Helen Pluckrose · @HPluckrose
11th Sep 2014 from TwitLonger
Redefining my feminism as gender equality. @GauriNarayan
Increasingly often, in recent years, I have been required to define my feminism as one which does not demonise men and victimise women. I have always insisted to detractors that this is a false impression of feminism which is simply the aim for equal rights between the genders. I'm no longer sure that this is always the case.
The final straw has been the last two weeks of discussing things like date-rape detection nail varnish and arguing that they should not be held back by concerns that they place more responsibility on women to prevent rape. I argued that, of course, no blame should ever attach to rape victims and we must vehemently protest any claims that a woman's clothing or alcohol consumption should be relevant at all. However, I also claimed that women should be able to choose to protect themselves in any legal way they wish and should not be shamed for doing so. We can counter vigorously any claim that women who don't want to burden themselves with nail polish & rape alarms and self-defence classes etc are to blame for being attacked without the need to limit women's options to protect themselves. I was supporting and supported by rape survivors at various points who felt empowered by such options. I, and they, had tweets captured and spread all over Twitter with the captions "Victim blamer" "Rape enabler" and "Rape apologist."
The same thing happened a few months ago when I supported a woman arguing that her consensual BDSM sex life was nobody's business but her own. She was being called a "rape enabler" for this and so was I when I supported her right to any consensual sex between adults that she chose. Interestingly, it was never revealed whether she was dominant or submissive in this relationship. It was assumed that she was submissive. A trans person making a similar argument was also labelled in this way. An interesting question to ask of feminists who make essentialist dichotomies - male/aggressor vs female/victim - is what they can think is likely to come of this? If they accept that gender roles are largely the result of cultural conditioning, why would they ever think it a good idea to define gender in this way?
Last year, I was concerned by an article saying misogyny was rife in atheist groups and asked people to share experiences and give examples so I could help to do something about it. I am active in atheist groups and well situated to do so. I was accused of being an MRA in disguise because asking such a question was victim blaming. I was blocked despite proving myself an active feminist and assuring people that I wanted to get involved in addressing the problem they had raised.
My feminism is about equality & sisterhood and women having a voice and choice. Some people calling themselves feminists want to limit women's choices and voices as much as patriarchy ever has. I thought they were a minority. They probably are. But they are increasingly vocal and dominant and I no longer wish to keep having to define my feminism as actual feminism. Actual feminism is gender equality and humanism and I shall define myself by those now. My mother, a committed second wave feminist, who was active in opening up business qualifications and equal pay to women in the 70s as well as demanding rape within marriage to be criminalised, is deeply saddened by the knowledge that if she expressed her views now, she would be likely to be labelled an anti-feminist and a rape enabler.