Feminism=Collectivism?

[Wretchosoft]

This is something I heard from an Objectivist a while back. Unfortunately I don't have the link or anything, but the statement still perplexes me.

He said, and I paraphrase, that he "opposes all forms of collectivism on principle because they limit individual achievement." That's his explanation for why he opposes feminism.

So my question is, how does this line of reasoning follow? Is it referring to collectivism as a body of thought or something? Basing a group's identity on a characteristic? And why is it bad?

Perhaps I'm asking, in sociological terms: What is collectivism, precisely?

[Terrell]

I don't know. I don't think that feminism as I understand it, really is about collectivism. I've always thought that feminism was about allowing women to control their own destinies. The means being that they were allowed access to higher education, economic opportunity, equal pay for equal work/qualifications, and right to reproductive choice. I really see feminism more as an ideology where women have equal rights and opportunities to men, as well as equal individual freedom.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

If anything, femminism helps women achieve more. Thus, it increases women's achievement. Its good for the economy.

[DietCoke]

This may not be a useful response, but I'll toss it out anyway. I've made a few vast, unsupported generalizations, but the basic idea is what I mean to say.

I find Ayn Rand to be a semi-comic figure, and I think the movie _Atlas Shrugged_ captures her philosophy perfectly because the acting is so ridiculously over done. The Objectivists I have met (I'm including myself, many years ago) went around classifying everything as "collectivism" if there was even the slightest hint that the idea didn't generate from one's own absolutely independent and defiant attitude. There were certain exceptions made for others with similarly defiant attitudes, but, alas, a club of defiant folk just wasn't in the works, because then, well...that would be collectivism.

As for feminism, there is considerable disagreement and diversity within the movement itself. It doesn't really stand out, to me, as an example of collectivism. I'd say it's pretty much the opposite, actually, but certainly there are some basic ideas that hold things together, and I think that people who disagree with those ideas sometimes try to group all feminists together in order to set up a strawman they can attack.

[Bonniedundee]

I too have little time for Ayn Rand, even if I'm a decentralist and braod libertarian.

Collectivism is in general just an insult people throw at ideologies they do not like so I wouldn't pay much attention to him.

When collectivism is actually used it is almost always promoted by the powerful to control the masses, patriotism is a great example of collectivism, as is Marxist ideology in an authoritarian state, but feminism is generally not collectivist.

[John the Baathist]

The Objectivists I have met (I'm including myself, many years ago) went around classifying everything as "collectivism" if there was even the slightest hint that the idea didn't generate from one's own absolutely independent and defiant attitude.


I think this hits the nail on the head in regards to the claim of the Objectivist in the OP.
All women benefit from the demands put forth by a few feminists, therefor it is labeled as collectivist.

As for the sociological definition of collectivism I would go with Wikipedi:


Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

This is something I heard from an Objectivist a while back. Unfortunately I don't have the link or anything, but the statement still perplexes me.

Something you have to consider when talking with a Randroid: they usually have no goddamn clue as to what they're talking about, so they can be very confusing if you assume that they do.

[epepke]

Well, for feminism, there is the entire concept of "sisterhood," as well as the self-enfeeblement that comes from the dictum of feminist theory that what one is really supposed to do is figure out a way that one is oppressed by the patriarchy and then stop.

[DietCoke]

Well, for feminism, there is the entire concept of "sisterhood," as well as the self-enfeeblement that comes from the dictum of feminist theory that what one is really supposed to do is figure out a way that one is oppressed by the patriarchy and then stop.

Yes, exactly. Thanks. This is an excellent example of taking an easily refuted thing, quickly pinning it to feminist theory and then using it to paint all feminists as mindless followers of a dictum. Precisely what I was getting at when I said "strawman."

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Collectivism is in general just an insult people throw at ideologies they do not like so I wouldn't pay much attention to him.

When collectivism is actually used it is almost always promoted by the powerful to control the masses, patriotism is a great example of collectivism, as is Marxist ideology in an authoritarian state, but feminism is generally not collectivist.

I agree. Collectivism is a pejoritive term which basically has no scietifically or philosophically agreed upon definition, so therefore it gets defined however the individual using it wants to define it.

It seems to me that the purpose of the word is to evoke a feeling of mindless conformity while at the same time implying a disjunctive relationship between individuality and community. Which of course is a false dichotomy.

I'm mystified as to how feminism can be equatable with "collectivism," that strikes me as just plain bizarre.:huh:

[JamesBannon]

Because the presenter doesn't like feminists. It's true there are Marxist feminists who, like many Marxists, are a royal pain in the butt, but that's no reason to accuse feminism of being "collectivist" as a whole. Besides this Objectivists are nuts anyway.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Randist probably says that because he/she thinks that "feminism" is a philosophy that on the whole advocates the empowerment of an entire gender simply because they are female (ergo oppressed), rather than encouraging individual empowerment based on merit. AFAIK Rand was a female chauvinist anyway. Women can only find fulfillment in strong men, but not so conversely. Rand=20% useful theory, 80% crock of shit.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

ism = collectivism