Can we generalise feminism?

I have been involved in an email dialog with a feminists, Jen, who bills herself as a “real feminist”, by which she means she is not like those radicals. Great. Her criticism of me is that I criticise feminism as some kind of monolithic entity and don’t pay enough heed to the real feminists like her. This discussion is so common in my email inbox that I feel it would be useful to include it on this blog. It is still ongoing so expect updates.

It starts with her original email to me:

I would be responding to your videos on your comments page, but unfortunately, there are way too many stupid people there for my taste, and no matter what I know I will be bashed because I don't hate women or feminists. This is sort of my response to the all of the videos from you I have watched.

I agree with a lot of your points on our culture's persecution of men. Fathers are just as vital to the family as mothers. Though I think it is unfair to blame only the feminists for encouraging things like no-fault divorce and fatherless families. The persecution of men began after WWII when the media portrayed responsible men, men who made sacrifices and supported families, as emasculated, mocking them, mocking the life of a "normal" man, portraying it as being shallow and unfulfilling. The movie Rebel Without A Cause embodies this perfectly. This fabricated portrayal of an empty fatherhood aroused feelings of boredom and discontent in young men who did not like what they had to look forward to. Hugh Hefner's motto of having ties to no one, including woman and family, became the popular manly ideal. This was still the 1950's. If society considered it unmanly to provide for one's wife and family, or even start one, normal, plain women were screwed. The male rebellion of beatnicks and greasers was prompted by fear of castration via fatherhood and responsibility. The female rebellion of I am woman hear me roar BS was also provoked by a fear a different one, of being left in the gutter, in exchange for Hugh Heffners more attractive, sexually active bunnies. Most guys are afraid of castration. Most women fear spinsterhood. Such is a fate worse than death for both. You know what followed in the 60's and 70's.

Since then, our society continually has two views of men: you are either a free man, a womanizing sex God who is a Chuck Norris protege - or you are the emasculated father who is literally drained by his controlling wife and whiny kids. Both are bullshit. Similarly, there are two views of women in society: you are either an attractive sex toy, or you are the ugly saggy-tit spinster, who if she were married, or someone's mother, would be a nagging volatile shrew. Also Bullshit. The true feminists, as well as the deranged psychotic man-hating ones are a mere product of this. But the heart of the evil lies in those who controlled (and still control) the fantasies of the masses in the first place.

These puppetmasters who support the psychotic feminists with their media coverage only do so, because they want to tear down those who pose an actual threat to them (fathers who love and stand by their families), not because they really care about justice or women's freedom. They want to make such men afraid to have families of their own, afraid to be responsible, to love fully, afraid to stand and fight. What these fools (the psychofeminists) don't realize is they are playing right into the traps of the tyrants they claim to oppose. Once they are done destroying the will of the only men with the courage to fight for those they love, there will be no men to protect their rights. I say it as a feminist: women's freedom depends on the state of civilization, and the support of good men. It always has and will. No amount of protesting, no law is going to change that.

I apologize for the mouthful. But it seems like you've never been exposed to a real feminist (the "men are pigs" psychos are a VERY LOUD minority, who are definitely more fun to rant about than us boring feminists who are straight, have boyfriends and love their dads), and think you know what real feminism stands for. Usually, we hold a lot more in common than we realize, but don't have the humility to want to listen to the other side. Oftentimes as soon as men such as yourself discover that I am female, or god forbid a feminist, that I can't be reasoned with or care deeply about their perspective.

I am often busy, but would gladly like to hear your response, as I believe you did want to get a dialog going. (Unless you are the male version of the psycho-feminist. I sincerely hope you arent.) :(

My first response to her:

Hi,

I can do a dialog, no problem, and I will address your points but if I may break this down a little bit to make it more manageable by asking you a question.

I realize you are young, but are you prominent in any organization or are you on the front lines of feminist thought promoting your views?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Hello again! I apologize for the late response - it is Thanksgiving here and I have been spending time with my family for the past week.

As for my "prominence" there is no official feminist organization that I see any need to join as of now, unless one counts forums and various websites and college groups. Honestly, I think one can just as much if not more accomplished through making films that reach a general audience, than by stopping traffic with a mob of annoying protesters - but that is my personal approach.

Yes, I am young, still in college, and have yet to make my grand contribution to humanity. I am not a public speaker or a politician. But I am a storyteller, and can thus reach just as many people through my work.

My response:

Hello again Jen,

I was beginning to think that you had forgotten about me.

Your answer was what I thought it would be. You're an interested individual, right? However, you're not a member of an organisation or on the head of N.O.W. I receive emails from many people who complain that I only attack the radicals and that I don't consider the "real feminists", to use you own term, but when I probe further then I find that they are people who have normal jobs and who don't push the field of feminism or steer its course.

I am not going to ask you introspect and ask you why you consider yourself to be the standard to be measured against for ideological pureness. In short, why do you consider yourself to be the "real feminist" when you are not prominent in the movement and the radicals are the ones behind the wheel? Doesn't it make more logical sense to call these feminists the "real ones"?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Unlike most movements, feminism is a loose collection of individuals. To think there is but one ruling dogma or only a few key feminists whom we all follow like sheep is outdated. Maybe a couple of older feminists, who mind you are starting to die off - but most feminists that I know, and virtually all feminists of my generation are not man-haters. Feminists do hold one thing in common: we believe that women are as fully human as men and should not be disrespected or poorly treated on the sole grounds that they are "women and therefore inferior".

Many of my ideas come from my mentors - who share my core values and HAVE made contributions to feminist thought. When I asked my mentors what it means to be a feminist, they told me what I am telling you now. As in any industry, those with the ability to succeed, those with the passion and dream to choose his or her own life, should be allowed to do so, man or woman of any race or background (provided they aren't abusing their freedom by oppressing others). Those who seek to punish and oppress men with such vehemence nearly always have some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.

Does Bill O'Reilly represent all conservatives? Does Michael Moore represent the majority of liberals in his country? They are certainly leaders of a sort and do have their following. That doesn't change the fact that most people on both sides think they are douchebags. That's why they are mocked. Likewise, radical man-hating fems are mocked. No one really takes them seriously except for the politicians who support them. Are Muslim terrorists true Muslims? Because they speak the loudest and kill people, I suppose that means they are the only true Muslims and the quiet family of Muslims next door who faithfully observe the five pillars are just a bunch of phonies.

Finally, because I'm guessing you will ask this:

Why aren't "real feminists" out there defaming those outspoken crazed feminists?
It is very difficult ground to tread. I use the Muslim terrorist example because that's a similar reason that other potential leaders do not speak up on public television and in the streets of San Francisco - because then the extremists will even attack their own. Lots of feminists (particularly younger ones) for this reason are quiet and reserved about their more relaxed (but still feminist) views. Instead, you will hear mostly from the trained apprentices of past extremists. Many people want to be leaders, or at least make some contribution, but are afraid to go against the established order - or don't know how to oppose it without being silenced forever.

This is my last response to her:

Hi Jen,

Believe it or not, your message is almost word-for-word verbatim from what many others have sent to me on a regular basis. I get this criticism all the time. They say I can't pin down feminism because feminists believe all sorts of different things. Yes they do, and so do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, black liberationists and on and on..

If feminism is free-floating and nebulous then there is no point in the term is there? It has to mean something doesn't it?

I read a lot of liberal pro evolution blogs and these guys rip into conservatives all the time. But I realise that evolution denial is a common trend in conservative circles relating to their religiosity. I don't feel the need to defend conservatism against these attacks by saying that not all conservatives deny evolution, because I realise that the criticism is legitimate and fair.

There is an indiscriminate attitude that predominates in many people. What you said can be made a stock response to any criticism of a group or ideology. What you are essentially doing, whether you realise or not, is shutting down debate and it's a bad idea. Being discriminate and generalising is the essence of wisdom, if you cannot find patterns then you cannot achieve any valuable or accurate macro level picture of life. Whilst feminist do differ on things, you can generalise about the views they hold. I'll give you an example. I can think of no feminists I have encountered or heard of, apart from an ifeminist, who would accept the MRA view of the wage gap (yes we can generalise MRA's too). They would overwhelmingly say that this is proof of ground yet uncovered for women and would be activist on this issue. Criticisms of this attitude and association of it with feminism, like in the conservative example above, is legitimate and fair.

Sincerely,
Mark