RafaelNegrus said:
And the definition of "primary face" is also vague there, which doesn't really move the conversation to where it's been.
Ok, first off let me acknowledge that you raise some very interesting points in your post which I'm not going to be able to answer fully, if only for fear of derailing the thread even more than it already has been. So my apologies in advance.
RafaelNegrus said:
Personally, I am all for anyone being able to do whatever it is that they want to do, without stigma (within reason of course, drug dealers are bad that sort of thing). However, this is a rather simplistic look at feminism, because most feminists that I know of and all feminist literature that I've read speaks loads about the socialization of women to fit certain gender roles. However, to me this is not much of an issue as long as people do what they want. Those who worry about socialization however, worry greatly about WHY people want the things they do, and draw the conclusion that most all of it is a social construct. Do I agree with this? No, I recognize that the genders are different and we're not sure why and so I don't think we should really worry about it as long as everyone can do what they want and is happy.
While I agree with the sentiment that people should do what they want (within reason), I don't think we should write off socialization entirely. That's not to say I don't think any women should conform to societal expectations if that's who she is and what she wants, but I do think it's something that needs confronting. My main reason for this is that, as a woman who does not meet these expectations at all, it has been an issue for me, and for other women who find themselves in the same situation. I've been criticised for "not being feminine" and, when I reveal that I have no desire to have children (not due to abuse or logical reason or anything, I just plain do not want babies) I'm either patronised or treated like a freak. I prefer my body to be somewhat muscular, and people have commented on that in a negative way when I've been in the gym. Granted, these things are not exactly life or death, but they are damned frustrating and can be hurtful. So naturally I'd like there to be a greater understanding of the origins of socialization and acceptance of women who don't feel comfortable in the traditionally "female" role. Of course, I'd also like the same to be true for men.
That's just my personal take on it, I'm aware that there is much, much more to be said on the matter.
RafaelNegrus said:
Is it part of feminism? Maybe, maybe not. There's no definitive book on feminism that all feminists must agree to a hundred percent. There's also no single organization that's taken as definitive of having their actions represent the entire group.
That's true, but the same can be said of practically any group, even those that
do have a definitive book or code. Without wishing to turn this into a religious debate, just look at the massive variation in Christian denominations. While I agree that no group can be taken as wholly representative of feminism, my point was that we certainly shouldn't be taking the most extreme groups as representative, as so many seem to do. Just mentioning the word "feminism" (and not just on the internet) opens a huge can of worms largely based on people's perceptions or experiences of the extremists.
RafaelNegrus said:
However, some of your other examples do have those kinds of things, specifically Republicans. They have an official group that acts on their behalf that they willingly associate themselves with. If they said they were conservative that would be a different matter.
That's true of the Republican Party, but I meant it more generally. And even though there's an official party, from what I've seen (I'm British, so I'm not too clear on the intricacies) there's still a huge amount of variety within that group, as there is for any political party.
RafaelNegrus said:
I'm of the opinion that feminism as a movement has become a little confused, due to the lack of specific goals. Something that they can all unite behind and say "we all want this, this is what defines us." I would compare it to supporters for LGBT rights, who are all united by the agreement over equal marriage rights. Once that is no longer an issue, then we'll see whether the movement fractures or not.
Potentially true, though I'd argue that every political/social movement splits. As with political parties, it's seeing which bits survive that's the interesting part.
As a side note, there's quite a lot more to the LGBT rights movement than gay marriage, but I see your point.