Perhaps I'll start by explaining why this page isn't linked to the wrangles page, and why it wasn't part of the initial release of my pages.
I have two main problems with feminism. The first and most serious problem is the practical one of the totalitarian approach of some of its exponents. In my experience, you can't have a constructive wrangle on feminism. The discussion gets personal very quickly, for the simple reason that it is not part of feminist culture to respect either opposing beliefs or the persons who hold them (male persons especially).
Now this is not meant to be an attack on the people concerned. I think that the viewpoint they hold is both valid and understandable. If it is unpleasant (and it is) then that should be seen in the context of the unpleasantness suffered by women, both in past ages and to this day. Race relations suffers the same problem, and for the same reason, and my pages don't comment on racism yet, either, for much the same reasons. It wouldn't achieve anything and runs a real risk of being counterproductive.
The second problem is a logical one. The term "feminism" is sexist. I'll return to this point.
But as well as the practical problem of having a constructive wrangle over feminism, there's another problem. In a sense I'm not qualified to comment on feminism. It's a women's movement. There are enormous limits to my right to comment, because there are agendas that I physically cannot share.
So these comments are made as an outsider. In a sense I am a third generation women's libber, neither my mother nor her mother ever acknowledged the validity of male supremacy. But in another sense I can only be an observer. I don't know whether my thoughts will help in any form of action or reconcilliation, but I hope they may help your understanding. Writing them has helped mine. That's what they are for. They are philosophy.
If you wish to reply to this page, bear that in mind. My goal here is not justice, merely understanding. The distinction is subtle and important.
You will also find that it's a bit of a ramble. In a sense it's not ready for the press. My thoughts changed as a wrote it and will continue to change I hope. There are a lot of very challenging issues involved.
One of the key things to come out of feminism is its treatment of language. Our language both indicates and guides our thoughts.
This sounds so simple and obvious but is very important, so I'll expand on it a bit:
None of this was new or original to feminism. Every propaganda writer knows it, and it was publicly explored by George Orwell in his novel 1984. What was new was making a major public agenda of it. This has now become a standard part of politics, and in that it hands this power back to the people, is a laudable and important acheivement.
Having said that, the feminist movement has made a couple of mistakes, or so it seems to me.
One is the word "feminist" itself.
Obviously, "feminist" does not simply imply an agenda of removal of sexual oppression and unreasonable discrimination. It means particularly doing it for the benefit of women. Now I have no problem with this, because the vast bulk of sexual privilege has been with men and against women. But the use of the term indicates and encourages thinking that goes a bit beyond this.
Let's imagine for a moment that a faction chose to call itself "masculinist". (OK the word is not quite the same structure as "feminist" but you get the idea, and "masculist" doesn't sound right.) You wouldn't expect them to be dedicated to justice and non-discrimination, would you? But let's further suppose that this group... (I don't think a group of this name does exist)... suppose that they announced that their purpose was to promote justice and oppose sexual discrimination and oppression and promote human rights. Would you find that offensive if you were a woman? I know I would. Female logic may or may not be different to male logic, but the implication that it is somehow less valid than male is something I would object to, very strongly. But you may be less sensitive to such insults, logicians tend to be oversensitive to such things. So let's go on.
Let's further suppose that a sub-faction within this group proposed to exclude women from their culture and society, to purchase goods only from companies with male executives, and the like. Now this is not the whole group I'm talking about, just a sub-faction. A similar group does exist within feminism.
Question: What should masculinists do about this? My clear advice would be, if you're serious about human rights you must be serious about all human rights. Your group is very badly named. You may not mean to imply that male values are superior, or that male needs have precedence, over female ones, but the name of your group does do this, subtly perhaps but that is all the more dangerous. Language reveals and also guides thought. Rename the movement to something more in line with its real goals.
Which is what I think feminism should do too, for the same reasons.
What to call the movement? I suspect you can't do a lot better than "Women's Liberation". I think that was and is the basic cause.
But Women's Lib means burning bras! We're past that. Yes, good. I used to go caving in my undergrad days, with some very liberated ladies. You soon learn there are lots of different rocks all called "limestone", and some are a lot more abrasive than others. These ladies weren't stupid, a good bra is essential equipment to protect the extremeties of the female form. The much-despised "contour" (padded) bra is especially good in this application, but unfortunately not available in the sizes of those who most need it, or so I am told.
Many women would find it agonising to exercise without support, so they tell me. I conclude that bra burning may have made good news, but not a lot of sense!
I think Women's Lib is the right name for the cause. It brings to mind that there are many women in the world still without its benefits. It describes the core issue well. It doesn't put men down. I'm open to other ideas.
The idea of revising language is a good one, but fraught with problems. An orthodontist will tell you that a tooth moves under a little pressure. Under a lot of pressure it will resist. Societies are like that too.
The current program I think is diametrically wrong.
That means, in the wrong direction entirely. About face, retrace steps, undo the damage to date and then start all over once we get back to where we started. I can't be serious? I am.
Take "chairman" for example. It has been suggested that this suggests that the holder of the office is male, and there is such a suggestion I agree. And, that this had to change, and I agree again.
There are two ways of achieving this:
And, it is a matter of record, the choice has been to follow the second alternative in this and almost all other cases. I think this is unwise. I think in most cases (not all) the first alternative would produce a larger, better and more enduring change.
Remember society is changing at the same time as language. An increasing number of women are serving as chairwhatevers and firewhatevers and policewhatevers. We should also bear in mind what I call Humpty Dumpty's Theorem which is an excellent expression of much of Ludwig Wittgenstein's work but I think Humpty Dumpty has priority. It goes:
"When I use a word it means just what I choose, neither more nor less".
Whenever a word is deliberately and arbitrarily changed in meaning, there is as a result a certain freedom in its usage. This is the very opposite of what you might think, but is the result of Humpty Dumpty's Theorem. The change has destroyed or at least weakened the previous usage, and what arises as a result does not necessarily follow the guidelines set, but rather the thoughts and opinions of those who use the word.
With this in mind, let's look at the pros and cons:
Let's look at some case by case examples.
Personal pronouns are a good case of words that needed changing. There is no singular 3rd person common pronoun. I generally use "they" where I peviously should have used "he" with the masculine to include the feminine.
"Chairman" is less convincing. There are many extant documents that refer to a female chairperson as "the chairman". The pronunciation does not emphasise the relationship to "man", in fact it seems inoffensive. The word "woman" has not been discarded, and I don't think "chairman" should be.
"Actor" is one that has been changed in the way I would generally recommend. "Actress" is increasingly archaic, with the word "actor" being used for both male and female persons. "Aviator" is going the same way - when did you last see its feminine form?
"King" is one I would like to see commonised. There are no Queen prawns, Queen pins, Queen poles or Queen tides. A Queen bed is smaller than a King bed.
Perhaps the best example of the advantages of keeping words and changing their meaning, rather than changing the word, comes from the old stories of King Arthur and the Round Table. My dream would be that in a future generation, readers would not even be aware of the historical fact that the writers assumed that a king or a knight or a wizard was male.
As you have probably guessed, the answers to all of these questions are yes, in my opinion. I can find no coherent arguments against any of them. I respect but do not agree with those who think that there are such problems, and admit the issues are involved. In fact they often lead to the key questions of the authority of the Church, and of the Bible, and of the Holy Spirit. I may one day have a page on each if the feedback suggests it could be helpful.
I am very encouraged by the presence in the church of rational feminists. Given what you have and continue to put up with, I admire your tenacity. I don't always agree with all of you, but I am committed to praying for and with you.
Let's dream a little.
I see three stages of feminism.
This is sometimes called "positive discrimination" or "affirmative action". Both terms are bad in terms of understanding, but have their uses in propaganda where the aim is persuasion. The desired form of discrimination is of course reversed or negative. "Affirmative action" is a great slogan but what does it mean? Is it affirmative of a principle, a person, or what?
The use of the term "corrective" avoids these problems, and also makes it clear that this is ideally a temporary situation.
A friend of mine and I had lunch together after she had attended an interview for an internally advertised vacancy which was a big promotion. She'd been given the job and she was furious.
There were seven applicants, all well qualified, six men. Several of the men were still to be interviewed. But she'd been told, straight faced, that as the company was keen to promote women and as there was no doubt that she was suitably qualified, she'd get the job. They just had to complete the interviews before it could be announced.
She and I both thought she was the best candidate as well, and would have got the job without "affirmative action". We'll never know. Which is why she was furious. It was very important to her to be accepted as a manager, not promoted as a token woman, and she had to change companies to do this. So much for "affirmative action". It actually denied the affirmation this woman needed.
Corrective discrimination has its place, but it is a desperate and temporary solution, and needs long term to be replaced by a system that removes all unfair discrimination, "positive" or "negative".
The ideal, of course, is to have a society in which such things are rare enough not to be a problem. If a particular company wants to hire only men (or women) it will be tolerated in the knowledge that it will not survive with such a competitive disadvantage anyway. A manager who promotes men over more competent women will himself be held responsible for the performance of his area, which will reflect its poor quality leadership and the loss of staff and morale which will result.
Anything else is short of true women's liberation.
Return to my home page
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa/aja6a1.htm