The start of the wikipedia entry on Feminism as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 06:13:12 GMT:
The start of the wikipedia entry on Feminism as it appears today:
I kind of like both of these. The second is more rah-rah and exciting-struggle about it. The first is more core value about it: what exactly we believe, as feminists.
But ultimately, I'm not sure the whole "The Man is against us" angle - exciting and overall accurate as it may be, but it's also a bit self-defeating in the long term. Must a feminist recognize the dominant ideology as oppressive to women? Suppose progress is made? Are we then no longer able to be feminists? According to the first definition - sure, we can. Of course! But according to the second definition, well, no. We couldn't be feminists anymore, not if the dominant ideology could no longer be recognized as oppressive to women.
In other words: we can only be feminists as long as we are on the losing end of the struggle. That's neither helpful nor hopeful. Let's define the struggle in terms of our goals - what we want to achieve! Not in terms of our failure to achieve it.
Of course, this distinction isn't worth going into schismatics over! We've got a ways to go, fellow feminists, before we have to worry about that.
In the meantime, please feel free to follow my bold lead. But don't expect me to hold the door for ya!
Feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women and that campaign for women's rights and interests.
The start of the wikipedia entry on Feminism as it appears today:
Feminism is the name given to any system of thinking that recognizes the dominant ideology as oppressive to women and works to affect change. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women and that campaign for women's rights and interests.
I kind of like both of these. The second is more rah-rah and exciting-struggle about it. The first is more core value about it: what exactly we believe, as feminists.
But ultimately, I'm not sure the whole "The Man is against us" angle - exciting and overall accurate as it may be, but it's also a bit self-defeating in the long term. Must a feminist recognize the dominant ideology as oppressive to women? Suppose progress is made? Are we then no longer able to be feminists? According to the first definition - sure, we can. Of course! But according to the second definition, well, no. We couldn't be feminists anymore, not if the dominant ideology could no longer be recognized as oppressive to women.
In other words: we can only be feminists as long as we are on the losing end of the struggle. That's neither helpful nor hopeful. Let's define the struggle in terms of our goals - what we want to achieve! Not in terms of our failure to achieve it.
Of course, this distinction isn't worth going into schismatics over! We've got a ways to go, fellow feminists, before we have to worry about that.
In the meantime, please feel free to follow my bold lead. But don't expect me to hold the door for ya!
Comments
I refuse to compromise on my maddeningly ambiguous stance.