Do Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?

>Do Feminists ever consider that they might be wrong?

I dunno, do Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians/Atheists/New Agers ever think they're wrong?

Scarcasm aside, there's a lot you're missing out here. Femisism isn't just some small movement led by vocal complainers. It's not just an opinion. It's a much larger movement with religious, psychological, economic, social, and even academic implications. (It's why I didn't involve it in my Thesis--I'd have been at it forever! XD)

It's not this thing you can "prove wrong", because so many things in society are geared towards an odd hierarchy where women (and anyone else not a straight, white man) end up underprivileged. A lot of that stuff is just hard-wired into us by virtue of nurture (as oppose to nature), which is why so many of it seems jarring.

Besides, it's hard to say that Feminists are "wrong" when the U.S. Congress decided that Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs as a corporation are more important than a woman's access to birth control (even though their medical plans cover Viagra, of all things). Heck, it's hard to argue that Feminists are "wrong" when we have politicians that try to enact laws affecting Women's reproductive rights when they--the politicians--don't even know how vaginas work.

I've not read the entire thread, but I'd like to voice some opinions on the matter.

As a (white non-US middle-class hetero cis :P) male who identify as a feminist, I have a few perspectives that I try to hold myself to. Daeeveka summarized the broad strokes in her excellent post two steps up, so I won't repeat that here. These tenets are feminism for me, and they represent ideals I believe in. However, I also recognise that they are exactly ideals: goals that we should endlessly strive for, but can never achieve in complete form.

Why yes, I have encountered feminist theory mostly from an academic perspective, now did you notice. :3

Do I sometimes wonder if they are wrong? I mean, yes, but the result of that question is always negative. I find them to be so basic that negating them always leads to something unacceptable. I've yet to find a situation where this foundation of feminism in itself seems wrong. I acknowledge that this is based on my own culturally created sense of morality. I'm fine with that.

Instead of asking about right and wrong, I think it's more fruitful to ask about relevance. As a student of literature, I believe it is always possible to analyse a text in context (which in this case can also mean a situation, event or similar) from every perspective. That it's possible is not always a guarantee for it being relevant. I don't believe a feminist analysis is always the most crucial lens to view everything through. That doesn't have to mean that the analysis is wrong, but just that other perspectives might be more relevant given the current context. In such cases, I shouldn't push a feminist reading just because I happen to be good at making those (which I'm not really claiming either :P).

That's my answer to the question in the title. I'd like to comment on a few things I've spotted as I flipped through the thread, directed at no one in particular (but if you feel hit, come at me bro).

There was a complaint that feminism isn't concerned with the different situations in other countries and, at best, tries to apply the same methods that worked in the US from afar. This is indeed a problem, and feminist theory since the 90s have been working to adopt that perspective as well. If you're interested, google "intersectionality" for an introductory glance.

The same can be said for the male perspective. Lately, there is more and more acknowledgement that males are, in fact, also trapped in gender roles that many (including myself) do not feel comfortable with. I am very happy that feminism has this place for me, that I can feel is relevant not only for my convictions but also for my actual self. There is much being done to expand the scope of the male gender.

This is why I think that one of the most damaging dichotomy that's being set up today is "if it's good for women, then it's bad for men". That might be true in individual cases (for given values of "good" and "bad"), but seen as categories, I don't think there is necessarily a very strong correlation. Something can be just good, for everyone, and that is what I want to work for.

Haven't read much of the post but, as a Transgender person and Feminists, I can say this:Ones world view can be wrong but Dogmatism is always wrong. That is the biggest problem with most debates I see today. This isn't me saying that Feminists are wrong or bad, but the idea that anything outside of that view is automatically wrong and can't have any value is. I see this a lot on Tumblr. It's the reason that the American political systems are Fuck. Also there is a extreme lack of... acceptance in the far left that is pretty shocking. To be far, it mostly reactionary the more asshole-ish people that jump on anyone that to about "left leaning" views and I get it. That said it as became something I don't think the more scholarly minded ment for it to become and they become it's own worse enemy in some respects.

Well, I mean, what do you mean by "reproductive rights"?

It's true that only vagina-bearers can grow a baby (as of yet, technology marches on). There is a biological difference between people (not just between sexes), and while I think this difference is routinely blown way out of proportion, I also think they can't be denied. From the perspective of "equality" meaning "everyone can do the same thing", "reproductive rights" can't be "perfectly equal" because the woman always has to carry and deliver the baby.

However, as I said in my post, equality is an ideal, and ideals are by definition unattainable. This doesn't mean we can't try to get as close to that ideal as possible. The bearing and birthing of the child may unchangeably be a woman's plight, but there are many things surrounding it that can be changed. For example, choosing to be a mother or not, or being able to return to work after delivering the baby, and the distribution of caring for the baby between the parents are all influences on a woman's "reproductive rights".

Similarly, there is much work to be done on the male side. The opportunity of taking a bigger role in the raising of the child is often socially discouraged if it infringes on work or other social functions. I for one think that the freedom of a male to choose to be the "primary" parent without encountering social disapproval is a cause worthy of fighting for.

Summary: true, there are some things we cannot change. Instead of letting that discourage us, let's change the things we can, which are in the great majority anyway.