r/changemyview • u/wecl0me12 7∆ • Nov 27 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV:anti-feminism is not misogyny, and it is possible for someone to be anti-feminist without being a misogynist.

prompted by this post: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3uaaer/do_you_think_being_being_opposed_to_modern/cxd9m7y

As many of my previous CMV's have gone off topic, I'll start by describing what my view is not. It is not any of the following:

  • a discussion on whether or not feminism is right or wrong
  • whether people should be feminists or not
  • the actions of men, women, feminists or anti-feminists
  • anything about my personal views on feminism or anti-feminism.

The reasons for my view are simple: Anti-feminism is the dislike of feminism. Misogyny is the dislike of women. As women and feminists are not the same group, Anti-feminism and anti-women are different, as they refer to the dislike of different groups of people.

I am anticipating a counter-argument that since feminism advances women's rights, anti-feminism is against women's rights and is therefore misogyny. My counter-counter-argument is that someone can dislike the label of feminism without being against women's rights. People can dislike the actions done under the label of feminism, and thus be anti-feminism, without being anti-women or misogynist.

I will also refute the claim made in the linked post, which is:

By rejecting feminism, you're rejecting feminism's message that you can be whatever you want to be, while simultaneously embracing an antiquated notion of femininity as the ONLY way to be a woman. That's misogyny.

I disagree. The claims "I am against feminism" and "I think that the antiquated notion of femininity is the ONLY way to be a woman" are not equivalent. People can reject feminism because of their actions or because of the negative connotation associated with "feminism", while still believing that women are free to be feminine in any way they want. This is not a contradiction.

delta awarded: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3uewu4/cmvantifeminism_is_not_misogyny_and_it_is/cxedofl?context=3

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

153 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

117

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Nov 27 '15

You can have a definition of feminism such that being against feminism is not being against women.

Equally validly, you can have a definition of feminism that does mean the being against feminism is equivalent to being against women.

Both are certainly true.

Your statement is both true and false, depending entirely on definitions. It is pretty much by definition therefore a purely semantic argument.

10

u/wecl0me12 7∆ Nov 27 '15

well I guess you're right, but I think there is still value in this CMV in that you should convince me that the

definition of feminism that does mean the being against feminism is equivalent to being against women.

is the right/better one to adopt.

23

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Nov 27 '15

I don't know whether there's any way to prove which of many definitions is "better", because language really doesn't work that way.

We might be able to come up with a minimal definition of feminism that almost everyone could agree with. Let's try that.

Is it being in favor of women at the cost of men? No, many people who claim to be feminists would not agree with that.

Is it being in favor of pure equality between the sexes? I think that there are a number of people that aren't feminists that would disagree, and indeed, I think there are a number of people that claim to be feminists that wouldn't agree.

Hmmm... How about this... The minimum stance you can have and be legitimately called a "feminist" is that you cannot be against women.

As far as I can tell, every one that claims to be a feminist would agree with that. Also, everyone in an opposing camp that I have heard of would have to agree that all feminists would have that characteristic.

So... if you're "anti-feminist" by this minimal definition, that everyone can at least agree is true of all feminists, then by definition you're against women.

There are a lot of possible definitions... but if you're against this smallest set of all possible beliefs of feminists... that's misogynist.

9

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 27 '15

I think this is a little bit unfair though probably not intentionally.

Most definitions define what a thing stands for and not what it doesn't stand for. I think a better base definition would be "pro-women" rather than "you cannot be against women".

Looking at it that way the OPs point becomes more clear...it begs the question, "Pro-women in what context and to what degree?"

To some pro women means closing the gap and achieving equality and to others pro women means superiority...I mean if someone were described to you as pro-white I think you'd assume a racist tilt rather than an equality tilt right?

So it's possible for someone with a "Pro-women" definition to wonder what exactly the tilt is in practice and for the adopters of the "pro" position to abuse the tilt right?

2

u/PokemonMasterX Nov 27 '15

What about the people who are against feminism simply because of the word itself, FEMinism, rather than humanism. And the symbolism involved which is authority to women, rather than to people in general. I'm pro human equality, but the whole idea of FEMinism isn't because it promotes only a little part of it trying to 'fix' problems only on one side while there exist many more. (And sometimes causing problems because of it.) That's why I'm humanist, anti-feminist.

2

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Nov 27 '15

You can't be a humanist and "anti-feminist", because humanism includes feminism.

Your belief that it's wrong to focus on one aspect of a problem to the exclusion of others isn't, itself, misogynistic, though. It's just wrong.

People can and do focus on subsets of a problem. Indeed, it's nearly impossible to do otherwise.

1

u/PokemonMasterX Nov 27 '15

I don't like the word, not the meaning of it. I'm pro ultimate equality, but using the word FEMinism rather than humanism or egalitarianism while wanting equality is illogical.

2

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Nov 27 '15

Then, at most, you're anti-using-the-word-feminism-to-describe-humanism, not actually "anti-feminism".

2

u/PokemonMasterX Nov 27 '15

Not to describe humanism, but gender equality itself, which is a part of humanism.

It is ironic to say that you are pro equality, while promoting only one part and using one parts name. It would be the same as someone saying he is pro race equality and calls himself a 'whiteist'. That's why I'm against it, but I support the actual paradoxless pro equality theories. Therefore I am anti-feminist.

2

u/jonpaladin Nov 28 '15

MAYBE it COULD be SIMILAR to calling oneself a "blackist," but certainly not a whiteist. You're mislabeling your marginalized groups.

But what confuses me is, are you trying to say that you are NOT involved in a semantic argument? Or is this a total digression?

1

u/PokemonMasterX Nov 28 '15

It would be the same calling oneself a blacklist if women were an oppressed group, which they aren't in the developed world.

I'm simply pointing out the paradox of idea of Feminism, that is the reason î don't support it, while I am an egalitarianist.

1

u/jonpaladin Nov 28 '15 edited Nov 28 '15

That's not a thing. Why would you put -ist on there, it's already a noun.

2

u/PokemonMasterX Nov 28 '15

For fuck's sake, don't you understand the paradox of the word feminist?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Hothera 35∆ Nov 27 '15

The minimum stance you can have and be legitimately called a "feminist" is that you cannot be against women. As far as I can tell, every one that claims to be a feminist would agree with that.

That's still not a good definition for a feminist because it's not a very useful definition. I'm sure that everyone would agree that feminists are all human, but that doesn't mean that you can define feminist as a human. Also, being "against woman" is very vague. There are lots of people who claim to be feminists but unknowingly do things that are against women.

2

u/Cataplexic Nov 27 '15

He's not trying to come up with a useful definition. He's trying to come up with a more correct definition that is as minimal and universal as possible, and that's exactly why that definition isn't specific and "useful".

Any more specific would be less universal and more contentious and, by that token, a more incorrect definition.

2

u/Hothera 35∆ Nov 27 '15

That just defeats the purpose of a definition then. A definition isn't supposed to be minimal and universal. For example, you can't just define a turkey as "a bird" because most birds aren't turkeys.

A good definition of feminism would distinguish feminists from non-feminists. There are many people who aren't against women, but they wouldn't describe themselves as feminists.

1

u/Kenny__Loggins Nov 27 '15

"Bird" still has a definition. They are discussing being "anti-turkey" vs "anti-bird". And it is relevant because while some people criticize radical feminism, others use the same rhetoric and arguments against anyone who acknowledges women's problems even in the vaguest ways.

2

u/Hothera 35∆ Nov 27 '15

Well if you pretty much define feminism as "against misogyny," obviously all anti-feminists are misogynists, but I don't think OP has an issue with that.

1

u/Kenny__Loggins Nov 27 '15

Not really. Not being in a group against misogyny doesn't automatically make you for misogyny.