I am sorry it has taken me so long to write another post – things have been pretty busy at work, plus I have been spending my time trying to understand the wonderful world of Twitter. Driven to the site by my desire to babble away through the Twittersilence (ahhh that wonderful idea of Ms Moran’s that set the feminists at each other’s throats) I have discovered both amazing support but also feminist fueled insanity that has made me more determined than ever to challenge the self-righteousness of a set of people who believe that nothing should happen in this world on terms other than their own.
The draft of the new EU regulations is available here and calls for ‘concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating, racism, colour-bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia’.
Seriously? What the hell is wrong with the phrase ‘equal gender rights’? What serious person is actually going to have a problem with a term like that?
Oh the irony of the fact that in the same sentence they are trying to get rid of ‘totalitarian ideologies’…
Feminism here is the odd one out – the only example above in which people are obliged to adopt a particular ideology, and where opposition to that ideology can be assumed as an intolerant act. That’s almost like calling me Islamophobic because I don’t convert to Islam and live as a Muslim. Or that I am against civil rights because I don’t attend black power meetings and call myself a black power activist. Call it ‘gender equality’ and I’ll sign up. We don’t need an ‘ism’ for that. I do appreciate the difference between the terms ‘anti-feminist’ and ‘non-feminist’ – I personally try to use the term non-feminist because I want to show that I respect the rights of people to be part of it as an ideology. But I also deserve the right to criticise that ideology, particularly when it’s owners are trying to spread it in such a militant way. Does opposing feminist views make me an anti-feminist? Probably – but I believe I have the right to opt out of a label that by its very nature implies that the world is wrong and needs to be re-organised.
I and others come under tremendous attack when we argue that feminism is not synonymous with ‘equal gender rights’, and indeed one of the main things that an examination of how ‘feminism’ is coming across on Twitter has convinced me is that one of the most significant problems here is the word ‘feminism’ itself. Is it not obvious that using the word ‘feminism’ to define gender equality only works if one buys into the idea that life is so skewed, unfair and biased against women that the whole system has to be redesigned to compensate for this? For anyone who does not believe this to be true the idea of ‘feminism’ becomes an entirely self-defeating argument – as the term focuses on one gender only as the key to ‘equality’. Oh and to those idiots who say that feminism is better for everyone because in countries with more feminism there is more freedom for the rest of society too… don’t you think that it might… just possibly… be the other way around? Just think about cause and effect there for a second please.
I personally can’t think of any other issue where the ‘problem’ isn’t given the special name (such as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, terrorism) and viewed as some sort of an opt-in. However with feminism it’s ok to assume that the whole world is evil unless they choose to adopt this particular label – which in turn gives the feminists the ammunition to argue that anyone who refuses to adopt their label is evidence for the need of feminism, rather than that fact people just think it’s a load of immature nonsense that fails to deal with the real issues and that they may, in fact, be right.
Do a search for the term ‘feminism’ on Twitter and see what comes up. There will almost certainly be a bunch of tweets along the lines of ‘to all those people who say they’re not feminists… you just don’t understand what it means!’ I think it’s time we started pointing out that the solution to someone disagreeing with you is not just to call them stupid.
Or at least we’d better take the opportunity to do that until we’re prevented from doing so by law.