Feminism

I have a pretty ecumenical definition of feminism. So:

Feminism is the belief that, in your current society, women suffer injustice for being women.

Injustice here should be taken in the usual sense. To believe that there is injustice is to believe that it would be good if it were ended. Someone who is strongly feminist will probably take many actions to end the perceived injustice.

This usage is conveniently inclusive of many belief systems. If we include something about equality in the definition, then the conversation becomes about, in what respect should women be held to be equal? What precise meaning of equality should make someone a feminist?

And I think that this is unproductive. In any given society, someone who fits my definition would be called a feminist. Someone who is influenced by the usual definitions might instead say that a figure is (or was) “rather feminist by her society’s standards”, which I think is just a cumbersome attempt to say the word ecumenically when the practice is not sanctioned by dictionaries.

Besides, the emphasis is correctly kept on women’s rights advocacy. I think it is the right standard to say that someone who believes that men and women should have “equal rights”, but believes that they already have “equal rights”, is not a feminist. And someone who believes the former but not the latter thing will certainly fit my ecumenical definition.

The way I put it leads to productive conversations. For instance, I am not a feminist, because I think women suffer no injustice in my society for being women. Someone who wishes to convince me to be a feminist will have to show me in what unjust ways women are treated for being women, which is exactly what the conversation should be about – what is the rule of justice between the sexes? Are we breaking it?

But for the record, I am a feminist with respect to some other societies, such as Saudi Arabia, and likely with respect to my own society in earlier historical times.