Schrodinger's feminist

[Cain]

Apparently, if you are a man, you cannot be a feminist.

Now, while normally I wouldn't find this tidbit of information any more interesting than any other tedious political infighting, it raises an interesting question.

What if someone, with a gender neutral username, were to start posting on the internet and posting feminist viewpoints, only later to be revealed to be a man?  Or what if they refused to answer any question on their gender at all?  Can someone simultaneously be a feminist and not a feminist?

I found this amusing, because it totally undermines essentialism in some schools of feminist thought.  Essentialism being "because you have not got a vagina and have not suffered discrimination due to your gender, you are not a feminist" (ignoring of course feminists who have sex changes, either way, as well).  Even if one were to fight ideas of patriarchy and be in favour of gender equality, one could not actually be a feminist, despite doing the exact same things all the women feminists do.

I think this illustrates that sometimes, making the divide between what someone is and what someone does, is essentially futile.  You are what you do, and when you try to divide those spheres apart and enter preconditions on identity which do not apply to the actions, then you create contraditions within your own philosophical viewpoint and worldview.

[Triple Zero]

cool i was listening to a RAW podcast (quantum psychology) and he talked about essentialism as well, and yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Great, more divisionist thinking.

Fuck feminism in the FACE.

[e]

Considering that article is in the Guardian, which isn't exactly a paragon of reporting and truth, I'd say that the basic premise "Men cannot be Feminist" is inherently flawed.  As well ask "Can a free man be an abolitionist?"

[Cramulus]

Apparently, if you are a man, you cannot be a feminist.

Now, while normally I wouldn't find this tidbit of information any more interesting than any other tedious political infighting, it raises an interesting question.

What if someone, with a gender neutral username, were to start posting on the internet and posting feminist viewpoints, only later to be revealed to be a man?  Or what if they refused to answer any question on their gender at all?  Can someone simultaneously be a feminist and not a feminist?

I found this amusing, because it totally undermines essentialism in some schools of feminist thought.  Essentialism being "because you have not got a vagina and have not suffered discrimination due to your gender, you are not a feminist" (ignoring of course feminists who have sex changes, either way, as well).  Even if one were to fight ideas of patriarchy and be in favour of gender equality, one could not actually be a feminist, despite doing the exact same things all the women feminists do.

Well said, Cain. I think we're running into a language problem here...

Some people are using Feminist to mean someone who is oppressed who is fighting for equality. There, the ideology is emergent from a "socio-biological" status. (I'm using that word to underscore the muckiness in trying to determine what constitutes a "woman" and what the hell that means anyway)

Others are using the word Feminism to describe an ideology, which anyone can have, regardless of biology or social status.


But the bottom line is that the language is open to everyone, and anyone who is saying "the word actually means this" is dead in the water because the consensus definition is something they only have a fractional control over.

I know males that have majored in Women's Studies and consider themselves feminists, and no amount of reasoning is going to change their word usage.

I think this illustrates that sometimes, making the divide between what someone is and what someone does, is essentially futile.  You are what you do, and when you try to divide those spheres apart and enter preconditions on identity which do not apply to the actions, then you create contraditions within your own philosophical viewpoint and worldview.

Yeah I would tend to agree with you here too. It gets mucky in the realm of deception though.

For example, we spend a lot of time on pagan forums, pushing buttons and tempting moderators to reveal their true authoritarian motivations. We bait people into arguments to test the constitution of their beliefs. We think of ourselves as liberators or clowns, but the locals may think we're petulant children or unnecessary firestarters. I guess we are starting fires in a sense.

I guess The Pen of History determines what you "are". But what you do remains up to you.

[Cain]

Considering that article is in the Guardian, which isn't exactly a paragon of reporting and truth, I'd say that the basic premise "Men cannot be Feminist" is inherently flawed.  As well ask "Can a free man be an abolitionist?"

Well, Comment is Free is much worse than the normal Guardian, though at least you know it is.  Its for journalists to blog, and then get trolled by the public at large.  It is interesting though, because it highlights these sorts of assumptions and flaws in their thinking.

[Cain]

Yeah I would tend to agree with you here too. It gets mucky in the realm of deception though.

For example, we spend a lot of time on pagan forums, pushing buttons and tempting moderators to reveal their true authoritarian motivations. We bait people into arguments to test the constitution of their beliefs. We think of ourselves as liberators or clowns, but the locals may think we're petulant children or unnecessary firestarters. I guess we are starting fires in a sense.

I guess The Pen of History determines what you "are". But what you do remains up to you.

Well, thats where actions can have multiple interpretations, depending on one's own BIP and extend of knowledge about the situation at hand.  Semiotics can be an excellent example of this.  The signals of an action can de deciphered depending on the relation of the person to that sign (Pragmatics or General semantics) and to derive a character or template from those actions is more or less reasonable.

However, its the addition of extra conditions unrelated to the execution of those actions to an identity that is my chief worry.  For example, one from our good pal Eran, trolls are mentally ill because they are trouble makers (because they are mentally ill).  Circular logic aside, it presupposes something about the nature of the individual which does not follow from their actions.  A troll is a troublemaker, certainly, it is part of what they do.  But we cannot extrapolate from that action back to a necessary condition (necessary in the philosophical sense).

In short, I think the relation between pre-set conditions and identity/action are contingent, and therefore possibly related, but not absolutely, not all the time.  And that raises implications for all sorts of identity politics which, as you know, is something that interests me.