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

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

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?

Oh, i love this question.

I'd say that these aren't opposing perspectives [womens rights or interrelated politics of race, abelism etc] but complementary points because;

- the majority of the world's women experience sexual politics and human rights in conjunction with these related politics of race, class etc. To exclude these politics impact upon sexual politics results in feminist theory with greatly reduced applicability at best, or overt discrimination to less privileged women within feminist organizing at worst.

-I define feminism in relation to patriarachy. Keeping the P-word in there is important imho because feminism is a political philosophy, it addresses power relations and ideologies which the concept of Patriarchy conveys - unlike just saying gender or men. Especially when defining feminism with newbs, just saying "womens issues" and men allows the common misperception that feminism = some men vs women gender war thing, and totally personal lifestyle choices, not wider political critique and actions.

-If I'm aiming to dismantle patriarchy, that then does imply both point a) of addressing women's rights as women are most disadvantaged by patriarchy and point b) because The Patriarch is constructed in conjunction with other politics. For example, John Howard appealed to a very nationalist, white, heterosexual, Christian Patriarchal vision. He also appealed to some women to support him in politics with deeply sexist impacts to other women by working that really nationalist patriarchy. To unpack that required getting the way these politics interact.

-Nonetheless, there are HEAPS of academic feminists and factions that will say it's either/or, that one's better blah blah. Imho that reflects women of privilege generally having had more opportunity to create feminist resources and pursue feminism in academia, resulting in the related politics being presented as an "add on" despite that not being how it's actually lived by many.

I thus take the endless "It's either, NO it's OR!" debates as;

-evidence that women and feminists have unequal power relations amongst ourselves

-which impacts upon the way feminism is practised in RL and recorded/ transmitted in academia.

Which is "real" feminism depends whether you're talking about feminist histories as they really happed, feminist theory as we ideally aspire to and whether the feminist in question is prepared to acknowledge their own location within intra-feminist power relations.

No one correct answer. In much the same way punks disagree endlessly about what punk is, and frankly punk does "really" include groups about just moshing out and/or more political ones, but we can all probably draw the line at Avril Lavigne. Where, Patriarchy is Avril Lavinge, but Green Day / white liberal feminist remain up for debate.

I think "colourblind" feminists are kidding themselves, because patriarchy and the majority of people don't have their sexual politics outside racism.
And I'm right. Like everyone else :P

Going through your points

[alias_sqbr]

-Absolutely.

-Good point. Something I've had pointed out to me is the way that feminism etc is belittled by the "Ok, sure, that guy was acting a sexist/racist etc way, but he's just a prat, on the whole sexism/racism etc aren't a problem" when there's this huge power structure relying upon and reinforcing these attitudes, but it's so pervasive you don't notice it 'til you look.

-Mmm, I can see that.

-You lost me a bit there (like I said, low reading comprehension!), but I do agree that some feminists do seem pretty blase about anything except gender, even when it's them doing the oppressing. e.g. the "Gay men should shut up about slash" argument can get pretty dodgy.

*is in basic agreement with, and educated by your post*

And I'm right. Like everyone else :P

Me too! :)