Philo and the Feminist

The sun was smiling, the clouds were lazy, and the town was mellow while Philo and Feminist were strolling though the park.

Feminist: I’ve come to you, Philo, because I’ve heard from many that you’re the greatest philosopher in town, and I require the help of the greatest.

Philo: I am always surprised and puzzled when I hear this, for I do not consider myself a great thinker, not even a good thinker. I am, truthfully, an average thinker, but one who has learnt, though my weakness, to ask many questions. Nevertheless, if I can help others in any way, I would be delighted, for helping others is a human duty. So, what is your problem?

Feminist: As you know, feminism has come under heavy attack recently, and—

Philo: It has?

Feminist: Yes, and so I need you to help me silence its critics; you must equip me with an argument I can use to embarrass them.

Philo: Silence them? Is the purpose of debate not to uncover the truth together? Are two debaters not similar to two miners working together, but from different positions, to unearth the same gold?

Feminist: Yes, yes, of course! But I already have the gold, I know the truth, and the critics are literally a danger to women across the globe, they want to force the patriarchy upon us, and tear away our rights. Oh, the critics must be silenced for the well-being and safety and mental health of us women.

Philo’s aged hand stroked his grey beard, and his bright eyes gazed at the lake ahead of them. Then, after a minute of silence, he spoke.

Philo: I cannot help you silence or embarrass anybody, nor do I wish to do that. However, I am interested in hearing which issue, exactly, has you troubled, and I will help you where I can.

Feminist: Good, good. Yes, that is fair. So where should we begin?

Philo: At the beginning, of course; at definitions, for much disagreement stems from misunderstanding the opponent’s – and even one’s own – terms. What, then, is feminism?

Feminist: Huh? Do you not know what feminism is?

Philo: Please help me understand it. How would you define feminism?

Feminist: It’s the fight for equal rights for everybody, regardless of their gender. Surely you know this?

Philo: But is it a social movement, or a view (such as a theory or worldview or proposition), or both a social movement and a view? Or is it something else?

Feminist: It must be both. The widespread activism for feminism makes it a social movement, and its activists share a view that drives their activism.

Philo: Excellent. Let us then distinguish these two aspects by the labels social feminism and intellectual feminism. Do you agree that this will be useful?

Feminist: Yes.

Philo: Good. Given your previous definition, would you say that intellectual feminism is the view that there is inequality between the rights of certain groups of people; and that the aim of social feminism is to solve this problem?

Feminist: That is a good and accurate summary of my view.

Philo: Let us dig deeper into this view, for much murkiness still cloaks it. When you say that inequality exists amongst the rights of people, do you mean there is a division that classifies people into one of two groups: one of people that have the most rights, and the other of people who have less rights than the former?

Feminist: Yes.

Philo: And is this divider social status, that is, does one’s social status determine in which group one is in? For example, rulers and presidents and business owners have a higher social status and more (socially constructed) rights than the average employee and, therefore, find themselves in the privileged class?

Feminist: Oh, no! Feminists see gender as the divider, so the two classes are simply men and women.

Philo: With men being the privileged class, that is, the group of people with the most rights?

Feminist: Of course! Just look around; all over the world, men are more privileged than women.

Philo: We will get to that later; let us first clarify the definition. Now, what shall we say about boys and girls?

Feminist: That’s easy. Boys fall into the privileged class, and girls into the less privileged. So the two classes are actually male and female, with the former being privileged and the latter oppressed.

Philo: Some people claim that gender is a social construct and completely unrelated to sex, and that there are as many genders as there are social constructs of gender. Let us not discuss this circular issue now but, rather, stay on our current path and adopt the more common and traditional view as gender being identical to, or at least inseparable from, sex. Are you satisfied with this suggestion?

Feminist: Yes, I am. Honestly, I don’t know what to think about the so-called “gender fluid” notion; my energy has been spent on biological women’s rights.

Philo: Good. You say that males are privileged and females are less privileged, but do you agree that the many men of low social status have less rights – whether these are legal or simply socially formed privileges – than do the numerous women of a higher social status? That a large group of men have less rights or privileges than does a large group of women?

A frown jumped on to Feminist’s face and kicked away some of her prettiness. Then, after a long silence, Feminist responded.

Feminist: Yes, that is true, many women have more rights than many men. But this is looking at it through the social status divider, and, as I said, feminists look at the gender divider. So, the issue is that, in a group of people of equal social status, the men have more rights or privileges than do the women. Moreover, this fact causes men to climb the social status ladder easier than women can, and so there are more men than women in higher social positions.

Philo: In that case, we should not neglect the social status aspect in our definition.

Feminist: I suppose not.

Philo: We can now offer this tentative definition of intellectual feminism: it is the view that, in general, males and females of equal social status do not have equal privileges, for the males have more privileges than do the females; and this is bad because the males and females ought to have equal privileges.

Feminist: That is a good definition and I affirm it.

Philo: The definition does, however, include a few assumptions we did not discuss but that I suspect you hold. We added the “in general” qualifier to avoid the objection that the non-equality is necessary or always the case. We also used the term “privilege” instead of “right” because of its broader implication. Finally, we included the ethical assumption that this type of inequality is bad, and that equality is good and desirable.

Feminist: I’m glad you added those assumptions because they are true.

Philo: However, some murkiness remains; let us try wipe it away. We must better understand equality and equal privilege.

Feminist: Very well.

Philo: Will you say that two people, or two classes of people, have equal privilege if, and only if, they have the exact same legal or political rights and the same social privileges?

Feminist: Exactly. Women should be allowed to vote like men, and be presidents like men, and have the same job opportunities as men, and be treated with the same respect as men. I admit that, in the West, feminism has made great progress politically and legally, but the main issue now lies in the social aspect because social norms and structures still privilege men more than women. Unlike men, women are often overlooked for certain jobs and treated as mere flesh for the pleasure of men. This must change, Philo, it must!

Philo: Much of what you have said requires dissection and analysis to determine its meaning and truth value; we can do this later. Now, regarding equal privilege, if two classes do not have equal privilege, then a quick and easy way to obtain equal privilege is to strip both classes of all privileges, for then both will be equal in having no privilege.

Feminist: Um, okay, yes.

Philo: So is the solution to feminism to strip all people of privileges?

Feminist: No, no, no! We want people to be privileged, but we want to empower women, to raise women up to the same privileges that men have.

Philo: And the goal is not to decrease the privileges of males, but merely to increase the privileges of females?

Feminist: Yes, sort of. Men can keep their damn privileges as long as women share those privileges. But if equality can be reached only by stripping men of certain privileges, then that must be done.

Philo: And does the reverse hold? If equality can be reached only by stripping women of certain privileges, then must that be done?

Feminist: There are no female privileges like that, which require stripping away from women.

Philo: But if there are, then should women be stripped of them?

Feminist: No! For far too long, men have enjoyed having more privileges than women, so it would be fair for women to enjoy that status for a while.

Philo: I see. So, the aim of feminism is to increase the privileges of females until they are equal to, or better or greater than, the privileges of males?

Feminist: Yes.

Philo smiled and nodded.

Philo: That explains why the aim for equality is absent from the behaviour of many feminists – if true equality were their goal, feminists would praise men as they do women, and portray men in entertainment as good and competent as they portray women, and get furious when masculinity and men are disrespected or demonised. But they refrain from this because they are not after true equality. Indeed, feminism itself is a privilege only women have, for men lack a movement of equal size and force.

Feminist’s face turned both paler and redder.

Feminist: I feel most uncomfortable with your tone and view, Philo. Your accusation of feminists as being unfair is highly offensive. I expected more from you.

Philo: I am merely claiming that observations support your view that feminism is not about true equality. Are my observations incorrect?

Feminist remained silent.

Philo: Now, feminists tend to agree that it is sexist to not wish, or to not care about, true equality between men and women. Correct?

No word escaped Feminist’s lips.

Philo: In that case, by its very definition, together with certain beliefs and behaviour of its supporters, feminism implies that it is itself a sexist movement. Or have we erred in our reasoning somewhere?

Feminist: I'm late for a meeting.

Feminist zipped up her fancy leather jacket, marched to her fancy car, and rushed off to the fancy office block of the corporate business she owned.

Philo sighed, fell in a park bench, winced at the grumble in his stomach, gazed down at his tattered boots, and prayed that he would soon land a job.