I found this video fascinating, Marina. It occurred to me that we (people?) approach defining Racism and Feminism from entirely opposite angles. You point out that a lot of people you disagree with cite the dictionary definition of Racism, where you take a sociological standpoint -- so for example, where they look at Racism from a clinically objective standpoint (anyone is potentially oppressed or privileged depending on individual circumstances), you might consider historical context and overarching institutional trends to categorically assign privilege/oppression (so a minority may be independently wealthy and have institutional power, but that doesn't protect them from culturally ingrained bias). On the OTHER hand, I see a lot of people take the exact opposite approach to Feminism. I see Feminists all over the web citing the dictionary definition as their foundation (Feminism = equality), while simultaneously assigning oppression/privilege based on historical context. In this case, the other side seems to be taking the contemporary sociological stance and looking at the cited institutions to point out contradictions (for example, bringing schools to task over institutionalized sexism when for all intents and purposes the feminist agenda is running the school curriculum and opposing points of view are prevented from speaking on campuses). I think your video does a great job of illustrating why every voice needs to be heard, INCLUDING the traditionally privileged, because context does matter, evident simply by our tendencies to adopt one another's arguments when convenient. To that end, I'll give you one more example of swapping arguments. Something I found fascinating has been the debates surrounding both GamerGate and Feminism. In the former event, GamerGate advocates honest journalism, and would frequently fend off allegations of sexism by saying that trolls and doxxers were not part of their movement, to the point of refusing to change their hashtag when challenged that it had too many negative connotations. In the latter case, I've seen many an anti-feminist advocate changing the movement to any of a number of alternative titles, from "humanism" to "egalitarianism", yet in much the same way, Feminists won't lay down their proverbial flags. That attachment to identity is human nature, I'm sure, but it's fascinating to observe nonetheless.
Exactly. This is really what I was trying to get at and I think you summed up my argument quite well. I've seen both sides flip flop on arguments depending on the context/their position on the issue and it's really fascinating to me. I think we can always do better with our arguments so at the very least I'd like to hold myself to a higher standard and I hope other people will as well.
I think it is fair to say that the comparison between GamerGate and feminism makes no sense. The meaning behind Gamergate is the smear campaign by some media outlets towards gamers. Critics of gamergate wanted the group to change the name because they felt it was attached to harassment(whereas progamergaters said it had nothing to do with those harassers and was about something entirely different). Gamergate is subjective, in that people can really decide what the term refers to because it is relatively new. Feminism is different because it has a longstanding meaning of being "women's rights advocacy on the grounds of equality". When people say that feminism is just about gender equality it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth because the "movement" has a strong focus on women and does little for men. People argue that "feminism=equality" should just be classified as humanism or egalitarianism because it doesnt have a gendered focus.
Feminism and equality is not the same. Equality is the end goal, not the road itself. That's where the problem starts, when we discuss how to get there. By shouting everyone is equal everytime we see injustice or to prioritize groups who are constantly treated as less?
It's very frustrating when people get the wrong idea because they are working off of a different definition than the one you're using. Thanks for making this.
I've heard of movements that use the term "Womanism" as a way to say equality for women of color since "feminism" was associated with middle and upper class white women.
The problem with the dictionary definition of feminism is that it assumes a universal understanding of gender equality. I think a better a definition would be something like "advocacy for women's interests" or "active support for greater equality between men and women."
I usually say I'm an intersectional feminist... and most self-identifying feminists that I know in real life are also intersectional feminists -- although they may have varying degrees of knowledge/awareness on different concepts and theories. Because it's a process. Some feminists will start off on gender and as they get into (intersectional) feminist spaces, they will come to learn more about intersectionality.
you can find the answers to that question through googling and your own research... probably you can find a thread all about it on reddit, etc. there are a lot of components to the oppression of women that i do not have time to type out JUST for you.
feminism is indeed for women, but it helps society in general, including men... idk what websites u are talking about, but i guess u can look at reddit like menslib and maybe there are some discussions u might find intriguing there about why feminism helps men.
In my humble opinion, the word feminist is used more often as a label rather than as it was intended. It's one thing to say I'm a feminist, it's another to actually be a feminist. As far as what a feminist is, you're pretty spot on that there isn't one type of feminist, which can be said of every title used to describe a group of individuals. Some examples might be, liberal, conservative, fascist... Simply identifying yourself or someone else as something regardless of your/their connection to it waters down that words meaning. I would point out that by definition (dictionary or otherwise) there is a distinct connotation that feminism is movement fighting for the rights of women to be equal, or equality of the sexes on behalf of women. Most of that spurs from what I believe is a false belief that women as a whole are oppressed more so than men. I believe that that's not quite a realistic assessment of reality given modern Western society. Not that some women aren't oppressed, many are but so are a lot of men and not just those who are not White. In fact, I believe that a certain group of men based solely on their ethnicity is being demonized and ignored based on nothing more than that ethnicity. I think everyone would be better served if they dropped the group think mentality and recognized that as individuals we either are or are not oppressed. What genitals we have, what color our skin is, where our ancestors are from do not indicate that we are terrible people, or that we shouldn't be allowed a seat at the table to air our grievances.
I'm enjoying your more unscripted content! I Id as an intersectional feminist when talking about these sorts of issues, and it lends itself to more comprehensive discussions!
Just wanted to add that it depends on what dictionary you use! The Mirriam-Webster dictionary certainly falls short in defining racism, but the Oxford English Dictionary (which is the dictionary most often used by English academics) does have the sociological definition of racism. (Though there can be a lot said about the ivory tower of academia, in this case, considering the OED online is stuck behind a paywall, but I digress.) As for feminism, I'm an intersectional feminist, but I also stress, when discussing social justice in general, that there's a difference between equality and equity. Equality assumes that everyone is equal now and that all reform needs to affect people equally, while equity acknowledges that people are /not/ yet equal and so reforms necessarily need to take that into account.
Out of all of the femenists on youtube you appear to have the most understanding of the problems between feminists and "anti-feminists". You also appear to have the best logical grasp of the variations of feminism amongst the feminists on RUclips, and ,to be honest, better than quite a few "anti-feminists" on RUclips as well. Also, I think a way people could reduce the the confusion between the definitions of feminism/feminist is to clearly state which definition is being used, as you have done here. On that note, I would like to say that I am, at least, a dictionary feminist. Cheers
The reason there are so many variations of feminism is quite simple, because the definition of feminism is, at heart, quite simple. Feminism is the belief that men have created and perpetuated civilizations which benefit themselves and keep women oppressed as a peasant class under the bootheel. That's it. Whatever other ranting bullshit you ascribe to doesn't mater, if you adhere to the theory of the Uber-Patriarchy, you can call yourself a feminist.
As an non-feminist egalitarian I appreciate that you want to be more specific in your use of words. I sometimes feel that some feminists use motte and bailey tactics when discussing feminism. When someone says they are not a feminists, you usually hear things like "why are you not a feminist? it is just about equality." However, feminists among themselves talk about "THE PATRIARCHY" and how Marxism must overcome capitalism. I am a capitalist myself and don't believe in the PATRIARCHY, hence I don't call myself a feminist. I understand not all feminists are Marxists, but that is why I don't choose to wear the label.
Honestly, I think the divide in how people define concepts such as feminism or racism is one of the biggest problems with how we discuss these issues in society. For instance, if Person A tells Person B that they are being racist, Person B may think they're being called a prejudiced bigot who thinks their own race is superior to someone else's. However, Person A may actually be trying to communicate the much more nuanced idea that Person B is allowing their privileged position within society to overshadow someone who's race has traditionally/institutionally been marginalized. These two people are now on _very_ different pages and the ensuing conversation will almost always end in conflict with each side thinking the other has gone off the deep end. In my opinion, using the term 'racism' to refer to the sociological concept, which is very broad, can even diminish the dictionary idea of racism because without linguistic qualifiers it cannot distinguish between egregious offences and minor social injustices. I don't really have any good solutions to this problem except to educate more people about the sociological context of these kinds of issues AND for people who _already_ approach these issues from a sociological standpoint to understand that they can't have a one to one discussion about these issues until all parties understand the starting point of the conversation.
I believe that not not being a feminist doesn't mean you don't want equally as it does mean you don't actively fight for it. Also I feel that feminism has devolved into a group of those who want equality and those who want superiority and or pitty in social/Online encounters. I'm glad you are one of the few feminists that aims for pure freedom instead of power. - Yours truly, An African American male.
Hey Marina! Loved the video :) You brought up a lot of good points that I actually hadn't necessarily considered. I, too, have used the "textbook definition" argument in the past but I think you're right in that it's not a great argument because it often isn't very productive and how different people define equality can also be VERY different. I'm studying to be a social worker right now and finishing up so I totally get these challenges in discussing racism and sexism. It can be hard to talk to people who don't have the background education because they may not understand some of these nuances, which often leads you to have to explain other basic concepts, and more likely with basic definitions, before you even get to the point you were actually trying to make. So yeah I don't know what the answer is to this besides being more specific and using more precise language because it's hard getting people on the same page about anything, much less on these sorts of topics. Loved hearing your thoughts, keep being an inspiring voice girl!
This is a game of semantics, in an discussion one of the most productive ways of coming to an agreement is coming to an agreed definition of a word, the draw back is that the more you narrow a definition the less people agree with you. So ultimately that is why people in general prefer to use the dictionary approach because they asume that all people agree on the same language so it produces a level of authority higher than that of intersectionalism. While this tactic is generally sound it does face problems because in most conversation people aren't disagreeing with the dictionary definition but the nuances that academics add to it and most of the time the dictionary definition turns into an ad homonym attack.
You can get anti-reflective coatings for your lenses so they don't reflect light into to camera, I distinctly remember another youtuber with new glasses saying something about it. I imagine it would be an optional extra though, like UV blocking coatings and the like.
My biggest problem as a bilingual feminist, specially because I consume a lot of American media but am Mexican and live in Mexico, is that English speaking feminists relate feminism with equality, whereas Mexican and other hispanic feminists have very clear the difference between equality and equity, and revolve everything around equity.
paulina bringas could you please explain a bit more? I'm interested in what you are saying. I am also a feminist who is mexican (ethnicity) however I live in texas
yunarikku2723 yeah, basically the first thing you learn about feminism in hispanic communities is the difference between equality and equity, and how feminism fights for equity. It is extremely important to know this and to keep it in mind at all times, and it's basically a sin if you don't. Whereas English speaking feminism tells you that it's equality we're fighting for. This personally complicates dialogue and discussion whilst talking to English speaking people, and honestly its kind of frustrating that something that I consider to be so important (for me it's literally the base of feminism) is completely disregarded by people who claim to have the same principles as I do.
I can see the dilemma you're having... when hispanic communities and specifically mexican communities learn about feminism, how and where is it taught? Is less taboo to be feminist in Mexico or latinoamerica than it is here in the U.S.? I hope you don't mind me asking you all these questions, I've just never met a fellow mexican feminist, and I'm so curious as to how feminism is seen and treated in Mexico. Especially since the majority of Latina feminists in the u.s. are chicanas and don't speak spanish. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I'm already so familiar with that perspective Anyway, I'm rambling ha
yunarikku2723 don't worry, I dont mind the questions haha. It is definitely very taboo to be a feminist here as well, but I was lucky enough to be in a highschool that was very accepting and liberal and that allowed the teachers to give their point of view on current issues. One teacher in my freshman year introduced me to feminism, and then on my senior year I had two teachers who taught me a lot about it as well, in addition the two principals in charge of the school were amazing women. Every year there was a main topic of discussion in school, and all activities and events had to revolve around it (for example on my freshman year the topic was breast cancer, another year the topic was climate change) and on my senior year the topic was gender equity. As a member of the activities board and someone who was involved in many extracurricular activities this gave me the chance to not only learn more about feminism while working with the teachers I mentioned, but also to educate and have conversations with my class mates, most of whom knew nothing about feminism or had very wrong ideas, but by the end of the year everyone had a pretty good sense of what it was.
"revolve everything around equity." figures. "and it's basically a sin if you don't." again, figures. Google the word "equity" and you find financial terms. The way this word is used implies that one group feels it's entitled to things another group has because the other group achieved something the first group hasn't. Oh well.
This was a huge issue that we had in the Gender and Communication class I took about a year ago. It took me a minute to realize that most of the people around me had not taken a basic Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies class. Because I had already had that basic understanding of some of the history behind the different types of feminism, I thought more people would be on board. But the things is, they hadn't even heard of the word "intersectional" before. So I threw it around a lot, then realizing I needed to explain it to some degree. After I did, I feel like more people could see where I was coming from, but I wish we would've went over the theory. The funny thing is that in another class I was taking at the time, intercultural communication, we did go over the theory of intersectionality. I was so elated that we did and I was glad that people from my Gender and Communication class were also in the Intercultural Communication class. Long story short, I say I'm an intersectional feminist and I try to explain what that means as best as I can when having discussions about these topics. People are complicated and what makes them who they are is complicated, so trying to consider and not assume what intersections make them who they are is really important. The only problem I see with it is that it includes the ability and capacity to have empathy, something I've noticed a lot of people have a hard time with. -two cents given :) haha
I had this issue at my school because we wanted to create a feminist coalition for students and I had to explain that we need it to be intersectional and inclusive if we want it to be most effective. Very interesting vid.
Even though the dictionary definition is so limited, the sad part is that so many people still deny the concept as it is written there. The fact that so many discussions still center around whether or not feminism is for equality, just makes me cringe, as I see that the level of conversation is in such a low level. I am glad about the second part of your video, where you explain that there are many ways to conduct feminism. I think that at this point it should be irrelevant to discuss whether or not feminism is a good concept. I wish people were actually talking about WHICH type of feminism is the best to achieve societal goals.
I think being more specific in what kind of feminist one is will certainly help frame the conversation in a way that would be the most productive. While not a feminist myself, I've often found the most productive conversations I've had with feminists have been when they're more specific with their beliefs rather than just using the blanket term of "feminist" Also, I like the videos, even if I don't 100% agree with all of them. Keep em coming :)
I'm with you- I think when you are discussing the definition of a term within a specific field, it's important to seek out sources that will tell you what that word means within the context of said field. I think context is so helpful in many situations, and especially so when you're discussing social equality and justice. That's why I say I'm an intersectional feminist, because so many factors of people's identities can intersect with their gender, like race, class, sexuality, etc.
I believe it is important for political movements/ideologies to have a simplistic definition for the common lay person. Dictionary definitions are important for that. If it was decided that complex definitions needed to be used, definitions beyond the grasp of the common lay person, then only educated experts/elites would have the proper authority to discuss a particular issue. When discussing a serious topic and not just writing a paper in high school, I use the English Oxford (Living) Dictionary, not dictionary.com (not an "official" dictionary). The English Oxford (Living) Dictionary defines Feminism as ""the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" and Egalitarianism as "the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." I am satisfied with these definitions and think they are defined well enough.
Not a single character. Just copy-pasted. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feminism en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/egalitarianism I mentioned my source twice. Checking my source would've taken less time than making that comment.
What is meaningful about the part I left out? Is your argument that the origin is wrong, and so the definition is wrong? Or that there is nothing wrong with the origin, but the given definition is from the 19th century and not "with the times"? As for leaving stuff you out, you conveniently provide both definitions for Egalitarianism while only providing a single definition for Feminism. The second definition for Feminism, from your own source, is "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." While these definitions are quite similar, there is one key difference. The definition for Feminism focuses on the sexes/women, whereas the definition for Egalitarianism focuses on humans/people. Egalitarianism is the only one that goes beyond sexism, according to these definitions. It's origin also came before Feminism, according to your sources. Or are you arguing that the dictionary definition for Feminism is out-dated and it should better match the definition for Egalitarianism, since Feminism has become more similar to it over the past century?
To be fair it is important to remember the French origin of the word. Because, as French feminist and historian Genevieve Fraisse tells us, the French word "feminisme" was created by French man opposing the political organisation of women, and was mostly used in misogynist vocabulary. It was then re-appropriated by women. It is then obvious that the word seems to "focus on the sexes", because this is the terms in which men tried to frame "feminist struggles" as they wanted to.
You claim that it was men framing the "feminist struggles," but I'm unclear where you're going with this. It was my understanding that most early Feminism, at least in the United States (since I only have minimal knowledge of it's history in my home country) was focused on liberal feminism, or what some would define as bourgeois feminism. It was only after some time that other feminists recognized various deficiencies in this school of thought, such as a lack of intersectionality (too individualistic) and few other things I don't quite recall from lecture. It expanded and changed as time went on, but 1st and 2nd wave feminism did not provide a voice for women of color, working-class women, and LGBT+ women. In other other words, it is historically accurate to say that 1st and 2nd wave feminism focused on the sexes, and there are many feminist scholars who have argued this. This is a result of history, not just what men made the word sound like.
i find it's been tough for me to identify as feminist because it is so easy for people to find extremist negative examples of feminism which i'm expected to explain or defend. also i'm not crazy about labels which is also why i guess i don't really identify as one. as for what i believe in i would say it leans a lot towards what most feminists would consider good but there is always room for improvement which is why i watch you, because i respect your opinion a lot on the topic and believe you're one of the closest to the right side to be on
I think this paragraph on RationalWiki sums it up for me: It is important to note that, whether you agree or disagree with the definition, words can have many meanings at the same time. The use of racism to mean "prejudice plus power" by however many academics does not disqualify other definitions of the term any more than psychiatrists defining the term "depression" as a specific disorder disqualifies using it to mean being extremely sad. "Prejudice plus power" as used by some academics is what is called a stipulative definition used primarily for academic research to literally simplify discussions and text, not to "replace" other definitions of the word in common usage. Thus, to evoke it as the "only correct definition" or as the somehow "most socially just" stance on bigotry imaginable is ridiculous. This is an important point to make considering that many people use the definition to derail arguments and to excuse whatever bigotry they themselves have. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
Hey, great video! I generally describe myself as a feminist to non-feminists and an intersectional feminist when I want to be more specific. I find the fact that intersectional feminism is still quite broad, a good thing, as it encourages more conversation. I find it important to remember that we all want the same thing, we just have different ideas of how to achieve it. I tend to rely heavily on evidence based practice; not necessarily part of the definition of intersectional feminism but a very important part of my feminism and my own identity tbh
Oh, there can sure be sexism, but that doesn't mean only men can be guilty of it which is what feminists are trying to achieve with their redefining words
+Snuffels11 Then what is Patriarchy theory? What do you consider the idea that women are oppressed by what can only referred to as the only other possible party in the gender spectrum? How many feminists do you know who consider women oppressors? You can't be a feminist believing society oppresses women, for you would be enabling 50% of the population to increase their power to oppress women even more And you just used the worst example of a feminist, you actually went "full McIntosh" And there are no Gender stereotypes *affecting* us, they serve a well thought out concept that have enabled us to become the dominant species on this planet
Very valid points. I'd add that recently I've been learning a lot about colonialism, post-colonialism and the intersection of color, culture and gender, and what struck me was how different my perspective became once I've made the effort to be more exposed, through my academics mostly but also in my own time. The tendency is to blame academic institutions for pushing concepts that lose their grip on reality, but I've been far more in tune with other people's reality and feel like I became a more efficient debater. I listen more and I know when I don't know enough. For example, my boyfriend is German and he has a lot of views about the German political system backed with extensive academic knowledge specifically on it, as he's almost finished with his political science master's, did an internship at the parliament and works for his party as a student. I wouldn't be able to debate him even when his views don't resonate with me, so I let him do more of the talking so I can learn and comment when I feel that I can - But I always tell him that in order to be in agreement with him if ever I would have to know more about the other side of the coin, and he respects that. If your conversational partner is not willing to take a dive into what these things mean in the more in-depth, up-to-date sense, you're not gonna be able to communicate effectively. Communication is always made better with a sense of humility and curiosity from what I've gathered.
well said Marina. The older I get and the more different types of people/personalities I encounter, the more I realize a lot of them want true equality for women as well, but so many are turned off by the word "feminist" that I've stopped using the word around certain people, especially straight guys. I find that if I present my concerns on social equality by explaining my fears (lack of women's reproductive health, raising the minimum wage, etc.) they're much more open to conversation. Can't say I'm happy about it but I'll take what I can get I guess.
At around 13, I found that my dictionnary said that poetry was something that is not prose and prose something that is not poetry (circular definition). I stopped looking at dictionnary and started looking at encyclopedia and articles (except when I have to look up the root of the words and for very quick knowledge and orthograph).
I've started collecting definitions of feminism (in french) a while ago, and found that the best definition was a combination of a sociological and a personnal definition: Mine would be between: « Feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of colour, working-class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women - as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement» -Barbara Smith, « Racism and Women's Studies » dans Making Face, Making Soul. Hacienda Caras. and « tout engagement intellectuel ou pratique pour la liberté et l'autonomie des femmes et participe d'une prise de position plus vaste contre toute forme d'exclusion, de marginalisation ou d'oppression. » [Any and all intellectual or practical commitment to the freedom and autonomy of women and participation in a broader stance on all forms of exclusion, marginalization or oppression.] Anna Lupien, De la cuisine au studio, 2012, p.37 I'd also put in: « Il s'agit d'une prise de conscience d'abord individuelle, puis ensuite collective, suivie d'une révolte contre l'arrangement des rapports de sexe et la position subordonnée que les femmes y occupent dans une société donnée, à un moment donné de son histoire. Il s'agit aussi d'une lutte pour changer ces rapports et cette situation. » - Louise Toupin, 1998 [It is a consciousness firstly individual, then collective, followed by a revolt against the understanding of gender relations and the subordinate position that women occupy in a given society at a given moment of its history. It is also a struggle to change these relationships and these situations]
oh, I have almost? sorta? figured out how to film myself wearing glasses without a horrible glare. there is probably some math behind it with angles and whatnot. but basically, I have my key light at about 5 feet away and shining predominantly on the side of my face so my glasses never pick up the light and reflect it into the camera lens.the other thing I do occasionally is use my ceiling as a bounce. I shine a light at the ceiling and none of that diffused light reflects off the glasses. you could be all fancy and get a nice diffuser, or build a rig with a shower curtain.
I recently attended a lecture by a professor called Clare Hemmings (professor of feminist theory) about feminist articulations (mainly in a European context, but still relevant to your video I think). She talked about how things like the "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt were popularizing and commodifying feminism in a way that resists nuance and intersectionality. Obviously it's great if feminism would become the norm, and no longer be a dirty word, but the problem is that in order for that to happen (in today's social and political climate at least), feminism has to be turned into a sort of product that will appeal to the masses. This means it has to be accessible (which inevitably means it will be simplified, in order not to be elitist to say, only people with an academic background) but it also has to be palatable. The dictionary definition is something a lot of people use to defend their views against non-feminisst, because, as you said, it is something almost everyone agrees with and most people feel comfortable identifying with. Going into the nitty-gritty of what intersectional feminism ACTUALLY is will sadly make it a lot less attractive to a lot of people. I don't really have a solution for this though, I just wanted to share my thoughts. I do think it is dangerous and unwise to completely dismiss the palatable, simplified version of feminism you see on T-shirts, because for many people, that's the only type of feminism they have access to, and I think feminism should never be confined to academic spaces. Plus of course, for many people, myself included, pop feminism can serve as a gateway into actual nuanced intersectional feminism!
One reason many of us still use the dictionary definition of many of the concepts being discussed is there are legal definitions to these words as well, which mostly draw from the common understanding. Title VII of the Federal penal code prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Racism has a very clear legal definition, as does sexism and sexual harassment. Sometimes that definition is explicit within the law and at other times it is implicit, but implied. So that is why many people still insist that scientist and scholarly concept words really do not have as much weight in every day discussions and deliberations as common and traditional understandings of a word or term.
Also, dictionaries are only ever meant to me indexes of language or reference points at any given time-- not exhaustive discussions of things but rather a short blurb that point to something more substantial (like, an encyclopedia or another book with that word in it or a librarian or a library itself). [Though I think that you do briefly mention this point in your video.] Fun link: johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=3471 "Oats. n.s. [aten, Saxon.] A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." public.oed.com/about/ & the OED (Oxford English Dictionary)-- which indexes over 600.000 words!
is it a bad thing that i need to rewatch this just to calm myself from responding to said feminists on facebook, ahhh i love this video...THE BEST EVER IN THE WORLD. love from a liberationist. x
I'm a college instructor for an intro to women, gender, and sexuality studies class, so most of the time I'm defining feminism, it's in a classroom context which is quite different. However, I never give my students ANY definition of feminism. Instead I simply show them what the goals/ideologies/approach of many different feminists groups has been (i.e. WOC feminism, trans feminism, transnational feminism, etc.). I think this keeps them from getting stuck on an overly simplistic definition and provides them with examples to define their own feminist ideals!
I think you're on to something here. Most of the people that I've talked to who don't identify as feminists, don't do so because they've seen people who label themselves as "feminists" who man hate or don't believe in trans rights/other equality and diversity issues, and those people have given the word feminism a bad rep in their eyes. Thus specifying among different types of feminism has become very important.
This video is really great. It sums up several points very well! This reminds me of “'Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?' A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. Really interesting.. In my AP English class we read some of it and how definitions of prejudice vs. racism should interact in order to take in account for societal powers.
7 лет назад+47
Feminism = equality is not very good way to describe it because there are other people who are not feminists that promote equality in same manner but without the same ideological background and concentrating on other issues than women's issues.
I would like to point out that as a feminist I concentrate on a lot of issues other than women's issues. Unfortunately, I am often penalized (by anti-feminists) when I talk about these other issues because "WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FEMINISM?" But I do have a huge problem with feminists who only care about women's issues and not racial issues, LGBTQ issues, etc. That's why I think intersectionality is so important.
There is also a second side to this issue: not only are there nonfeminists who would meet the dictionary definition, but there are some feminists who don't. As an analogy, if I held up a pencil and called it a table, that wouldn't make it a piece of furniture with a flat top and a leg. This is obvious because it's a physical object, but the same idea holds for abstractions like ideologies.
7 лет назад+5
Feminism doesn't really exclude those areas you mentioned, but historically and on ideological background, feminist theory and so on, the concentration on women's issues has been strong and is strong today. As a man, for example, while i see some things pushed forward by feminists that are issues that are important to me as well (for example equal parental vacation etc.), i don't feel feminists are the group of people that are best advocating my issues. And i don't think that is a problem, they don't need to be. But that is the reason i don't think feminism as a term works as umbrella term for equality either. Feminists are one important movement pushing equality but they are hardly the only one or even have huge track record of being equality for all movement, intersectionality being good example historically, and sadly, even today at times. To put it short, i agree with feminists on the goal, but i disagree on some ideological issues like feminist theory and i don't think they are best movement for representing my issues in general. I consider myself being their ally in the goal of achieving equality but i don't consider myself being a feminist.
I loved this video. Such a well-rounded, interesting overview of the topic and a great conversation starter. I think, personally, that the basic dictionary definition of feminism isn't enough because it seems more focused on the end goal rather than the process. So someone could say that they're a feminist because they want equality among genders but they may also believe that there already IS equality among genders or they might believe that the way to achieve equality among genders is to treat everyone equally from this point forward. I think that our definition and understanding of feminism - and similar movements such as anti-racism - must involve the idea of equity as the starting point and the process in order to hopefully, eventually achieve equality. Like you can't just immediately start treating everyone "equally" because that would similar maintain the power imbalances that we have already. Instead, we need to treat each other equitably, meaning that people should be given what they need and helped in the way that they need, which would be different than what and how other people need. For example, this addresses the idea of "why is there a Black History Month and not a White History Month?" Equality would mean that everyone gets the same thing which would mean that a White History Month would be a valid proposition; an equitable approach would dictate that there is a Black History Month because Black History has consistently been pushed aside and denigrated so we need to elevate and honour it, whereas White History has been in the forefront of our education systems, our public discourse, our media, etc, so there is no need for it's own month to honour and highlight it.
Words such as "racism" have a general dictionary definition because if we want to be more specific about dynamics between types of people that are participating in an interaction where racism is occuring, then we hyphenate with "racism" such as "superiority - based racism" or use a different word does not already define a general concept such as discrimination based on race. This way we many terms that refer to various types of dynamics where racism is influencing thought and behaviour. It's simple. This is how we expand our thinking. By adding words to specify meaning based on general concepts. I appreciate that you understand that the dictionary definition of "racism" is a valid definition, while there is another definition that some people use when conversing from a sociological viewpoint.
I think the fact that feminism = equality is a good starting point for anti-feminists. Before having an actual intellectual conversation about feminism, all parties have to want to actually be engaged in that conversation, and starting with that definition challenges people to open their minds to another way of considering feminism first. Of course it is best to then go on and discuss intersectionality and the many other facets of feminism, but that is much easier when everyone is already interested in the conversation and aware that maybe their perspective isn't the only valid way of thinking about it... that's what I think at the moment anyway
I'm a feminist and I am so so so on board with everything you said. In a lot of ways, the dictionary can be very limiting within conversations. I think your science analogy is very astute.
Yorkshire Lad well, from a very young age it became clear to me that western society held certain biases towards men. At first I only saw that this imbalance was hurting women, but as I got older I saw that men suffer from these biases too, just in very different ways. Feminism as a movement tackles this imbalance. So many of my friends (male and female) have personal issues that can be drawn directly back to the gender roles they have been directed towards their whole lives. Feminism seeks to dismantle these roles, and ultimately that will lessen the very evident divide between men and women.
I'm very pleased you're taking up an educational approach to how we define many of these terms. It is indeed fascinating. Personally, I'm a liberal feminist, which often puts me at odds with intersectional feminists, radical feminists, and Marxist feminists. Feminism sure as hell is not monolithic. I certainly agree with you that we should be quite specific with our terms when possible.
i identify as an intersectional feminist but i really need a good short definition to say when i am trying to explain it rather than having to be long winded and them getting bored
When you talked about being frustrated with sometimes having to take away time from the main conversation to then discuss and define words, I really related to that. I personally find it aggravating and a waste of time. I have been in a few really great conversations that got side railed because someone says "White people can experience racism" and then it all went to hell. We all know what most people mean when they say racism so going into the argument about whether or not white people can be discriminated against feels like a major distraction and not worth it. I try to offer a very quick explanation that I see there being two kinds, one with a big R (systemic) and one with a little r (prejudice), and that white people can't experience big R racism as they benefit from the system. I've seen other feminists just continue to repeat the same thing and I don't think it's particularly helpful. I completely acknowledge though that it could be apart of my own privilege/limited experience that makes me feel this way.
I think dictionary definitions being used as the primary definition is a problem that's prevalent in everything, not just the word feminism. I'm a queer Deaf guy myself, and Deaf people don't view themselves as disabled, but we technically are. It's simply how we define ourselves and what "d/Deaf" means to us. So many people lump all d/Deaf people into the same category - people who can't speak, sign only, and can't hear a thing at all. We're so much more diverse than that! About queerness, it's a word that literally can't be defined clearly, it means something different to everyone. I personally just use queer but if people want to know more specifically, I'm fine with bisexual or pansexual. I feel like they're the same for me, but I am aware that some people feel those two terms are different and have their own nuances. If I'm using bi, I refer to Robyn Ochs' definition of bisexual and certainly not the dictionary definition of bisexual which is so limiting.
Personally, I adjust the terms I'm using based on the audience. For a subculture I'm part of, free and open source software, there was a similar divide. The term "free software" means exactly that: software with no cost. However, the specialist meaning is more like "libre," as in software that respects your freedom (e.g. Firefox). Today activists use some combination of "free and open source software," free libre and open source software, FOSS, FLOSS, you name it. I mention this because, we can use whatever term we want in specialist circles. However, the general term is just going to be what it is going to be. (I think language follows more descriptivist vs prescriptionist behavior.) Infamously, the general public uses "theory" to mean a speculation, where the scientific definition is a set of well-tested predictions: "theory of gravity." Point being, I find the most effective route is indeed to seek those deeper definitions as you mention, but adjust my language to suit the listener's preference.
great fucking video, I disagree with a lot of things that you say on other videos, but this one was damn great, you're recognizing one of the biggest communication problems between people that support feminism and those that don't. that's a hard thing to do... mostly from a feminist standpoint.
At the risk of being attacked for being someone outside your core audience, I'd like to share my thoughts. As you alluded to, I also believe that most people today agree in equality between the sexes, so the dictionary definition doesn't begin to address the perceived socioeconomic or intersectionality influences on how a vastly different group of individuals may define it. Though I may often disagree with you, I enjoy hearing what you have to say, as it always gives me something to think about. I also like that you recognize there are a wide range of people who self-identify as feminists but with vastly different views, such as those who may be more militant, or don't accept transwomen, or certain religions, etc. I also find it refreshing that like many of us, you don't claim to have it all figured out, and still keep an open mind while continuing to search for answers. I don't want to live in an echo chamber, so I watch both SJW and anti-SJW channels and I'd like to believe that hopefully, sooner than later, we can start to find some common ground.
It's funny because you quoted Merriam Webster's definition of racism and they very recently came forward to squash the use of their lexical definition to be used as a method of silencing conversations about structural racism. Very similarly I feel like the overly simplified definition of feminism in a lexicon should be used ONLY as a starting point for discussion to maybe open a dialogue about the topic to someone who really has no concept of it. I personally identify as a fourth wave and/or intersectional feminist. It helps me distinguish verbally myself from TERF, SWERF or white feminists. It also often brings the question, "Well what does that mean?" which gives me an opportunity to explain my position to someone who is actually curious and maybe never heard of that before. Lack of nuance is a MASSIVE issue with any arguments drawn from extremely shortened definitions of anything and dictionaries suck at providing even basic references to source materials mostly. Nuance is critical to really getting anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
Hello Marina! Watching anti-feminist and rationalist™ videos is my guilty pleasure, but I find your openness to discussion and debate quite refreshing in your clique of content creators. I really hope you could approach the most approachable vaguely "anti-sjw" person of your choice for a google hangout or something. You could start the discussion by trying to find common ground. With a non-hostile, open minded and constructive mindset I think you could start an actual dialogue. Maybe it could even be me, but I haven't started uploading anything yet so that wouldn't get the attention this hypothetical correspondence deserves. Give it a thought will you?
I actually did a livestream with Bearing awhile back, but I'm not sure if it's still up on his channel? You might be able to find it though if someone else uploaded it!
Anstonius That's a great idea! I feel like Roaming Millenial is one of the nicest people part of the "anti-sjw" crowd. A live stream with her would be awesome
***** Yeah, I couldn't find the Bearing livestream. Besides, this seems like an effort that could be tried out more than once. Different pairings will create different discussional dynamics.
Absolutely. I remember watching the Bearing livestream a while back and it was interesting. Not a huge bearing fan though. I find that people like Jeff holiday, Roaming and Matt Christiansen tackle a lot of the nuance behind a lot of social issues better than a lot of people out there and it would be so great to be able to see even more discussions.
I think that having differing definitions of any socially progressive buzzword [feminism (or, "feminism") being one of many] has led to most if not nearly all disagreements I've had with people on the internet. One of the most frustrating interactions I've recently had with someone was on facebook. A friend (acquaintance, really) from college had shared an extremely transphobic opinion and other people from my college had (rightly) called her out on it. In the post that this acquaintance had originally made she gave up defending herself in the comments because so many people were ripping her argument to shreds. In another post she made, after like 20 people defriended her, she continued to defend her opinion. In the comments of this second post was some one who kept making comments that equated gender and ("biological") sex as being the same thing. I made a very straightforward comment that gender, sex, and sexuality are conceptually different things and all that are rooted in social construction + informed from how we represent or identify ourselves to others. From there this person (who was not my friend and who I have never met) continued to make blanket statements about gender and sex without really furthering the discussion & focusing it on the buzzword 'identity politics'. At one point I asked "are you a 'terf' ( trans-exclusive radical feminist) to which this person both took offence (calling it a 'slur') and accepting that that is the ideology they agreed with. Then, because they had backed themselves into a hole filled with logical fallacies, they tagged (in) a friend to "defend" their "radical feminism" . This 'friend of a friend of a friend' then proceeded to accuse me of being "incoherent" & of having no knowledge of "feminism" (rather, her version of feminism) and tried to quiz me on what she felt were seminal feminist texts. (Texts, by the way, which were only really written by first & second wave feminists in the 40s-70s and which have been highly criticized by most people in their contemporary movements as being reductive or misinterpreting what feminism "is about".) (#sorryfortherant) In short, I think that in an era of internet communication the issue of finding words in common to express ideas in common has become one of the most difficult things to do-- especially when the people that you (or maybe it's just me) interact with don't really care about the opinion you're sharing or have so deeply misunderstood what you meant by 'that certain phrase' or 'that certain word' that it becomes exhausting-- which seems to be a feeling that you share. At the same time, I think that through the social connectivity that is granted in virtual space I have been able to talk to people (who I actually know) more frequently about "the issues" & in doing so have refined and expanded upon "dictionary definitions". I think that there's also a stark divide in conversations about the "-isms" between people who have gone to college, or have some more formal understanding (one could call it elitist wokeism) of the sociological and historical meanings (connections) of buzzwords, and those who have been exposed to them by proxy. Another example: someone who (I assume/ guessed) had never gone to college or looked into it called me a "stupid liberal" with a "liberal bias" because I go to a liberal arts college. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ & I was like "are you shitting me, br0?" because it was so unfathomable that someone could make such a shallow / decisive inference about who I was as a person based on something that they so very clearly misunderstood. P.S. these are the only two interactions that I've had with random 'friend of a friend' people on the internet for the past 6-8 months, mostly because I'm not super invested to talking to people I don't know but also because they were so mindblowingly wft moments that I was like "never again..."
I personally think that the overarching definition of simply feminism=equality especially for women is useful, but mostly in the sense that it is something that can be a solid starting point for conversation. I think that using simplified versions of terms that tie in to much larger subjects is important for inclusion, such that someone with less experience has an easier time entering a conversation and learning about the topic before nuance comes into play. From there, I think that wordiness is almost more helpful, because if you start with a simple definition, you can refine it by working from a place of agreement. For example, it wasn't until a couple years ago that I learned about the word 'intersectional' in the context of feminism, which is a helpful building block off of the fundamental concept of feminism and equality that better informs others about what exactly your approach to feminism is. But that's just my sort of immediate thoughts, and I can definitely see other arguments having valid claims.
I have been thinking about this a lot recently. I think my idea of feminism/intersectionality is for people to be treated the same as if there were no gender. this is in all walks of life: pay, dating, military, leadership, etc. That's not saying I think the idea of gender has to go away, but that it shouldn't be considered for more than basic attraction and statistics.
I feel like the base definition is useful as a tool to initially educate others about the general root of feminist activism, however I believe it is also important to acknowledge that feminism itself is an almost malleable term in that ones own education, cultural background, political biases etc. It's important to accept each individuals personal definition of feminism and listen to their arguments so as to become more educated on the broader spectrum of feminism. As a socialist feminist I personally believe that feminism is the liberation of all those who identify in a 'feminine' way from any form of oppression. However I believe that the root cause of misogynistic thinking, as well as all other forms of systematic oppression, arise directly from, or are incredibly exaggerated by, capitalistic ideologies. Thus, the conclusion can be made that the liberation I personally strive for as a feminist can only be fully achieved through a complete political revolution and overthrow of capitalism leading to the existence of a worldwide socialist state. Thank you so much for making this video, it's both an interesting and important topic to discuss.
the dictionary definition of racism you mentioned is the definition for individual racism. the more complex definition you mentioned is the definition for systematic racism. both definitions are used in sociology, and distinguished via the words "individual" and "systematic".
I'm not very educated about feminism as it's not my field of study, but it does interest me greatly as a psychologist with an interest in social justice. I think you hit a good point when you said that we should be more precise with our language. In my experience a lot of disagreements are caused when people are arguing over two different but similar concepts, and once the definitions are cleared up people will often (but not always) agree with one another.. I tend to think of feminism as an extremely broad term that encompasses equality of gender as well as intersectionality, and LGBT issues. I can understand why some people might want to focus solely on gender, but think that can become problematic. Complex issues need complex definitions. Btw I'm really enjoying these unscripted videos, even more so than the scripted I think. It becomes more of a thoughtful discussion this way 😊
Words were originally intended to allow the communication of ideas. Successful communication relies on both parties having a common understanding of what a word means. Unfortunately when words are turned into weapons designed to control ideas the objective is no longer communication. When the meanings of words are arbitrarily changed or obscure definitions used communication fails. A case in point is the word "feminism". It refers to an ideology ("the belief in equality"), a catechism of beliefs ("patriarchy, privilege, etc") and a group of people ("the movement"). Feminists have dumbed this down to the ideology meaning and then used it as a weapon against anyone criticisizing any feminist or feminist dogma. "If you criticise feminism you do not believe in equality." However as you point out feminism is far more complex and such a black and white definition leaves you with two choices when another feminist does or says something you disagree with. "Excommunicate them from feminism" or "accept into the church of feminism apostasy". I think you are trying to make words do more than they are capable of. The search for common agreement on what a word means is communication and valuable in itself because it is identifying and respecting different opinions, origins, cultures and customs. Words are much better and more constructive when used for discovering ideas than they are when used as weapons to force your meaning on others.
Using a non-standard definition of a key term in your argument is like crossing your fingers before you tell a lie. If you use a non-standard definition, you must make it clear before you begin your argument. Otherwise, one can just choose a definition that makes one look good after the discussion. That is a politician's game.
Around 5:40, you seem to be saying that "defining things" is different from "actually communicating ideas." While a semantic discussion can have diminishing returns (Socrates showed us that defining ideas is difficult), I think I have found that accepting and cheerfully engaging in this step of the process of having a conversation helps. Sometimes people haven't thought much about how they are using a term, or assume I'm using it the same way. We often think in these complex composites of examples. Well, that's fine. We can discuss those examples, and talk about how these mental representations (scenes from a movie, conversations we've had, interactions we've observed while sitting in a restaurant, paragraphs from texts, song lyrics) influence how they use the word. Discussing concrete examples is another step of a conversation I find interlocutors sometimes feel uncomfortable on. They want to talk about "ideas" without getting to examples. This makes me uncomfortable. If I can't get to examples when trying to think about an idea, I quickly begin to wonder if I know what I'm talking about. And I've found in my relationship with my SO that the sooner we get to talking details (the way our stomach feels while we're talking, the actual emotions and preferences we're experiencing, instead of our interpretations of them), the sooner we begin empathizing and communicating. I think seeing conversations as processes with steps in them (coming to terms, discussing examples, discussing our opinions, where we agree, disagree, why, how we could investigate our assumptions or claims we're not certain about, when we should discuss again) instead of an amorphous gives us the opportunity to improve our conversations, because we can identify which step we're having a problem in.
You're absolutely right! The conceptual discourse that exist within the underlining foundations of every ideological belief-system has never been wholly solidified within one all-encompassing definition. In simpler terms, feminism (much like many ideologies) will always mean different things to different people. It would be fundamentally inhuman for feminism to be interpreted in the same way by a mass group of individuals. The evolution of ideas is at the very heart of what makes us human, we need to constantly redefine and revise what feminism means to us. And re-contextualise these definitions for future generations. Who will (hopefully) do the same for the next generation.
I agree that it isn't the best argument to just say that feminism means you believe in equality, it's just too simplistic. I've had a lot of arguments with misogynistic men who say they believe in equality but they actually think men are oppressed more than women. So they're fighting for 'men's rights' and ignoring all the issues women face, just like people often do with race.
Isn't that what feminists do as well? Why would you characterize men fighting for their rights as misogynistic? Sounds like a "pot calling a kettle black."
To say that you are using a sociological definition of racism seems off. The "Introduction to Sociology" textbook by Richard T. Schaefer defines racism as "the belief that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior." This is how racism is defined in sociology. What you are doing is breaking racism down instead of looking at the general definition. The second page of text you show (1:47) says that, "Racism, as an ideology, exists in a society at both the individual and institutional level." If we go back to your source for the definition of racism, sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm. The definition you provide at 1:40 focuses on representational, institutional, structural, and systemic racism (forms of institutional racism). It disregards ideological, discursive, and interactional racism (forms of individual racism). Individual and institutional racism are separate but usually related. The different definitions from your own source should make this clear. Yet you seem to be arguing that individual racism can only exist if it is in alignment with the institutional racism of that culture? So in other words, an individual black person cannot be racist in a Western/Eastern culture and an albino person cannot be racist in an African culture? In this last question, I mean racist towards any other race, not just the dominant one. For example, in America, a black person having a racist attitude towards Chinese people.
I've got sociological dictionaries that go into much more detail in their definition of racism and sexism than the example in the book you reference. So, that is not how racism is defined in sociology, as far as we can say there is one definition of racism for all of sociology (which you can't really) it is far more in dept than the initial definition you gave. Good luck on your Sociological journey! It is the best science!
Can you cite your source and/or at least somewhat describe this expanded definition? I cited an introduction to sociology textbook because we were talking about sociology and racism in general, not a specific discipline of sociology nor a specific form of racism, such as institutionalized/structural/systemic racism. The target audience of this video (I'd expect) is people in general, the common lay person, not just the people with a degree (or heavy background) in sociology. Other introductory texts and sociology dictionaries, at least that I've seen, have a very similar definition to the one I provided. I'd like to see how the definition you mention is structured.
This is not an 'in depth' definition, it's a deliberately shallow one. You are trying to narrow a definition nobody wants narrowed and wondering why they aren't falling for it.
All I've noticed on this thread so far is 5-7 missing comments. But it was from me talking to Rua O'Neill and one other who somewhat disagreed with me (& I think more so agreed with Marnia).
I know this was from months ago, but I feel like the term equality, if you really think about it, should encompass the concepts of intersectionality. Because even if someone has 2 marginalizations, versus someone else's 1, you're still shooting for an even-playing field, taking into consideration those differences. So I'll call myself a feminist and someone wants an explanation, I'll explain that the goal is equality and we have to consider all the potential reasons people aren't being treated equally.
The dictionary definition does not say that feminists fight for gender equality, only that it fights for women's right to be elevated to that of mens. The "to" in the dictionary definition actually creates that difference.
Occam's Razor: the dictionary version of racism is the best route to take. It directly addresses the heart of the issue. Jesus said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Whereas I believe that the Lord Buddha said, “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?”
For me personally, I'm not gonna dictate what someone identifies as. If someone calls themself a feminist, no matter how much I disagree with their views or stances or ideas, they're still a feminist because, as you said, feminism is not monolithic and it is a collaboration of ideas to fix inequalities and inequities. I've also stopped using "equality" as if I'm being completely honest, it's overused in many situations when we actually mean equity. For example, many people with disabilities need access to services and facilities others don't. However, if we go along with the whole equality thing, and treat everyone equally, people with disabilities go without the things they need to easily live their lives. So to summarise, I guess I really don't mind white feminists calling themselves feminism because that is their feminism. There is only one person in this world who shares the exact same views on the exact same things, and that's me. Feminism is different for everyone and it holds a different purpose for all of us, and it's not up to me to dictate what it should be to other people (although that doesn't mean I'm not going to call out other feminists on their failure to be intersectional).
I would consider myself part of the Anti-SJW/Rationalist/whatever it is called these days crowd and I was looking around for interesting videos for responses. I had seen a few of your earlier ones and so watched. I'll be damned if your thinking here isn't very rational and well thought out. I am legitimately impressed with your level-headed thoughts and reasonable explanations even though I would probably disagree with you on many topics. Brava.
You mean like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" Which is not a Democracy, nor a republic and not of the people Feminists made a similar mess of their definition
i like to think of feminism more as Equity than Equality since we all know men, women, poc, white folks, and trans folks arent truly equal. So my definition of feminism would be to just give the best items to the people in last place.
I agree that the dictionary definition of feminism is usually too simplistic to be at all useful, but the reason i personally use it is because where i live, i encounter a lot of people who don't believe in equality between men and women, just like at the most basic level, so i find that is still a somewhat useful term just to kind of get over that very first hump. like if you don't even believe in the dictionary definition of the word, i doubt we're going to agree on much else. I know this isn't really related to what the video was about, i guess i just think that the context in which the word is used matters a lot and that the definition might change with the context
I think it depends on the audience. I don't feel like it's doing any good to use a sociological definition when you're speaking with someone that is patently not a sociologist; even if a sociological concept is being discussed. I feel like someone who's specialized in a subject can just about always drop down from a specialized space to a more general space but it's literally impossible to do the reversal without help.
I feel that short of defining your views in their entirety bypassing the use of the word feminism, there will always be the potential for misunderstanding or worse a deliberate shutting out from the other side because of negative connotations with feminism. The average person doesn't know new wave feminism from radical feminism from intersectional feminism etc, so I feel the word no longer serves its purpose. I feel this overlaps with fearmongering and islamophobia we're seeing in the US and elsewhere, but that's a long discussion.
I think it is really important to keep discussing definitions as the expansion of information continues those definitions deserve updates. For instance homosexually used to be defined as a paraphilia and mental illness. In that definition I would be unable to identify as homosexual despite being a big ol' gay. 😂😂 Dictionary definitions always seem less accurate when you have access to a larger pool of information. As someone who studied music at university I find myself constantly finding fault in how the dictionary defines pretty much anything to do with music including the word music itself. A large part of bridging divides in my opinion is offering more nuances and openness to varying definitions. I see it as a core part of communication. 😊😊
Try to use the same language as everyone else, and try not to redefine the words someone else is using to turn it on them. If someone isn't using the word "feminism" in an international way, you can drop that meaning for that conversation and try to express what you want to express with words you agree on.
"I've met a lot of self-identified feminists who I just adamantly disagree with. In the past I might even say that they're not real feminists because I don't believe that they're 'doing feminism correctly'... usually I use that as shorthand to mean that I don't think that they are as informed or as familiar with a wide variety of feminist theorists to get a full picture of what intersectionality and intersectional feminism should look like. But I really don't know if I believe that that's the best way to go about tackling people I disagree with who identify as feminists..." It's definitely not the best way to go about dealing with feminists you disagree with. This whole idea of a person not being a "real feminist" because they don't subscribe to, or are not specialised in, what is called "feminist theory" smacks of the disparaging rhetoric used against the "uneducated, backward sections of the working class" by "scientific socialists" like Lenin and friends. Mikhail Bakunin lamented that "the principal vice of the average specialist is his inclination to exaggerate his own knowledge and deprecate everyone else’s," and opted instead to trust in the knowledge and competence that "the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and in their conscious or unconscious aspirations." Incidentally, Bakunin goes onto make a prediction which, as we now know, turned out to be chillingly prophetic: "Give [the expert theorist] control and he will become an insufferable tyrant. To be the slave of pedants - what a destiny for humanity! Give them full power and they will begin by performing on human beings the same experiments that the scientists are now performing on rabbits and dogs." Socialism, anarchism, feminism and all other emancipatory movements are, at the base of it, precisely that: _movements._ Feminism is not primarily a body of "theory," as the academics or the _intelligentsia_ would like to believe, but is rather a set of methods, aims and _practices._ Feminism belongs to and is accessible to _all_ women, not just a special class of women "educated" in "theory."
"Feminism is not primarily a body of "theory," as the academics or the intelligentsia would like to believe, but is rather a set of methods, aims and practices. Feminism belongs to and is accessible to all women, not just a special class of women "educated" in "theory."" Yes, I agree. That's why I was criticizing my own dismissal of feminists I disagreed with in the past. We're all learning and growing and all that and very well probably just practice different types of feminism.
equality's definition may also fluctuate from person to person.
I found this video fascinating, Marina. It occurred to me that we (people?) approach defining Racism and Feminism from entirely opposite angles. You point out that a lot of people you disagree with cite the dictionary definition of Racism, where you take a sociological standpoint -- so for example, where they look at Racism from a clinically objective standpoint (anyone is potentially oppressed or privileged depending on individual circumstances), you might consider historical context and overarching institutional trends to categorically assign privilege/oppression (so a minority may be independently wealthy and have institutional power, but that doesn't protect them from culturally ingrained bias). On the OTHER hand, I see a lot of people take the exact opposite approach to Feminism. I see Feminists all over the web citing the dictionary definition as their foundation (Feminism = equality), while simultaneously assigning oppression/privilege based on historical context. In this case, the other side seems to be taking the contemporary sociological stance and looking at the cited institutions to point out contradictions (for example, bringing schools to task over institutionalized sexism when for all intents and purposes the feminist agenda is running the school curriculum and opposing points of view are prevented from speaking on campuses). I think your video does a great job of illustrating why every voice needs to be heard, INCLUDING the traditionally privileged, because context does matter, evident simply by our tendencies to adopt one another's arguments when convenient. To that end, I'll give you one more example of swapping arguments. Something I found fascinating has been the debates surrounding both GamerGate and Feminism. In the former event, GamerGate advocates honest journalism, and would frequently fend off allegations of sexism by saying that trolls and doxxers were not part of their movement, to the point of refusing to change their hashtag when challenged that it had too many negative connotations. In the latter case, I've seen many an anti-feminist advocate changing the movement to any of a number of alternative titles, from "humanism" to "egalitarianism", yet in much the same way, Feminists won't lay down their proverbial flags. That attachment to identity is human nature, I'm sure, but it's fascinating to observe nonetheless.
Exactly. This is really what I was trying to get at and I think you summed up my argument quite well. I've seen both sides flip flop on arguments depending on the context/their position on the issue and it's really fascinating to me. I think we can always do better with our arguments so at the very least I'd like to hold myself to a higher standard and I hope other people will as well.
I think it is fair to say that the comparison between GamerGate and feminism makes no sense. The meaning behind Gamergate is the smear campaign by some media outlets towards gamers. Critics of gamergate wanted the group to change the name because they felt it was attached to harassment(whereas progamergaters said it had nothing to do with those harassers and was about something entirely different). Gamergate is subjective, in that people can really decide what the term refers to because it is relatively new. Feminism is different because it has a longstanding meaning of being "women's rights advocacy on the grounds of equality". When people say that feminism is just about gender equality it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth because the "movement" has a strong focus on women and does little for men. People argue that "feminism=equality" should just be classified as humanism or egalitarianism because it doesnt have a gendered focus.
"rambley and unscripted" and still so articulate and thorough. you rock so much.
Feminism and equality is not the same.
Equality is the end goal, not the road itself. That's where the problem starts, when we discuss how to get there. By shouting everyone is equal everytime we see injustice or to prioritize groups who are constantly treated as less?
I completely agree
It's very frustrating when people get the wrong idea because they are working off of a different definition than the one you're using. Thanks for making this.
I've heard of movements that use the term "Womanism" as a way to say equality for women of color since "feminism" was associated with middle and upper class white women.
The problem with the dictionary definition of feminism is that it assumes a universal understanding of gender equality. I think a better a definition would be something like "advocacy for women's interests" or "active support for greater equality between men and women."
I usually say I'm an intersectional feminist... and most self-identifying feminists that I know in real life are also intersectional feminists -- although they may have varying degrees of knowledge/awareness on different concepts and theories. Because it's a process. Some feminists will start off on gender and as they get into (intersectional) feminist spaces, they will come to learn more about intersectionality.
yes
you can find the answers to that question through googling and your own research... probably you can find a thread all about it on reddit, etc. there are a lot of components to the oppression of women that i do not have time to type out JUST for you.
feminism is indeed for women, but it helps society in general, including men... idk what websites u are talking about, but i guess u can look at reddit like menslib and maybe there are some discussions u might find intriguing there about why feminism helps men.
In my humble opinion, the word feminist is used more often as a label rather than as it was intended. It's one thing to say I'm a feminist, it's another to actually be a feminist. As far as what a feminist is, you're pretty spot on that there isn't one type of feminist, which can be said of every title used to describe a group of individuals. Some examples might be, liberal, conservative, fascist... Simply identifying yourself or someone else as something regardless of your/their connection to it waters down that words meaning.
I would point out that by definition (dictionary or otherwise) there is a distinct connotation that feminism is movement fighting for the rights of women to be equal, or equality of the sexes on behalf of women. Most of that spurs from what I believe is a false belief that women as a whole are oppressed more so than men. I believe that that's not quite a realistic assessment of reality given modern Western society. Not that some women aren't oppressed, many are but so are a lot of men and not just those who are not White. In fact, I believe that a certain group of men based solely on their ethnicity is being demonized and ignored based on nothing more than that ethnicity.
I think everyone would be better served if they dropped the group think mentality and recognized that as individuals we either are or are not oppressed. What genitals we have, what color our skin is, where our ancestors are from do not indicate that we are terrible people, or that we shouldn't be allowed a seat at the table to air our grievances.
I'm enjoying your more unscripted content! I Id as an intersectional feminist when talking about these sorts of issues, and it lends itself to more comprehensive discussions!
Just wanted to add that it depends on what dictionary you use! The Mirriam-Webster dictionary certainly falls short in defining racism, but the Oxford English Dictionary (which is the dictionary most often used by English academics) does have the sociological definition of racism. (Though there can be a lot said about the ivory tower of academia, in this case, considering the OED online is stuck behind a paywall, but I digress.)
As for feminism, I'm an intersectional feminist, but I also stress, when discussing social justice in general, that there's a difference between equality and equity. Equality assumes that everyone is equal now and that all reform needs to affect people equally, while equity acknowledges that people are /not/ yet equal and so reforms necessarily need to take that into account.
Out of all of the femenists on youtube you appear to have the most understanding of the problems between feminists and "anti-feminists". You also appear to have the best logical grasp of the variations of feminism amongst the feminists on RUclips, and ,to be honest, better than quite a few "anti-feminists" on RUclips as well.
Also, I think a way people could reduce the the confusion between the definitions of feminism/feminist is to clearly state which definition is being used, as you have done here.
On that note, I would like to say that I am, at least, a dictionary feminist.
Cheers
The reason there are so many variations of feminism is quite simple, because the definition of feminism is, at heart, quite simple. Feminism is the belief that men have created and perpetuated civilizations which benefit themselves and keep women oppressed as a peasant class under the bootheel. That's it. Whatever other ranting bullshit you ascribe to doesn't mater, if you adhere to the theory of the Uber-Patriarchy, you can call yourself a feminist.
As an non-feminist egalitarian I appreciate that you want to be more specific in your use of words.
I sometimes feel that some feminists use motte and bailey tactics when discussing feminism. When someone says they are not a feminists, you usually hear things like "why are you not a feminist? it is just about equality." However, feminists among themselves talk about "THE PATRIARCHY" and how Marxism must overcome capitalism.
I am a capitalist myself and don't believe in the PATRIARCHY, hence I don't call myself a feminist. I understand not all feminists are Marxists, but that is why I don't choose to wear the label.
Honestly, I think the divide in how people define concepts such as feminism or racism is one of the biggest problems with how we discuss these issues in society.
For instance, if Person A tells Person B that they are being racist, Person B may think they're being called a prejudiced bigot who thinks their own race is superior to someone else's. However, Person A may actually be trying to communicate the much more nuanced idea that Person B is allowing their privileged position within society to overshadow someone who's race has traditionally/institutionally been marginalized.
These two people are now on _very_ different pages and the ensuing conversation will almost always end in conflict with each side thinking the other has gone off the deep end. In my opinion, using the term 'racism' to refer to the sociological concept, which is very broad, can even diminish the dictionary idea of racism because without linguistic qualifiers it cannot distinguish between egregious offences and minor social injustices.
I don't really have any good solutions to this problem except to educate more people about the sociological context of these kinds of issues AND for people who _already_ approach these issues from a sociological standpoint to understand that they can't have a one to one discussion about these issues until all parties understand the starting point of the conversation.
I believe that not not being a feminist doesn't mean you don't want equally as it does mean you don't actively fight for it. Also I feel that feminism has devolved into a group of those who want equality and those who want superiority and or pitty in social/Online encounters. I'm glad you are one of the few feminists that aims for pure freedom instead of power.
- Yours truly, An African American male.
Hey Marina! Loved the video :) You brought up a lot of good points that I actually hadn't necessarily considered. I, too, have used the "textbook definition" argument in the past but I think you're right in that it's not a great argument because it often isn't very productive and how different people define equality can also be VERY different. I'm studying to be a social worker right now and finishing up so I totally get these challenges in discussing racism and sexism. It can be hard to talk to people who don't have the background education because they may not understand some of these nuances, which often leads you to have to explain other basic concepts, and more likely with basic definitions, before you even get to the point you were actually trying to make. So yeah I don't know what the answer is to this besides being more specific and using more precise language because it's hard getting people on the same page about anything, much less on these sorts of topics. Loved hearing your thoughts, keep being an inspiring voice girl!
This is a game of semantics, in an discussion one of the most productive ways of coming to an agreement is coming to an agreed definition of a word, the draw back is that the more you narrow a definition the less people agree with you. So ultimately that is why people in general prefer to use the dictionary approach because they asume that all people agree on the same language so it produces a level of authority higher than that of intersectionalism. While this tactic is generally sound it does face problems because in most conversation people aren't disagreeing with the dictionary definition but the nuances that academics add to it and most of the time the dictionary definition turns into an ad homonym attack.
You can get anti-reflective coatings for your lenses so they don't reflect light into to camera, I distinctly remember another youtuber with new glasses saying something about it. I imagine it would be an optional extra though, like UV blocking coatings and the like.
My biggest problem as a bilingual feminist, specially because I consume a lot of American media but am Mexican and live in Mexico, is that English speaking feminists relate feminism with equality, whereas Mexican and other hispanic feminists have very clear the difference between equality and equity, and revolve everything around equity.
paulina bringas could you please explain a bit more? I'm interested in what you are saying. I am also a feminist who is mexican (ethnicity) however I live in texas
yunarikku2723 yeah, basically the first thing you learn about feminism in hispanic communities is the difference between equality and equity, and how feminism fights for equity. It is extremely important to know this and to keep it in mind at all times, and it's basically a sin if you don't. Whereas English speaking feminism tells you that it's equality we're fighting for. This personally complicates dialogue and discussion whilst talking to English speaking people, and honestly its kind of frustrating that something that I consider to be so important (for me it's literally the base of feminism) is completely disregarded by people who claim to have the same principles as I do.
I can see the dilemma you're having... when hispanic communities and specifically mexican communities learn about feminism, how and where is it taught? Is less taboo to be feminist in Mexico or latinoamerica than it is here in the U.S.?
I hope you don't mind me asking you all these questions, I've just never met a fellow mexican feminist, and I'm so curious as to how feminism is seen and treated in Mexico. Especially since the majority of Latina feminists in the u.s. are chicanas and don't speak spanish. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I'm already so familiar with that perspective
Anyway, I'm rambling ha
yunarikku2723 don't worry, I dont mind the questions haha. It is definitely very taboo to be a feminist here as well, but I was lucky enough to be in a highschool that was very accepting and liberal and that allowed the teachers to give their point of view on current issues. One teacher in my freshman year introduced me to feminism, and then on my senior year I had two teachers who taught me a lot about it as well, in addition the two principals in charge of the school were amazing women. Every year there was a main topic of discussion in school, and all activities and events had to revolve around it (for example on my freshman year the topic was breast cancer, another year the topic was climate change) and on my senior year the topic was gender equity. As a member of the activities board and someone who was involved in many extracurricular activities this gave me the chance to not only learn more about feminism while working with the teachers I mentioned, but also to educate and have conversations with my class mates, most of whom knew nothing about feminism or had very wrong ideas, but by the end of the year everyone had a pretty good sense of what it was.
"revolve everything around equity." figures.
"and it's basically a sin if you don't." again, figures.
Google the word "equity" and you find financial terms. The way this word is used implies that one group feels it's entitled to things another group has because the other group achieved something the first group hasn't. Oh well.
This was a huge issue that we had in the Gender and Communication class I took about a year ago. It took me a minute to realize that most of the people around me had not taken a basic Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies class. Because I had already had that basic understanding of some of the history behind the different types of feminism, I thought more people would be on board. But the things is, they hadn't even heard of the word "intersectional" before. So I threw it around a lot, then realizing I needed to explain it to some degree. After I did, I feel like more people could see where I was coming from, but I wish we would've went over the theory. The funny thing is that in another class I was taking at the time, intercultural communication, we did go over the theory of intersectionality. I was so elated that we did and I was glad that people from my Gender and Communication class were also in the Intercultural Communication class. Long story short, I say I'm an intersectional feminist and I try to explain what that means as best as I can when having discussions about these topics. People are complicated and what makes them who they are is complicated, so trying to consider and not assume what intersections make them who they are is really important. The only problem I see with it is that it includes the ability and capacity to have empathy, something I've noticed a lot of people have a hard time with. -two cents given :) haha
I had this issue at my school because we wanted to create a feminist coalition for students and I had to explain that we need it to be intersectional and inclusive if we want it to be most effective. Very interesting vid.
Even though the dictionary definition is so limited, the sad part is that so many people still deny the concept as it is written there. The fact that so many discussions still center around whether or not feminism is for equality, just makes me cringe, as I see that the level of conversation is in such a low level.
I am glad about the second part of your video, where you explain that there are many ways to conduct feminism. I think that at this point it should be irrelevant to discuss whether or not feminism is a good concept. I wish people were actually talking about WHICH type of feminism is the best to achieve societal goals.
I think being more specific in what kind of feminist one is will certainly help frame the conversation in a way that would be the most productive. While not a feminist myself, I've often found the most productive conversations I've had with feminists have been when they're more specific with their beliefs rather than just using the blanket term of "feminist"
Also, I like the videos, even if I don't 100% agree with all of them. Keep em coming :)
Language will always be imperfect.
Until the robots take over...
I'm with you- I think when you are discussing the definition of a term within a specific field, it's important to seek out sources that will tell you what that word means within the context of said field. I think context is so helpful in many situations, and especially so when you're discussing social equality and justice. That's why I say I'm an intersectional feminist, because so many factors of people's identities can intersect with their gender, like race, class, sexuality, etc.
I believe it is important for political movements/ideologies to have a simplistic definition for the common lay person. Dictionary definitions are important for that. If it was decided that complex definitions needed to be used, definitions beyond the grasp of the common lay person, then only educated experts/elites would have the proper authority to discuss a particular issue.
When discussing a serious topic and not just writing a paper in high school, I use the English Oxford (Living) Dictionary, not dictionary.com (not an "official" dictionary). The English Oxford (Living) Dictionary defines Feminism as ""the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" and Egalitarianism as "the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." I am satisfied with these definitions and think they are defined well enough.
Both these definitions seem very lacking to me. What parts did you leave out for your own personal satisfaction?
Not a single character. Just copy-pasted.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feminism
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/egalitarianism
I mentioned my source twice. Checking my source would've taken less time than making that comment.
What is meaningful about the part I left out? Is your argument that the origin is wrong, and so the definition is wrong? Or that there is nothing wrong with the origin, but the given definition is from the 19th century and not "with the times"?
As for leaving stuff you out, you conveniently provide both definitions for Egalitarianism while only providing a single definition for Feminism. The second definition for Feminism, from your own source, is "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests."
While these definitions are quite similar, there is one key difference. The definition for Feminism focuses on the sexes/women, whereas the definition for Egalitarianism focuses on humans/people. Egalitarianism is the only one that goes beyond sexism, according to these definitions. It's origin also came before Feminism, according to your sources. Or are you arguing that the dictionary definition for Feminism is out-dated and it should better match the definition for Egalitarianism, since Feminism has become more similar to it over the past century?
To be fair it is important to remember the French origin of the word. Because, as French feminist and historian Genevieve Fraisse tells us, the French word "feminisme" was created by French man opposing the political organisation of women, and was mostly used in misogynist vocabulary. It was then re-appropriated by women.
It is then obvious that the word seems to "focus on the sexes", because this is the terms in which men tried to frame "feminist struggles" as they wanted to.
You claim that it was men framing the "feminist struggles," but I'm unclear where you're going with this. It was my understanding that most early Feminism, at least in the United States (since I only have minimal knowledge of it's history in my home country) was focused on liberal feminism, or what some would define as bourgeois feminism. It was only after some time that other feminists recognized various deficiencies in this school of thought, such as a lack of intersectionality (too individualistic) and few other things I don't quite recall from lecture. It expanded and changed as time went on, but 1st and 2nd wave feminism did not provide a voice for women of color, working-class women, and LGBT+ women. In other other words, it is historically accurate to say that 1st and 2nd wave feminism focused on the sexes, and there are many feminist scholars who have argued this. This is a result of history, not just what men made the word sound like.
i find it's been tough for me to identify as feminist because it is so easy for people to find extremist negative examples of feminism which i'm expected to explain or defend. also i'm not crazy about labels which is also why i guess i don't really identify as one. as for what i believe in i would say it leans a lot towards what most feminists would consider good but there is always room for improvement which is why i watch you, because i respect your opinion a lot on the topic and believe you're one of the closest to the right side to be on
I think this paragraph on RationalWiki sums it up for me:
It is important to note that, whether you agree or disagree with the definition, words can have many meanings at the same time. The use of racism to mean "prejudice plus power" by however many academics does not disqualify other definitions of the term any more than psychiatrists defining the term "depression" as a specific disorder disqualifies using it to mean being extremely sad. "Prejudice plus power" as used by some academics is what is called a stipulative definition used primarily for academic research to literally simplify discussions and text, not to "replace" other definitions of the word in common usage. Thus, to evoke it as the "only correct definition" or as the somehow "most socially just" stance on bigotry imaginable is ridiculous. This is an important point to make considering that many people use the definition to derail arguments and to excuse whatever bigotry they themselves have.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
I agree with you tbh, feminism is really an umbrella term considering the different types of feminism there is
damn is it friday already?
Hey, great video! I generally describe myself as a feminist to non-feminists and an intersectional feminist when I want to be more specific. I find the fact that intersectional feminism is still quite broad, a good thing, as it encourages more conversation. I find it important to remember that we all want the same thing, we just have different ideas of how to achieve it. I tend to rely heavily on evidence based practice; not necessarily part of the definition of intersectional feminism but a very important part of my feminism and my own identity tbh
fune wo amu ( the great passage) is an anime that make a surprisingly good job to explain the making of dictionaries problem pretty well
I find your vids really interesting
Oh, there can sure be sexism, but that doesn't mean only men can be guilty of it
which is what feminists are trying to achieve with their redefining words
+john smith
Women already have more rights than men
Not even discussing the many privileges and protections they have bestowed upon them
+Snuffels11
Then what is Patriarchy theory?
What do you consider the idea that women are oppressed by what can only referred to as the only other possible party in the gender spectrum?
How many feminists do you know who consider women oppressors?
You can't be a feminist believing society oppresses women, for you would be enabling 50% of the population to increase their power to oppress women even more
And you just used the worst example of a feminist, you actually went "full McIntosh"
And there are no Gender stereotypes *affecting* us, they serve a well thought out concept that have enabled us to become the dominant species on this planet
As do I .
We could have very different ideas of how to achieve equality, but we could also have very different ideas about what equality even is.
Very valid points. I'd add that recently I've been learning a lot about colonialism, post-colonialism and the intersection of color, culture and gender, and what struck me was how different my perspective became once I've made the effort to be more exposed, through my academics mostly but also in my own time. The tendency is to blame academic institutions for pushing concepts that lose their grip on reality, but I've been far more in tune with other people's reality and feel like I became a more efficient debater. I listen more and I know when I don't know enough. For example, my boyfriend is German and he has a lot of views about the German political system backed with extensive academic knowledge specifically on it, as he's almost finished with his political science master's, did an internship at the parliament and works for his party as a student. I wouldn't be able to debate him even when his views don't resonate with me, so I let him do more of the talking so I can learn and comment when I feel that I can - But I always tell him that in order to be in agreement with him if ever I would have to know more about the other side of the coin, and he respects that.
If your conversational partner is not willing to take a dive into what these things mean in the more in-depth, up-to-date sense, you're not gonna be able to communicate effectively. Communication is always made better with a sense of humility and curiosity from what I've gathered.
the answer to your question is "soft lighting," which is kind of a science, rather hard to pull off in this particular circumstance.
well said Marina. The older I get and the more different types of people/personalities I encounter, the more I realize a lot of them want true equality for women as well, but so many are turned off by the word "feminist" that I've stopped using the word around certain people, especially straight guys. I find that if I present my concerns on social equality by explaining my fears (lack of women's reproductive health, raising the minimum wage, etc.) they're much more open to conversation. Can't say I'm happy about it but I'll take what I can get I guess.
At around 13, I found that my dictionnary said that poetry was something that is not prose and prose something that is not poetry (circular definition). I stopped looking at dictionnary and started looking at encyclopedia and articles (except when I have to look up the root of the words and for very quick knowledge and orthograph).
I've started collecting definitions of feminism (in french) a while ago, and found that the best definition was a combination of a sociological and a personnal definition:
Mine would be between: « Feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of colour, working-class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women - as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement»
-Barbara Smith, « Racism and Women's Studies » dans Making Face, Making Soul. Hacienda Caras.
and « tout engagement intellectuel ou pratique pour la liberté et l'autonomie des femmes et participe d'une prise de position plus vaste contre toute forme d'exclusion, de marginalisation ou d'oppression. » [Any and all intellectual or practical commitment to the freedom and autonomy of women and participation in a broader stance on all forms of exclusion, marginalization or oppression.]
Anna Lupien, De la cuisine au studio, 2012, p.37
I'd also put in: « Il s'agit d'une prise de conscience d'abord individuelle, puis ensuite collective, suivie d'une révolte contre l'arrangement des rapports de sexe et la position subordonnée que les femmes y occupent dans une société donnée, à un moment donné de son histoire. Il s'agit aussi d'une lutte pour changer ces rapports et cette situation. »
- Louise Toupin, 1998 [It is a consciousness firstly individual, then collective, followed by a revolt against the understanding of gender relations and the subordinate position that women occupy in a given society at a given moment of its history. It is also a struggle to change these relationships and these situations]
oh, I have almost? sorta? figured out how to film myself wearing glasses without a horrible glare. there is probably some math behind it with angles and whatnot. but basically, I have my key light at about 5 feet away and shining predominantly on the side of my face so my glasses never pick up the light and reflect it into the camera lens.the other thing I do occasionally is use my ceiling as a bounce. I shine a light at the ceiling and none of that diffused light reflects off the glasses. you could be all fancy and get a nice diffuser, or build a rig with a shower curtain.
I recently attended a lecture by a professor called Clare Hemmings (professor of feminist theory) about feminist articulations (mainly in a European context, but still relevant to your video I think). She talked about how things like the "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt were popularizing and commodifying feminism in a way that resists nuance and intersectionality. Obviously it's great if feminism would become the norm, and no longer be a dirty word, but the problem is that in order for that to happen (in today's social and political climate at least), feminism has to be turned into a sort of product that will appeal to the masses. This means it has to be accessible (which inevitably means it will be simplified, in order not to be elitist to say, only people with an academic background) but it also has to be palatable. The dictionary definition is something a lot of people use to defend their views against non-feminisst, because, as you said, it is something almost everyone agrees with and most people feel comfortable identifying with. Going into the nitty-gritty of what intersectional feminism ACTUALLY is will sadly make it a lot less attractive to a lot of people.
I don't really have a solution for this though, I just wanted to share my thoughts. I do think it is dangerous and unwise to completely dismiss the palatable, simplified version of feminism you see on T-shirts, because for many people, that's the only type of feminism they have access to, and I think feminism should never be confined to academic spaces. Plus of course, for many people, myself included, pop feminism can serve as a gateway into actual nuanced intersectional feminism!
One reason many of us still use the dictionary definition of many of the concepts being discussed is there are legal definitions to these words as well, which mostly draw from the common understanding.
Title VII of the Federal penal code prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Racism has a very clear legal definition, as does sexism and sexual harassment. Sometimes that definition is explicit within the law and at other times it is implicit, but implied. So that is why many people still insist that scientist and scholarly concept words really do not have as much weight in every day discussions and deliberations as common and traditional understandings of a word or term.
Also, dictionaries are only ever meant to me indexes of language or reference points at any given time-- not exhaustive discussions of things but rather a short blurb that point to something more substantial (like, an encyclopedia or another book with that word in it or a librarian or a library itself). [Though I think that you do briefly mention this point in your video.]
Fun link:
johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=3471
"Oats. n.s. [aten, Saxon.] A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people."
public.oed.com/about/
& the OED (Oxford English Dictionary)-- which indexes over 600.000 words!
is it a bad thing that i need to rewatch this just to calm myself from responding to said feminists on facebook, ahhh i love this video...THE BEST EVER IN THE WORLD. love from a liberationist. x
I'm a college instructor for an intro to women, gender, and sexuality studies class, so most of the time I'm defining feminism, it's in a classroom context which is quite different. However, I never give my students ANY definition of feminism. Instead I simply show them what the goals/ideologies/approach of many different feminists groups has been (i.e. WOC feminism, trans feminism, transnational feminism, etc.). I think this keeps them from getting stuck on an overly simplistic definition and provides them with examples to define their own feminist ideals!
I think you're on to something here. Most of the people that I've talked to who don't identify as feminists, don't do so because they've seen people who label themselves as "feminists" who man hate or don't believe in trans rights/other equality and diversity issues, and those people have given the word feminism a bad rep in their eyes. Thus specifying among different types of feminism has become very important.
This video is really great. It sums up several points very well! This reminds me of “'Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?' A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. Really interesting.. In my AP English class we read some of it and how definitions of prejudice vs. racism should interact in order to take in account for societal powers.
Feminism = equality is not very good way to describe it because there are other people who are not feminists that promote equality in same manner but without the same ideological background and concentrating on other issues than women's issues.
I think perhaps if 'feminism' wasnt such a 'feminine' word that more people, in particular men, would be ok with labelling themselves as one
I would like to point out that as a feminist I concentrate on a lot of issues other than women's issues. Unfortunately, I am often penalized (by anti-feminists) when I talk about these other issues because "WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FEMINISM?" But I do have a huge problem with feminists who only care about women's issues and not racial issues, LGBTQ issues, etc. That's why I think intersectionality is so important.
There is also a second side to this issue: not only are there nonfeminists who would meet the dictionary definition, but there are some feminists who don't. As an analogy, if I held up a pencil and called it a table, that wouldn't make it a piece of furniture with a flat top and a leg. This is obvious because it's a physical object, but the same idea holds for abstractions like ideologies.
Feminism doesn't really exclude those areas you mentioned, but historically and on ideological background, feminist theory and so on, the concentration on women's issues has been strong and is strong today.
As a man, for example, while i see some things pushed forward by feminists that are issues that are important to me as well (for example equal parental vacation etc.), i don't feel feminists are the group of people that are best advocating my issues. And i don't think that is a problem, they don't need to be. But that is the reason i don't think feminism as a term works as umbrella term for equality either. Feminists are one important movement pushing equality but they are hardly the only one or even have huge track record of being equality for all movement, intersectionality being good example historically, and sadly, even today at times.
To put it short, i agree with feminists on the goal, but i disagree on some ideological issues like feminist theory and i don't think they are best movement for representing my issues in general. I consider myself being their ally in the goal of achieving equality but i don't consider myself being a feminist.
Wrong
Feminism = GENDER equality
Race equality, class equality, age equality and other forms of equality have their own movements.
I loved this video. Such a well-rounded, interesting overview of the topic and a great conversation starter.
I think, personally, that the basic dictionary definition of feminism isn't enough because it seems more focused on the end goal rather than the process. So someone could say that they're a feminist because they want equality among genders but they may also believe that there already IS equality among genders or they might believe that the way to achieve equality among genders is to treat everyone equally from this point forward. I think that our definition and understanding of feminism - and similar movements such as anti-racism - must involve the idea of equity as the starting point and the process in order to hopefully, eventually achieve equality. Like you can't just immediately start treating everyone "equally" because that would similar maintain the power imbalances that we have already. Instead, we need to treat each other equitably, meaning that people should be given what they need and helped in the way that they need, which would be different than what and how other people need.
For example, this addresses the idea of "why is there a Black History Month and not a White History Month?" Equality would mean that everyone gets the same thing which would mean that a White History Month would be a valid proposition; an equitable approach would dictate that there is a Black History Month because Black History has consistently been pushed aside and denigrated so we need to elevate and honour it, whereas White History has been in the forefront of our education systems, our public discourse, our media, etc, so there is no need for it's own month to honour and highlight it.
Words such as "racism" have a general dictionary definition because if we want to be more specific about dynamics between types of people that are participating in an interaction where racism is occuring, then we hyphenate with "racism" such as "superiority - based racism" or use a different word does not already define a general concept such as discrimination based on race. This way we many terms that refer to various types of dynamics where racism is influencing thought and behaviour. It's simple. This is how we expand our thinking. By adding words to specify meaning based on general concepts. I appreciate that you understand that the dictionary definition of "racism" is a valid definition, while there is another definition that some people use when conversing from a sociological viewpoint.
I think the fact that feminism = equality is a good starting point for anti-feminists. Before having an actual intellectual conversation about feminism, all parties have to want to actually be engaged in that conversation, and starting with that definition challenges people to open their minds to another way of considering feminism first. Of course it is best to then go on and discuss intersectionality and the many other facets of feminism, but that is much easier when everyone is already interested in the conversation and aware that maybe their perspective isn't the only valid way of thinking about it... that's what I think at the moment anyway
I'm a feminist and I am so so so on board with everything you said. In a lot of ways, the dictionary can be very limiting within conversations. I think your science analogy is very astute.
Yorkshire Lad well, from a very young age it became clear to me that western society held certain biases towards men. At first I only saw that this imbalance was hurting women, but as I got older I saw that men suffer from these biases too, just in very different ways. Feminism as a movement tackles this imbalance. So many of my friends (male and female) have personal issues that can be drawn directly back to the gender roles they have been directed towards their whole lives. Feminism seeks to dismantle these roles, and ultimately that will lessen the very evident divide between men and women.
They wear special glasses with an anti reflective coating originally designed for people on TV.
I'm very pleased you're taking up an educational approach to how we define many of these terms. It is indeed fascinating.
Personally, I'm a liberal feminist, which often puts me at odds with intersectional feminists, radical feminists, and Marxist feminists. Feminism sure as hell is not monolithic. I certainly agree with you that we should be quite specific with our terms when possible.
i identify as an intersectional feminist but i really need a good short definition to say when i am trying to explain it rather than having to be long winded and them getting bored
When you talked about being frustrated with sometimes having to take away time from the main conversation to then discuss and define words, I really related to that. I personally find it aggravating and a waste of time. I have been in a few really great conversations that got side railed because someone says "White people can experience racism" and then it all went to hell. We all know what most people mean when they say racism so going into the argument about whether or not white people can be discriminated against feels like a major distraction and not worth it. I try to offer a very quick explanation that I see there being two kinds, one with a big R (systemic) and one with a little r (prejudice), and that white people can't experience big R racism as they benefit from the system. I've seen other feminists just continue to repeat the same thing and I don't think it's particularly helpful.
I completely acknowledge though that it could be apart of my own privilege/limited experience that makes me feel this way.
I think dictionary definitions being used as the primary definition is a problem that's prevalent in everything, not just the word feminism. I'm a queer Deaf guy myself, and Deaf people don't view themselves as disabled, but we technically are. It's simply how we define ourselves and what "d/Deaf" means to us. So many people lump all d/Deaf people into the same category - people who can't speak, sign only, and can't hear a thing at all. We're so much more diverse than that!
About queerness, it's a word that literally can't be defined clearly, it means something different to everyone. I personally just use queer but if people want to know more specifically, I'm fine with bisexual or pansexual. I feel like they're the same for me, but I am aware that some people feel those two terms are different and have their own nuances. If I'm using bi, I refer to Robyn Ochs' definition of bisexual and certainly not the dictionary definition of bisexual which is so limiting.
Personally, I adjust the terms I'm using based on the audience. For a subculture I'm part of, free and open source software, there was a similar divide. The term "free software" means exactly that: software with no cost. However, the specialist meaning is more like "libre," as in software that respects your freedom (e.g. Firefox). Today activists use some combination of "free and open source software," free libre and open source software, FOSS, FLOSS, you name it.
I mention this because, we can use whatever term we want in specialist circles. However, the general term is just going to be what it is going to be. (I think language follows more descriptivist vs prescriptionist behavior.) Infamously, the general public uses "theory" to mean a speculation, where the scientific definition is a set of well-tested predictions: "theory of gravity."
Point being, I find the most effective route is indeed to seek those deeper definitions as you mention, but adjust my language to suit the listener's preference.
great fucking video, I disagree with a lot of things that you say on other videos, but this one was damn great, you're recognizing one of the biggest communication problems between people that support feminism and those that don't.
that's a hard thing to do... mostly from a feminist standpoint.
At the risk of being attacked for being someone outside your core audience, I'd like to share my thoughts. As you alluded to, I also believe that most people today agree in equality between the sexes, so the dictionary definition doesn't begin to address the perceived socioeconomic or intersectionality influences on how a vastly different group of individuals may define it. Though I may often disagree with you, I enjoy hearing what you have to say, as it always gives me something to think about. I also like that you recognize there are a wide range of people who self-identify as feminists but with vastly different views, such as those who may be more militant, or don't accept transwomen, or certain religions, etc. I also find it refreshing that like many of us, you don't claim to have it all figured out, and still keep an open mind while continuing to search for answers. I don't want to live in an echo chamber, so I watch both SJW and anti-SJW channels and I'd like to believe that hopefully, sooner than later, we can start to find some common ground.
It's funny because you quoted Merriam Webster's definition of racism and they very recently came forward to squash the use of their lexical definition to be used as a method of silencing conversations about structural racism. Very similarly I feel like the overly simplified definition of feminism in a lexicon should be used ONLY as a starting point for discussion to maybe open a dialogue about the topic to someone who really has no concept of it.
I personally identify as a fourth wave and/or intersectional feminist. It helps me distinguish verbally myself from TERF, SWERF or white feminists. It also often brings the question, "Well what does that mean?" which gives me an opportunity to explain my position to someone who is actually curious and maybe never heard of that before. Lack of nuance is a MASSIVE issue with any arguments drawn from extremely shortened definitions of anything and dictionaries suck at providing even basic references to source materials mostly. Nuance is critical to really getting anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
Hello Marina!
Watching anti-feminist and rationalist™ videos is my guilty pleasure, but I find your openness to discussion and debate quite refreshing in your clique of content creators.
I really hope you could approach the most approachable vaguely "anti-sjw" person of your choice for a google hangout or something. You could start the discussion by trying to find common ground.
With a non-hostile, open minded and constructive mindset I think you could start an actual dialogue. Maybe it could even be me, but I haven't started uploading anything yet so that wouldn't get the attention this hypothetical correspondence deserves. Give it a thought will you?
I actually did a livestream with Bearing awhile back, but I'm not sure if it's still up on his channel? You might be able to find it though if someone else uploaded it!
Anstonius That's a great idea! I feel like Roaming Millenial is one of the nicest people part of the "anti-sjw" crowd. A live stream with her would be awesome
***** Yeah, I couldn't find the Bearing livestream. Besides, this seems like an effort that could be tried out more than once. Different pairings will create different discussional dynamics.
Absolutely. I remember watching the Bearing livestream a while back and it was interesting. Not a huge bearing fan though. I find that people like Jeff holiday, Roaming and Matt Christiansen tackle a lot of the nuance behind a lot of social issues better than a lot of people out there and it would be so great to be able to see even more discussions.
What the fuck is that trade mark? There is something wrong with your keyboard. Burn it.
I think that having differing definitions of any socially progressive buzzword [feminism (or, "feminism") being one of many] has led to most if not nearly all disagreements I've had with people on the internet. One of the most frustrating interactions I've recently had with someone was on facebook. A friend (acquaintance, really) from college had shared an extremely transphobic opinion and other people from my college had (rightly) called her out on it. In the post that this acquaintance had originally made she gave up defending herself in the comments because so many people were ripping her argument to shreds. In another post she made, after like 20 people defriended her, she continued to defend her opinion. In the comments of this second post was some one who kept making comments that equated gender and ("biological") sex as being the same thing. I made a very straightforward comment that gender, sex, and sexuality are conceptually different things and all that are rooted in social construction + informed from how we represent or identify ourselves to others. From there this person (who was not my friend and who I have never met) continued to make blanket statements about gender and sex without really furthering the discussion & focusing it on the buzzword 'identity politics'. At one point I asked "are you a 'terf' ( trans-exclusive radical feminist) to which this person both took offence (calling it a 'slur') and accepting that that is the ideology they agreed with. Then, because they had backed themselves into a hole filled with logical fallacies, they tagged (in) a friend to "defend" their "radical feminism" . This 'friend of a friend of a friend' then proceeded to accuse me of being "incoherent" & of having no knowledge of "feminism" (rather, her version of feminism) and tried to quiz me on what she felt were seminal feminist texts. (Texts, by the way, which were only really written by first & second wave feminists in the 40s-70s and which have been highly criticized by most people in their contemporary movements as being reductive or misinterpreting what feminism "is about".) (#sorryfortherant)
In short, I think that in an era of internet communication the issue of finding words in common to express ideas in common has become one of the most difficult things to do-- especially when the people that you (or maybe it's just me) interact with don't really care about the opinion you're sharing or have so deeply misunderstood what you meant by 'that certain phrase' or 'that certain word' that it becomes exhausting-- which seems to be a feeling that you share. At the same time, I think that through the social connectivity that is granted in virtual space I have been able to talk to people (who I actually know) more frequently about "the issues" & in doing so have refined and expanded upon "dictionary definitions".
I think that there's also a stark divide in conversations about the "-isms" between people who have gone to college, or have some more formal understanding (one could call it elitist wokeism) of the sociological and historical meanings (connections) of buzzwords, and those who have been exposed to them by proxy. Another example: someone who (I assume/ guessed) had never gone to college or looked into it called me a "stupid liberal" with a "liberal bias" because I go to a liberal arts college. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ & I was like "are you shitting me, br0?" because it was so unfathomable that someone could make such a shallow / decisive inference about who I was as a person based on something that they so very clearly misunderstood.
P.S. these are the only two interactions that I've had with random 'friend of a friend' people on the internet for the past 6-8 months, mostly because I'm not super invested to talking to people I don't know but also because they were so mindblowingly wft moments that I was like "never again..."
I personally think that the overarching definition of simply feminism=equality especially for women is useful, but mostly in the sense that it is something that can be a solid starting point for conversation. I think that using simplified versions of terms that tie in to much larger subjects is important for inclusion, such that someone with less experience has an easier time entering a conversation and learning about the topic before nuance comes into play. From there, I think that wordiness is almost more helpful, because if you start with a simple definition, you can refine it by working from a place of agreement. For example, it wasn't until a couple years ago that I learned about the word 'intersectional' in the context of feminism, which is a helpful building block off of the fundamental concept of feminism and equality that better informs others about what exactly your approach to feminism is. But that's just my sort of immediate thoughts, and I can definitely see other arguments having valid claims.
I have been thinking about this a lot recently. I think my idea of feminism/intersectionality is for people to be treated the same as if there were no gender. this is in all walks of life: pay, dating, military, leadership, etc. That's not saying I think the idea of gender has to go away, but that it shouldn't be considered for more than basic attraction and statistics.
I feel like the base definition is useful as a tool to initially educate others about the general root of feminist activism, however I believe it is also important to acknowledge that feminism itself is an almost malleable term in that ones own education, cultural background, political biases etc. It's important to accept each individuals personal definition of feminism and listen to their arguments so as to become more educated on the broader spectrum of feminism. As a socialist feminist I personally believe that feminism is the liberation of all those who identify in a 'feminine' way from any form of oppression. However I believe that the root cause of misogynistic thinking, as well as all other forms of systematic oppression, arise directly from, or are incredibly exaggerated by, capitalistic ideologies. Thus, the conclusion can be made that the liberation I personally strive for as a feminist can only be fully achieved through a complete political revolution and overthrow of capitalism leading to the existence of a worldwide socialist state.
Thank you so much for making this video, it's both an interesting and important topic to discuss.
the dictionary definition of racism you mentioned is the definition for individual racism. the more complex definition you mentioned is the definition for systematic racism. both definitions are used in sociology, and distinguished via the words "individual" and "systematic".
I'm not very educated about feminism as it's not my field of study, but it does interest me greatly as a psychologist with an interest in social justice.
I think you hit a good point when you said that we should be more precise with our language. In my experience a lot of disagreements are caused when people are arguing over two different but similar concepts, and once the definitions are cleared up people will often (but not always) agree with one another..
I tend to think of feminism as an extremely broad term that encompasses equality of gender as well as intersectionality, and LGBT issues. I can understand why some people might want to focus solely on gender, but think that can become problematic. Complex issues need complex definitions.
Btw I'm really enjoying these unscripted videos, even more so than the scripted I think. It becomes more of a thoughtful discussion this way 😊
I believe the glasses are usually fake and have no lenses. -Edit: I meant I've seen others use fake glasses while shooting their videos.
Words were originally intended to allow the communication of ideas. Successful communication relies on both parties having a common understanding of what a word means. Unfortunately when words are turned into weapons designed to control ideas the objective is no longer communication. When the meanings of words are arbitrarily changed or obscure definitions used communication fails.
A case in point is the word "feminism". It refers to an ideology ("the belief in equality"), a catechism of beliefs ("patriarchy, privilege, etc") and a group of people ("the movement"). Feminists have dumbed this down to the ideology meaning and then used it as a weapon against anyone criticisizing any feminist or feminist dogma. "If you criticise feminism you do not believe in equality." However as you point out feminism is far more complex and such a black and white definition leaves you with two choices when another feminist does or says something you disagree with. "Excommunicate them from feminism" or "accept into the church of feminism apostasy".
I think you are trying to make words do more than they are capable of. The search for common agreement on what a word means is communication and valuable in itself because it is identifying and respecting different opinions, origins, cultures and customs. Words are much better and more constructive when used for discovering ideas than they are when used as weapons to force your meaning on others.
Using a non-standard definition of a key term in your argument is like crossing your fingers before you tell a lie.
If you use a non-standard definition, you must make it clear before you begin your argument.
Otherwise, one can just choose a definition that makes one look good after the discussion. That is a politician's game.
Around 5:40, you seem to be saying that "defining things" is different from "actually communicating ideas." While a semantic discussion can have diminishing returns (Socrates showed us that defining ideas is difficult), I think I have found that accepting and cheerfully engaging in this step of the process of having a conversation helps. Sometimes people haven't thought much about how they are using a term, or assume I'm using it the same way.
We often think in these complex composites of examples. Well, that's fine. We can discuss those examples, and talk about how these mental representations (scenes from a movie, conversations we've had, interactions we've observed while sitting in a restaurant, paragraphs from texts, song lyrics) influence how they use the word.
Discussing concrete examples is another step of a conversation I find interlocutors sometimes feel uncomfortable on. They want to talk about "ideas" without getting to examples. This makes me uncomfortable. If I can't get to examples when trying to think about an idea, I quickly begin to wonder if I know what I'm talking about. And I've found in my relationship with my SO that the sooner we get to talking details (the way our stomach feels while we're talking, the actual emotions and preferences we're experiencing, instead of our interpretations of them), the sooner we begin empathizing and communicating.
I think seeing conversations as processes with steps in them (coming to terms, discussing examples, discussing our opinions, where we agree, disagree, why, how we could investigate our assumptions or claims we're not certain about, when we should discuss again) instead of an amorphous gives us the opportunity to improve our conversations, because we can identify which step we're having a problem in.
Sherkenbach was follower of Deming. He wrote the book "Deming's Road to Continual Improvement."
You're absolutely right! The conceptual discourse that exist within the underlining foundations of every ideological belief-system has never been wholly solidified within one all-encompassing definition. In simpler terms, feminism (much like many ideologies) will always mean different things to different people. It would be fundamentally inhuman for feminism to be interpreted in the same way by a mass group of individuals. The evolution of ideas is at the very heart of what makes us human, we need to constantly redefine and revise what feminism means to us. And re-contextualise these definitions for future generations. Who will (hopefully) do the same for the next generation.
I like the dictionary definition, because it reflects the way people I know use the word. There is nothing about simplification that is bad.
I agree that it isn't the best argument to just say that feminism means you believe in equality, it's just too simplistic. I've had a lot of arguments with misogynistic men who say they believe in equality but they actually think men are oppressed more than women. So they're fighting for 'men's rights' and ignoring all the issues women face, just like people often do with race.
Isn't that what feminists do as well? Why would you characterize men fighting for their rights as misogynistic? Sounds like a "pot calling a kettle black."
YAS. THIS IS SO ON POINT. IM SO GLAD YOU RELATED THIS TO RACISM. AHHHHHHH SO GOOD
To say that you are using a sociological definition of racism seems off. The "Introduction to Sociology" textbook by Richard T. Schaefer defines racism as "the belief that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior." This is how racism is defined in sociology.
What you are doing is breaking racism down instead of looking at the general definition. The second page of text you show (1:47) says that, "Racism, as an ideology, exists in a society at both the individual and institutional level." If we go back to your source for the definition of racism, sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm. The definition you provide at 1:40 focuses on representational, institutional, structural, and systemic racism (forms of institutional racism). It disregards ideological, discursive, and interactional racism (forms of individual racism).
Individual and institutional racism are separate but usually related. The different definitions from your own source should make this clear. Yet you seem to be arguing that individual racism can only exist if it is in alignment with the institutional racism of that culture? So in other words, an individual black person cannot be racist in a Western/Eastern culture and an albino person cannot be racist in an African culture? In this last question, I mean racist towards any other race, not just the dominant one. For example, in America, a black person having a racist attitude towards Chinese people.
I've got sociological dictionaries that go into much more detail in their definition of racism and sexism than the example in the book you reference. So, that is not how racism is defined in sociology, as far as we can say there is one definition of racism for all of sociology (which you can't really) it is far more in dept than the initial definition you gave. Good luck on your Sociological journey! It is the best science!
Can you cite your source and/or at least somewhat describe this expanded definition? I cited an introduction to sociology textbook because we were talking about sociology and racism in general, not a specific discipline of sociology nor a specific form of racism, such as institutionalized/structural/systemic racism. The target audience of this video (I'd expect) is people in general, the common lay person, not just the people with a degree (or heavy background) in sociology. Other introductory texts and sociology dictionaries, at least that I've seen, have a very similar definition to the one I provided. I'd like to see how the definition you mention is structured.
This is not an 'in depth' definition, it's a deliberately shallow one. You are trying to narrow a definition nobody wants narrowed and wondering why they aren't falling for it.
Steven Epstein I'm addressing the other one. I should've headed the post with their name, sorry.
All I've noticed on this thread so far is 5-7 missing comments. But it was from me talking to Rua O'Neill and one other who somewhat disagreed with me (& I think more so agreed with Marnia).
I'm a feminist, but I'm also a masculinist and I'm also for equality. I just want humans to get the basic: respect and equality.
Thoughtful video, thank you for it.
I know this was from months ago, but I feel like the term equality, if you really think about it, should encompass the concepts of intersectionality. Because even if someone has 2 marginalizations, versus someone else's 1, you're still shooting for an even-playing field, taking into consideration those differences. So I'll call myself a feminist and someone wants an explanation, I'll explain that the goal is equality and we have to consider all the potential reasons people aren't being treated equally.
The dictionary definition does not say that feminists fight for gender equality, only that it fights for women's right to be elevated to that of mens. The "to" in the dictionary definition actually creates that difference.
When we break it down, feminism only applies to those things who are below that of men
everything that is above that of men needs no fighting for
@4:25 THANK YOU
Occam's Razor: the dictionary version of racism is the best route to take. It directly addresses the heart of the issue. Jesus said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Whereas I believe that the Lord Buddha said, “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?”
For me personally, I'm not gonna dictate what someone identifies as. If someone calls themself a feminist, no matter how much I disagree with their views or stances or ideas, they're still a feminist because, as you said, feminism is not monolithic and it is a collaboration of ideas to fix inequalities and inequities.
I've also stopped using "equality" as if I'm being completely honest, it's overused in many situations when we actually mean equity. For example, many people with disabilities need access to services and facilities others don't. However, if we go along with the whole equality thing, and treat everyone equally, people with disabilities go without the things they need to easily live their lives.
So to summarise, I guess I really don't mind white feminists calling themselves feminism because that is their feminism. There is only one person in this world who shares the exact same views on the exact same things, and that's me. Feminism is different for everyone and it holds a different purpose for all of us, and it's not up to me to dictate what it should be to other people (although that doesn't mean I'm not going to call out other feminists on their failure to be intersectional).
I know you made this video a year ago. You seem open, and question the way these topics are discussed. I wish you the best.
I would consider myself part of the Anti-SJW/Rationalist/whatever it is called these days crowd and I was looking around for interesting videos for responses. I had seen a few of your earlier ones and so watched. I'll be damned if your thinking here isn't very rational and well thought out. I am legitimately impressed with your level-headed thoughts and reasonable explanations even though I would probably disagree with you on many topics. Brava.
Using the dictionary definition allows you to easily shut down anti feminist arguments.
You mean like
"Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
Which is not a Democracy, nor a republic and not of the people
Feminists made a similar mess of their definition
i like to think of feminism more as Equity than Equality since we all know men, women, poc, white folks, and trans folks arent truly equal. So my definition of feminism would be to just give the best items to the people in last place.
Do you have any reading recommendations for a deeper understanding of racism?
Not to mention that people have different ideas of what "equality" looks like.
That is a really good video. . I am hugely impressed.
I agree that the dictionary definition of feminism is usually too simplistic to be at all useful, but the reason i personally use it is because where i live, i encounter a lot of people who don't believe in equality between men and women, just like at the most basic level, so i find that is still a somewhat useful term just to kind of get over that very first hump. like if you don't even believe in the dictionary definition of the word, i doubt we're going to agree on much else. I know this isn't really related to what the video was about, i guess i just think that the context in which the word is used matters a lot and that the definition might change with the context
anti-reflective coating and prayer.
prayer does not work though
I think it depends on the audience. I don't feel like it's doing any good to use a sociological definition when you're speaking with someone that is patently not a sociologist; even if a sociological concept is being discussed.
I feel like someone who's specialized in a subject can just about always drop down from a specialized space to a more general space but it's literally impossible to do the reversal without help.
I feel that short of defining your views in their entirety bypassing the use of the word feminism, there will always be the potential for misunderstanding or worse a deliberate shutting out from the other side because of negative connotations with feminism. The average person doesn't know new wave feminism from radical feminism from intersectional feminism etc, so I feel the word no longer serves its purpose. I feel this overlaps with fearmongering and islamophobia we're seeing in the US and elsewhere, but that's a long discussion.
I think it is really important to keep discussing definitions as the expansion of information continues those definitions deserve updates.
For instance homosexually used to be defined as a paraphilia and mental illness. In that definition I would be unable to identify as homosexual despite being a big ol' gay. 😂😂
Dictionary definitions always seem less accurate when you have access to a larger pool of information. As someone who studied music at university I find myself constantly finding fault in how the dictionary defines pretty much anything to do with music including the word music itself.
A large part of bridging divides in my opinion is offering more nuances and openness to varying definitions. I see it as a core part of communication. 😊😊
your videos are so interesting!!!
Try to use the same language as everyone else, and try not to redefine the words someone else is using to turn it on them. If someone isn't using the word "feminism" in an international way, you can drop that meaning for that conversation and try to express what you want to express with words you agree on.
those are cool glasses my dude
I agree ❤ & also u look so cute in your glasses!!!!
"I've met a lot of self-identified feminists who I just adamantly disagree with. In the past I might even say that they're not real feminists because I don't believe that they're 'doing feminism correctly'... usually I use that as shorthand to mean that I don't think that they are as informed or as familiar with a wide variety of feminist theorists to get a full picture of what intersectionality and intersectional feminism should look like. But I really don't know if I believe that that's the best way to go about tackling people I disagree with who identify as feminists..."
It's definitely not the best way to go about dealing with feminists you disagree with. This whole idea of a person not being a "real feminist" because they don't subscribe to, or are not specialised in, what is called "feminist theory" smacks of the disparaging rhetoric used against the "uneducated, backward sections of the working class" by "scientific socialists" like Lenin and friends.
Mikhail Bakunin lamented that "the principal vice of the average specialist is his inclination to exaggerate his own knowledge and deprecate everyone else’s," and opted instead to trust in the knowledge and competence that "the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and in their conscious or unconscious aspirations." Incidentally, Bakunin goes onto make a prediction which, as we now know, turned out to be chillingly prophetic: "Give [the expert theorist] control and he will become an insufferable tyrant. To be the slave of pedants - what a destiny for humanity! Give them full power and they will begin by performing on human beings the same experiments that the scientists are now performing on rabbits and dogs."
Socialism, anarchism, feminism and all other emancipatory movements are, at the base of it, precisely that: _movements._ Feminism is not primarily a body of "theory," as the academics or the _intelligentsia_ would like to believe, but is rather a set of methods, aims and _practices._ Feminism belongs to and is accessible to _all_ women, not just a special class of women "educated" in "theory."
"Feminism is not primarily a body of "theory," as the academics or the intelligentsia would like to believe, but is rather a set of methods, aims and practices. Feminism belongs to and is accessible to all women, not just a special class of women "educated" in "theory."" Yes, I agree. That's why I was criticizing my own dismissal of feminists I disagreed with in the past. We're all learning and growing and all that and very well probably just practice different types of feminism.