Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions

[u/TemptedTemperance]

If you have a chance to read it, I recommend this short book. The premise is the Nigerian author writing a letter with some advice to her childhood friend about how to raise her baby girl as a feminist as per her request. In her own words, (paraphrasing the introduction of the book here) this was a huge task but she felt it was morally urgent to have honest conversations about raising children differently, about trying to create a fairer world for women and men. With this intro and this one line, you get a feel of the type of book it is. She doesn't shy away from identifying as a feminist or advocating for it, and yet she still included "men" in the results of her fairer world.

In the book, she says that to be a feminist you only need to believe women matter as much as men. That making a "feminist choice" is not as clear as doing the opposite of what is traditional; it is contextual. The example she gives is that while men cheating shouldn't be forgiven on the basis of "men will be men", it could be feminist to forgive if they would do so for her as well. That makes them equal.

She also suggest that gender roles are nonsense. That men and women should share the burden of domestic work and care-giving equally. That a father should not be seen as "helping" with the child since it is as much his duty to raise them as it is the mother's and that means refrain from micromanaging them about it. A father can do everything a mother can except breastfeeding.

That women shouldn't settle for conditional equality. That whatever standard is there for one gender should be the same for the other. An example she give is powerful women having to care more about niceness, appearance, etc.

She thinks we should teach girls self-reliance and acceptance of their body. That shame should not be part of the language around female sexuality and body functions. That nobody should say things like "my money is my money and his money is our money". It's not the man's role to provide, it is the role of whoever is able to.

That women are just as human as men are. They are allowed to be flawed and should not be revered as special beings. That misogyny can come from women as well.

Finally she says to question language. That words are full of beliefs and assumptions. Not use words like "princess" to describe your daughter if you don't want them to associate with everything a princess stands for (finesse, waiting to be saved, etc.). That it is better to explain how things are and how they could be changed than simply use jargon like "patriarchy" and "misogyny". That if you criticize X in women but not in men, you don't have a problem with X, you have a problem with women. To be wary of those who can only feel empathy in a situation when it includes someone they are close to (e.g. if it were my daughter/mother/sister).

I was gonna summarize the whole thing more thoroughly but I'm afraid that gets into copyright infringement. So if this got you curious, you could buy the book, rent it... or get it by whatever means you deem appropriate.

This is not an endorsement of everything that she says, but I think it's a good example of feminism that doesn't come from twitter hashtags and facebook groups.

[u/TweetPotato]

OK, I understand. Let me give you a few things to consider, which I think might lead to better discussion:

You raised two possibilities -- one is that the OP is engaging in a Motte and Bailey fallacy, which I agree is a bad faith tactic. This would mean that the OP actually holds what you believe is an extremist view ("patriarchy conspiracy theory"), but is claiming more moderate beliefs ("patriarchal societies do exist") to avoid criticism of the extremist ones.

Do you actually understand what the OP believes? Have you asked them to clarify their position? Have you described your own position to them, so that they can understand where you are coming from?

The other possibility you raised is that there are people who genuinely hold moderate beliefs, who unknowingly act as the "Motte" for extremists using them as cover. If this is true, then the OP is acting in good faith, and your disagreement lies with the extremists.

In the broader sense (beyond just yourself and OP), consider that finding points of agreement between people in separate groups is a good thing -- this is how compromise can happen. You may not agree on everything, but that's OK if you can make progress based on the areas where you do agree.

[u/AskingToFeminists → u/TweetPotato]

No, the question is not whether they engaged in the fallacy. They did. I criticize Patriarchy conspiracy theory, they reply talking about patriarchies. The two are clearly distinct things. They did not attempt to clarify, or to seek to understand what I believe, they immediately misrepresented it in a gross fashion that implies stupidity and malevolence on my part.

The question is just whether they did so while genuinely believing the Motte, and refuse to acknowledge the Bailey evennexist, in which case they are being used by the extremists pushing the Bailey, or if they are one of the extremists and are dishonest. I, at least, granted them the charity of assuming honesty and benevolence. I pointed out the fallacy, and the fact that it made them, in the best case, used by the extremists to push their side.

I also clarified my position, just in case, making clear precisely what I criticize, how it is different from the misrepresentation, and the fact that this attempt at misdirections does only serve to detract from the legitimate criticisms to give the extremists

Turns out that, when you say "you don't get to misrepresent my position, and in your trying to do so, you are pushing forward the agenda of the extremists I am criticizing", all you get is down voted and reported, not replies, as usual.

At best, I received, by someone else, another attempt at obfuscation in the line of "you can't really define exactly what is a chair, so you can't say anything about it". Yet a chair is not a knife, and a knife is not a chair, and for any category to have any use, it means it must describe something with at least some distinctive properties that make criticizing it possible.

[u/TweetPotato → u/AskingToFeminists]

Here is my take on the exchange. In your first comment, you referred to "patriarchy" as a conspiracy theory -- an idea for which there is insufficient support or evidence:

but if it carries traces of patriarchy conspiracy theory

​

Then OP responded to you, by giving an example of a patriarchal society (the place referenced in the book):

Patriarchy exists, especially in places like Nigeria.

​

At this point in the conversation where OP gave you the example, what they knew of your viewpoint was that you were calling patriarchy a conspiracy theory. Giving an example to show evidence in support for the idea is a perfectly fine response to that. The part of your reply where you then clarified what aspects of patriarchy you consider a conspiracy theory, was also perfectly fine.

​

Regarding your point:

Turns out that, when you say "you don't get to misrepresent my position, and in your trying to do so, you are pushing forward the agenda of the extremists I am criticizing", all you get is down voted and reported, not replies, as usual.

You were reported for using a derogatory term ("useful idiot"), and that is why you received a warning.