Is feminism just about women?

[alias_sqbr]

So, this is something that's been bugging me about feminism as a movement for a while, and I was hoping some of you more educated and involved feminist types could educate me. I've been prodded into asking by a few annoyed posts about racism amongst feminist bloggers at debunkingwhite which helped me crystalise the issue in my head.

EDIT: The answer, it appears, is "Yes" :) Kind of. See strangedave's very interesting comment on the subject.

Now I realise that the word "feminism" has many meanings, and even if you ignore the ones only used by non-feminists(*) you still have some fairly different ideologies amongst self-identified feminists. But looking around at various "Feminism 101" type places (see, for example, the links near the bottom of this post), the basic consensus is that, roughly speaking, feminism is about fighting or at least acknowledging gender oppression and believing that women deserve basic human rights.

But a few other definitions are more strict: feminism is about recognizing and being against all oppression and bigotry. So which is it? Or is this a matter of contention?

I've always assumed the first. Everything I've seen which describes it self as being feminist is first and foremost about gender and women. I have seen feminists criticised (and criticising themselves) for ignoring the plight of non-white, GLBT, disabled etc women, but assumed that was general "We expect better of you lefty social justice types", in the same way as one would criticise a disability advocacy group for being sexist.

A POV I have seen which irritates me beyond measure is "Once we get rid of the patriarchy there will no longer be any homophobia or racism", with the implication that anyone who wants justice about racism etc should become a feminist activist, and all their other problems will magically vanish away. I've seen this argument used for why "feminist" is a perfectly good synonym for "against all oppression", much better than say "equalist". (This despite fairly common displays of racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc amongst groups of women and feminists in particular)

But recently I've realised that this may not be what people mean when they argue that "all feminists are against racism" etc. Nor are they just assuming that anyone who is good on one point (ie feminism) must naturally be a "good" person in other ways(**). They may actually be using the second, more restrictive definition.

But by this defintion the feminist movement sucks. Because if feminism is against all oppression and bigotry, why are they focussing so much on women? Why do feminist books and blogs etc not focus as much on the plight of the black or gay or disabled man as much as they do on the white middle class woman? (I mean, by either definition they should also be focussing on disadvantaged women, but by this one there is absolutely no good reason why women should be first priority rather than just one disadvantaged group amongst many) I mean it's still ok for individual feminists to focus on particular issues which may only involve women, in the same way as it's ok for individual environmentalists or environmental groups to focus on say one particular animal or issue, but it would be all shades of wrong if they all focussed on saving cute furry animals, and none on say global warming.. except specifically as it affected cute furry animals. And of course the very word "feminism" becomes incredibly loaded, alienating disadvantaged men from the group that theoretically represents them.

Am I missing something? Because as I see it there are three possibilities:
(a) There are two contradictory definitions of feminism being used, with both groups seeing theirs as obvious and well accepted, and I've just missed seeing any of the inevitable clashes;
(b) People who assume that all feminists are against racism etc are full of crap;
(c) There is something incredibly wrong with the feminist movement beyond the generic intolerance you get in any group of people not specifically gathered together to fight that particular intolerance (e.g. I'm sure disability advocacy groups are sexist)

Personally I'm going for a little of column (a), a little of column (b) :) But it would be useful to get some more knowledgeable feedback, since I get into in arguments with people who have women's studies degrees and end up frustrated and unable to defend my POV.

Ranting on why all feminists suck etc to go here please :P

(*)Like: crazy man hating gender separatist
(**) A common misconception, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I think my favourite was "Anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior is free from sin" with the clarification that yes, there are an awful lot of people who give every impression of thinking they've accepted him, but clearly haven't or they wouldn't be sinning would they? Similary, there are apparently a lot of people who fight for women's rights and call themselves feminists, but they can't really be feminists, because then they'd be nice! And unbigoted!

Comments

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned feminism is only about mitigating and ultimately eliminating all forms of oppression against women because they are women, or perhaps eliminating all forms of oppression against people on the basis of gender.

I don't think any definitions with a broader scope than that have much currency, do they? Especially given the rather obvious etymology of the term "feminism" itself, which makes it terribly unsuited to wider application.

[distantcam.livejournal.com]

Manhole, manhandle, manslaughter, manservant, manhunt.

Why does the etymology of a word matter if the meaning has expanded to include something that wasn't part of the original meaning?

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

The etymology doesn't matter of necessity, especially if that wider meaning has already passed into established usage.

(I'll leave the obvious comment about the historical use of "man" to mean "person" and its relation to feminism aside.)

However I don't see that as an argument to use "podiatrist" (with its obvious "foot person" etymology) to mean "any health industry professional".

Furthermore if there's already a term whose referent is the wider meaning, why limit the usefulness of the more nuanced term by smearing it out?

[alias_sqbr]

Well, there's a lot of feminists (myself included) who'll argue that the etymology of a word is very important if it is still plainly apparent in the word's usage and implications (ie chairman, policeman etc) This applies to "feminism" given that it sounds like, and usually refers to, the "feminine".

Of course you have the opposite argument, where people argue that, say "spastic" isn't an insult since it comes from an old fashioned scientific term for cerebral palsy, but that ignores the word's history, usage, and associations.

*is not entirely sure what my point is exactly*

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Unlike Tom, I won't leave the obvious comment aside. None of those terms have had their meaning expanded beyond their etymology, because 'man' has more than one contextual meaning (and while 'manservant' refers specifically to males, I doubt anyone uses it to describe female valets).

The question of whether the use of 'man' to refer non-specifically to any member of the human race is oppressive to women is cultural, having only to do with the (etymologically appropriate) use of a culturally-loaded term. The use of 'feminism' to refer to an opposition of all forms of bigotry is etymological, expanding a term originally used for describing the beliefs and actions of those fighting for female equality to supplant other, more appropriate terms such as 'tolerance'.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

These things usually go in the other direction: when two or more words with identical referents arrive to compete in the same space, one or both of them will tend to take on a more nuanced meaning.

Example: prior to 1066 the antecedent of "apple" in Anglo-Saxon / OE / whatever was a general term meaning the same as our contemporary "fruit". Following the Norman conquest "apple" gradually took on its contemporary meaning as the (French-derived) "fruit" took root in English.

This is a process that tends to enrich language (allowing the economic expression of more complex meanings) rather than impoverish it (by creating a bunch of vague terms all meaning the same thing).

Be interesting to see where terms like "laptop" and "notebook" go over the next couple of decades (assuming the devices themselves remain).

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

It's true, there are cases where words become more specific, losing their former, broader meaning. It's generally pretty rare, though, usually coinciding with cultural upheaval (as in the case of the 1066 invasion).

I would agree that words competing in the same lexical space tend to become nuanced: 'cataclysm' and 'disaster', for example. However, I wouldn't consider 'man' to be an example of this. The word has been used throughout post-Roman history to describe both humans and specifically male humans - certainly that usage has cultural roots, but that's more than a nuance. Competing words ('person', for example) came into English hundreds of years later, and didn't assume their current common meanings in the same space as 'man' until later still.

Additionally, the nuances are rarely universal, differing wildly between English-speaking cultures (see 'biscuit' or 'truck' for examples). Nor do words naturally narrow their definitions; many words become re-used so many times that they have no single "commonly accepted" definition (look at 'set').

'Laptop' and 'notebook' are interesting examples. 'Laptop' has been forced into a smaller category in technical usage, with newer words like 'palmtop' and 'ultraportable' stealing some of its scope, but is commonly used for all mobile computers to distinguish them from 'desktop' machines. This is similar to 'man': the word refers to both a group and a subset of that group. 'Notebook', on the other hand, is an example of a word with an existing definition being co-opted into another definition, with the specific meaning determined by the context in which is it used.

Yay language. :)

[alias_sqbr]

See strangedave's comment below: some see feminism as being inextricably bound up with the wider fight against all oppression by it's nature.

*grumble*

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Some people might choose to use the term "feminism" in that broader sense, but two things being bound up together (even inextricably!) doesn't make them interchangeable or the same in any logical sense, so I don't consider the usage to be justified.

Yes, language is a shifting multifarious thing, who knew?

This whole train of thought makes me grumpy about people who abuse terms due to their laziness or their desperation for rhetorical advantage and then say "well the meaning's evolved to include my bollocksy usage" once they've committed the aforesaid atrocities over some span of time.

And then start interpreting other people's non-abusive use of the term as if their intent included the wider scope! Argh!

Re: *grumble*

[alias_sqbr]

See people using words to mean something different is just the way language works, though I agree that some particular examples are dumb and counterproductive.

But yes, people who use a word to mean something different to most people then act as if everyone was using their definition are grumpy making indeed. Also confusing. As in this case.