Akkarin wrote: We need to be careful about a great deal of over-generalisations with this topic and what "feminism" means.
Adder wrote: It is only the legal domain of equality and equal rights which is real feminism, as its its purpose/intent/action.
"Real" feminism?
There isn't feminism, there are only feminisms.
Adder what you talked about is Liberal Feminism.
But consider:
Radical Libertarian Feminists focus on issues of choice, how biological and social roles constrain women.
Radical Cultural Feminists see reproduction not as a limit of choice but as an expression of female liberation and empowerment.
Post Modern Feminists seek to deconstruct ideas of gender identities/roles, making the genders mostly androgynous.
Marxist/Socialist Feminists focus on concepts of exploitation and coercion, should women who stay at home to raise children receive a wage?
Psychoanalytic Feminists argue about how sexism is reinforced at an early age through gendered parenting.
Feminism is not one monolithic school of thought.
My use of the world real is just in regards to what feminism was created for and what it considers its victories, which is the struggle to and maintenance of the legal equality/recognition. Sub-divisions of feminism exist, in an infinite number of how many distinguishing characteristics we might elect to shape the boundary the subdivisions grouping, but yea, I view them as segments of that primary nature, which is why I used the word 'real'.
This then does exclude a lot of the nonsense, which is most often what gets thrown up against feminism. Using the term feminism for an umbrella term for anything/everything related to feminism is too unstructured for me - I prefer stricter relationships and some structure beyond the groups boundaries themselves. If I had my database brain on I might know what I'm talking about.
But the confusion in threads like this is a most relevant sub-division of real feminism (to me) being the moral and ethical frontier, because its outside the purview of legalities but so damn intrinsic to the reality of achieving action in the main purpose/intent of feminism, that its action is vulnerable and harder to manage - meaning its a mess to discuss when emotions get involved even though it would be inherently trending towards the individual in scope - that would require a genuine involvement from both sides to make any progress, and so is basically a waste of time because it takes a lot of trust and respect to dance with the devil in those details. I guess it depends if the conversation is an excuse to whinge, or an opportunity to learn and create ideas. It's silly when threads go to a place where people are comparing silly examples of unrelated nonsense. For those who are not really invested in real struggles I can understand that making light at the expense of serious issues can amplify the experience of thinking they have some relevance to something but when they actually start thinking they are being informed, its misleading. I'm a bit boring like that...
:dry:
After all the philosophy of feminism is not feminism, it is about feminism. My point being (the various subdivision one can create to discuss particular types of) real feminism only really has value in genuine discussion - to contrast it against the popular means of people focusing on extreme examples, particular characters or other distorted/disingenuous representations of feminism and its isms which in reality are less about feminism and more about the characters or examples themselves.
