I suppose feminism is an actual philosophy; perhaps one that's evolved over time, but basically one that has a set philosophy or agenda. I haven't really looked it up. Rather, I've kind of developed the impression that almost every woman has her own idea of feminism now; the once fairly unified movement has diverged into a range of views that vary based on her individual experiences. In fact, I would like to retroactively include men in that statement, also. So, with that disclaimer, I don't claim this to be true feminism or anything. I claim this to be my philosophy when it comes to women's rights and responsibilities, justice, equality, family, and all that jazz.
Primarily and fundamentally, my feminist viewpoint is that it (feminism, or being a feminist) is about CHOICE above all. The freedom to make an individual choice about how your life will proceed. It's a movement against fitting people into societal niches, particularly based on tradition and traditional gender roles. I find that the movement as a whole would be pointless if we went from 'all women should stay at home and be mothers and homemakers' to 'all women should be working on careers.' Furthermore, it is hypocritical for women to demand supposed 'equality' and yet continue to hold men to the same (or harsher) standard as before. It needs to be acknowledged that being viewed as the 'frailer' and 'more maternal' sex did and still does have certain perks. One of the most heartbreaking? The issue of father's rights.
Brief sidetrack: one of the few legitimate complaints I've heard from guys about feminism relates to the fact that the courts (and "the system") if you will, are still heavily skewed toward women when it comes to divorce, child custody, etc. Furthermore, the feminist view on abortion (pro-choice) tends to completely disregard the potential interest(s) of the father; the choice is considered to be entirely the mother's. Basically, we stereotype men as money-earning (or on the flip side, shamefully deadbeat) machines that don't (or shouldn't) care the slightest about their kids (except, of course, as a drain on resources). I admit, I know, in my generation, only three (unmarried or divorced) fathers. Only one is remotely close to this. The other two (at least when it comes to their kid(s)) are incredibly conscientious. Some statistics support my experience: http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php . (Incidentally, here's hoping my sample does not expand too much in the future, I don't really want any friends going through this...). So my point is, a true feminist ought to see the injustice here and ought to be opposed to such practices.
In the abortion question, the question is a truly sensitive one...what if he (for whatever reason, i.e. personal, religious, moral) wants to keep the baby and she does not? And if we allow the man to have a call in this situation, how do we keep him from abusing that right to 'punish' the woman by forcing her through the pregnancy and then abandoning her and the child? If the mother has the choice to abort the baby and give up the responsibilities it entails, why do we hold the father to fiscal responsibility for the child without giving him a choice? How is that fair? Like I said, it is a delicate situation where many possible outcomes need to be foreseen. I don't claim to have answers, but I know that the current system is not working, in the most unfortunate way.
So, back to the subject: true equality isn't about completely equal earnings and equal pay and equal everything. It's about equal CHOICES and opportunities. It's about being able to choose family or career or both no matter what sex you are. To make the right choice for your family based on your situation and not be harshly judged for it. That means removing the stigma from stay at home dads. That means taking turns paying for dates. That means not insisting that 'men' (because I am generalizing) be high earners or buy diamond rings or do whatever, but finding the man (or woman) that best fits you and your lifestyle and the kind of partnership you want to have.
There are still men who want a homemaker wife. And for that matter, there are still women that want to be homemakers, who are prepared for 'mother' being their most important 'career.' There is nothing wrong with that. There may be couples who are both interested in working. Or where the woman is more career-oriented. I realize I am being hetero-centric here, and yes, I don't have to be. This all applies equally to gay and lesbian couples; but then, they already realize this, by necessity ;) . I would even expand that idea of choice to say we shouldn't need to restrict marriage or family to one- or two-parent arrangements. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Moving on. It is my personal belief that the search for absolute 'equality' is doomed. Men and women, on a biological level, are not organized the same way. However, I believe (I see, in my day-to-day life) the variance between people in terms of all character and physical traits--aptitude in mathematics or communication, athleticism and strength, stoicism, neatness, etc. all vary more between individuals than between sexes. Not to mention some of that variance is related to upbringing rather than genetics. So again, we need to stray away from 'all men are this' and 'all women are that' thinking. Maybe we'll end up with 30% women in Mechanical Engineering...or 40% or 20%...or 60%! Regardless, if all women feel free to choose any career and know they will be respected for their skill in it, a cultural victory will have been achieved. A victory of choice.
I should amend that. Women (and men) should be free to choose the lifestyle they want that meshes with their upbringing without judgement; this includes religious lifestyles that stress male dominance, as much as I personally think those are harmful to individuals and the society. If this sounds contradictory...my view, again, promotes choice of lifestyle. If someone is brought up a certain way with certain views (on morality, family, etc), then that may be the lifestyle they are comfortable and happy with, so I cannot convince myself that it is right for me to exclude that choice among others for them if their choices do not actively affect me.
That last was important: Forcing one's views on another, e.g. legislatively, or through violent, extremist, offensive actions, is not 'freedom of' anything. It is impinging on freedom. It is the opposite. Taking away others' choices is the only invalid choice.
I don't think that was a complete philosophy, but probably enough for today, because I need to go home eventually. I'd like to hear what others think of this and have my views challenged; it'll help me further refine them! :)
Primarily and fundamentally, my feminist viewpoint is that it (feminism, or being a feminist) is about CHOICE above all. The freedom to make an individual choice about how your life will proceed. It's a movement against fitting people into societal niches, particularly based on tradition and traditional gender roles. I find that the movement as a whole would be pointless if we went from 'all women should stay at home and be mothers and homemakers' to 'all women should be working on careers.' Furthermore, it is hypocritical for women to demand supposed 'equality' and yet continue to hold men to the same (or harsher) standard as before. It needs to be acknowledged that being viewed as the 'frailer' and 'more maternal' sex did and still does have certain perks. One of the most heartbreaking? The issue of father's rights.
Brief sidetrack: one of the few legitimate complaints I've heard from guys about feminism relates to the fact that the courts (and "the system") if you will, are still heavily skewed toward women when it comes to divorce, child custody, etc. Furthermore, the feminist view on abortion (pro-choice) tends to completely disregard the potential interest(s) of the father; the choice is considered to be entirely the mother's. Basically, we stereotype men as money-earning (or on the flip side, shamefully deadbeat) machines that don't (or shouldn't) care the slightest about their kids (except, of course, as a drain on resources). I admit, I know, in my generation, only three (unmarried or divorced) fathers. Only one is remotely close to this. The other two (at least when it comes to their kid(s)) are incredibly conscientious. Some statistics support my experience: http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php . (Incidentally, here's hoping my sample does not expand too much in the future, I don't really want any friends going through this...). So my point is, a true feminist ought to see the injustice here and ought to be opposed to such practices.
In the abortion question, the question is a truly sensitive one...what if he (for whatever reason, i.e. personal, religious, moral) wants to keep the baby and she does not? And if we allow the man to have a call in this situation, how do we keep him from abusing that right to 'punish' the woman by forcing her through the pregnancy and then abandoning her and the child? If the mother has the choice to abort the baby and give up the responsibilities it entails, why do we hold the father to fiscal responsibility for the child without giving him a choice? How is that fair? Like I said, it is a delicate situation where many possible outcomes need to be foreseen. I don't claim to have answers, but I know that the current system is not working, in the most unfortunate way.
So, back to the subject: true equality isn't about completely equal earnings and equal pay and equal everything. It's about equal CHOICES and opportunities. It's about being able to choose family or career or both no matter what sex you are. To make the right choice for your family based on your situation and not be harshly judged for it. That means removing the stigma from stay at home dads. That means taking turns paying for dates. That means not insisting that 'men' (because I am generalizing) be high earners or buy diamond rings or do whatever, but finding the man (or woman) that best fits you and your lifestyle and the kind of partnership you want to have.
There are still men who want a homemaker wife. And for that matter, there are still women that want to be homemakers, who are prepared for 'mother' being their most important 'career.' There is nothing wrong with that. There may be couples who are both interested in working. Or where the woman is more career-oriented. I realize I am being hetero-centric here, and yes, I don't have to be. This all applies equally to gay and lesbian couples; but then, they already realize this, by necessity ;) . I would even expand that idea of choice to say we shouldn't need to restrict marriage or family to one- or two-parent arrangements. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Moving on. It is my personal belief that the search for absolute 'equality' is doomed. Men and women, on a biological level, are not organized the same way. However, I believe (I see, in my day-to-day life) the variance between people in terms of all character and physical traits--aptitude in mathematics or communication, athleticism and strength, stoicism, neatness, etc. all vary more between individuals than between sexes. Not to mention some of that variance is related to upbringing rather than genetics. So again, we need to stray away from 'all men are this' and 'all women are that' thinking. Maybe we'll end up with 30% women in Mechanical Engineering...or 40% or 20%...or 60%! Regardless, if all women feel free to choose any career and know they will be respected for their skill in it, a cultural victory will have been achieved. A victory of choice.
I should amend that. Women (and men) should be free to choose the lifestyle they want that meshes with their upbringing without judgement; this includes religious lifestyles that stress male dominance, as much as I personally think those are harmful to individuals and the society. If this sounds contradictory...my view, again, promotes choice of lifestyle. If someone is brought up a certain way with certain views (on morality, family, etc), then that may be the lifestyle they are comfortable and happy with, so I cannot convince myself that it is right for me to exclude that choice among others for them if their choices do not actively affect me.
That last was important: Forcing one's views on another, e.g. legislatively, or through violent, extremist, offensive actions, is not 'freedom of' anything. It is impinging on freedom. It is the opposite. Taking away others' choices is the only invalid choice.
I don't think that was a complete philosophy, but probably enough for today, because I need to go home eventually. I'd like to hear what others think of this and have my views challenged; it'll help me further refine them! :)
