feminists” are the very same ones attacking and harassing Ophelia and other actual feminists for trying to show how feminism (and social justice) are integral to atheism and skepticism. These “equity feminists” are actively making it impossible to work with them on matters of atheism and skepticism, and have been for years now. In fact, they’re trying to drive any and all feminists with a non-warped understanding of how gender, feminism, patriarchy, discrimination, etc. work out of the atheism and skepticism movements. Not only are they not allies, they’re out-and-out enemies.
My comment at #1 was pointing out the very thing you don’t seem to understand: Labels and claims about shared fundamentals don’t tell you anything about the way people actually behave, and how they actually behave is what’s important. That point went right over your head because you are ignorant of a great deal of context. I suggest shutting up until you’re less ignorant. At the very least, ditch the arrogance.
~*~*~*~*~*~
@theobromine (#36)
That would just make you a feminist. No adjectives required.
~*~*~*~*~*~
@Jenora Feuer
What are you really trying to say?
Minnow I think you’re still missing the basic point. People who identify as “equity feminists” mostly aren’t feminists at all. They oppose most of what feminists are working for. This isn’t a matter of allies who disagree on details, it’s a matter of opposites. (I say “mostly” because some people, like you, don’t realize that “equity” is code.)
You know, the popes send out encyclicals in which they say that of course women are equal – it’s just that they’re different. They have different roles, which they must fulfill, on pain of distorting their True Natures.
This isn’t some small difference we can rise above, it’s the whole damn ballgame.
And when the “equity feminists” in question are actively opposing and harassing real feminists – then no, they’re not my allies.
It’s Orwellian language.
George W. Bush signed the “Clear Skies” Act in 2003. This act primarily allowed more air pollution. The name was a cynical, manipulative use of language to cloud the true intent: favorable legislation for polluting companies (I recall Al Franken describing its actual purpose as “Clearing the skies of birds).
This is like Ted Cruz explaining that liberals are the “real” racists because they want to make African Americans “dependent” on food stamps and government health care.
Given the long, transparent employment of this tactic, I find it amazing that a person could still be fixating on a literal meaning of a term. Would Minnow be confused by Civil Rights workers expressing reluctance at joining forces with people advocating separate but equal?
And also, atheism is a means of advancing social justice. If you are a person who holds that position, then of course there’s no point in sacrificing those social justice goals to simply advance atheism.