Thanks for watching! I've heard the term "protofeminism" used to describe this kind of very early feminist philosophy.

"Since it has essentially the same meaning as the more common and frequently used verb converse, the term conversate has been condemned in some circles as an unnecessary nonword. And, because the term occurs mostly among Blacks and Latinos, some discussions have become heated and impassioned, turning the word into a badge (both positive and negative) of a person’s class and education. Conversate reminds us that discussions about modern English must take into account the different types of English spoken in our diverse culture, rather than fixating on 'correct' formal usage. When all is said and done, however, the term broadly remains nonstandard English."

I haven't read Herland but it seems intriguing so I'll put it on my queue list of things to read.

www.dictionary.com/browse/conversate

Francis Roy I would argue for an addition to your definition. In my opinion, feminism, at its core, is an acknowledgement that gender inequality (for both men and women) exists that is detrimental to human progress. There are other political ideologies that acknowledge this too, but what sets feminism apart is its in your face, unyielding, loud, and proud calling that society as a whole needs to do something about it.

The Black Ponderer _"In my opinion, feminism, at its core, is an acknowledgement that gender inequality (for both men and women) exists that is detrimental to human progress."_ No, that's merely sexual politics in general. It doesn't become Feminism until such time as one accepts the notion that women, as a class, are institutionally oppressed. In a previous comment I had pointed out that people conflate this one ideology with a tonne of other unrelated stuff. This is an example. Almost every Feminist that I've met share the common error of _interpreting_ Feminism. Don't do that. Look at what it _is_ and what it's components are, skeptically. To do otherwise is to make stuff up that isn't there. The notion that inequality, whether it be of race, sex, height or eye colour being detrimental to society as a whole is the product of classical liberalism, not Feminism. Further, please look at that loose term "inequality." Are you striving for men and women to be treated impartially and fairly under just law and in culture? Name one single action or word on that's behalf that _necessitates_ the acceptance of Feminist ideas. There is none. No action is dependent on any ideology. Feminism is superfluous, and I would go so far as to say an active impediment. _"what sets feminism apart is its in your face, unyielding, loud, and proud calling that society as a whole needs to do something about it."_ I imagine that you are implying that Feminism is somehow useful or valuable as a tool to accomplish certain goals because those who accept the ideas are expressive. That people vocalize their opinions is not particular to any ideology. I could equally argue that Libertarians are unyielding, loud and proud calling that society as a whole needs to address some issues. I could do the same for those who promote Sharia Law, or Christianity, or Lysenkoism. The above argument is not relevant as to what Feminism is, or whether it has value in achieving particular goals.

Francis Roy Looks like we have a disagreement over what feminism is. That's fine. I'd rather not argue over terminology. If what I'm talking about is outside the realm of feminism in your view then so be it. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to dismiss your opinion. It's your opinion and you have a right to it. I'd rather just like to focus on addressing the issues that are hurting society and to me, gender inequality is a major one. So if I can steer the conversation toward that, it would be my preference. When I use the term "inequality" in this sense, what I mean is that not all roles are equally accessible to certain genders in society. Meaning that if a man is particular interested or good at a role that is deemed "feminine", the man has social pressures to stray away from this role despite its potential social benefit. This is also certainly true in the inverse case for a female. I think this is a shame because it truly limits what a society can accomplish. We need to talk about this reality, realize it exists, and do away with it.

The Black Ponderer _I'd rather just like to focus on addressing the issues that are hurting society_ I think that is perceptive and fair on your part. We can do that, and blow the words off of the issues. _and to me, gender inequality is a major one. So if I can steer the conversation toward that, it would be my preference._ That's fine, we can do that, it is to me too. _When I use the term "inequality" [what I mean is] if a man is particular interested or good at a role that is deemed "feminine", the man has social pressures to stray away from this role despite its potential social benefit._ Some men [and some women] are influenced to move towards or stay away from adopting certain roles. Roles, of course, are behaviours. Which behaviour are we discussing? _I think this is a shame because it truly limits what a society can accomplish."_ OK, what is being limited? _"[...] and do away with it."_ Rather than talking about doing away with something, what replacements are we speaking of?

+Francis Roy Hello Francis, I was wondering, since you claim to be classical liberal, do you accept Kantian ethics by any chance? Or utilitarian ethics? Also, what are your thoughts in regards to this essay which has redefined feminism in the last 20 years?: mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf And I don't think feminism is solely political, but social and ethical as well, since Christine de Pizan didn't just write her book about women having the right to serving in politics alone.

Francis Roy Of course it's very different now than it was in the 14th century. Certainly there is a lot less institutionalized sexism now than it was back then, just as there is now a lot less institutionalized racism now than back then. However, I would argue that much of those negative values from the past are still deeply ingrained in society today in ways that we don't fully realize on first glance. The way society automatically boxes women into certain roles while associating men to certain other roles is a clear indicator of that. Ideas that certain roles are too "feminine" for men or too "masculine" for women are social restrictions that handicap human progress, in my view.

The Black Ponderer _"institutionalized sexism"_ Sexism is the belief that one sex is superior to another. Do not conflate this for sex roles, some of which are useful, others less. "_institutionalized racism"_ Racism is the belief that one race is superior to other races. Do not conflate this issue with Feminism. _"I would argue that much of those negative values from the past are still deeply ingrained in society today"_ Which values? And are they negative? In what way? _"The way society automatically boxes women into certain roles while associating men to certain other roles is a clear indicator of that."_ Society does no such thing. If it is done, it is done by people. Certain sex roles are useful, some are neutral, some are harmful. The question is which role, to who, and in which context? _"Ideas that certain roles are too "feminine" for men or too "masculine" for women are social restrictions that handicap human progress, in my view."_ Let's test this. What do you think of the idea that when in danger, that a woman should expect help from men in the form of putting their well-being at risk, on her behalf? Do you believe that one should expect a woman to come of the physical defence of a man who is being attacked by one or more stranger, and that we should judge her negatively for failing to do so?

Francis Roy Let's focus this conversation on the point I'm trying to make. When I talk about "roles" what I mean is what a person can contribute to society. When I say "society" what I mean is people and their culture in a shared civilization. Here's a real life example I have encountered in my life. I knew a guy growing up that was super into gardening. But he was picked on for talking about it. People called him a sissy, a pussy, a faggot and words like that. So he got discouraged and became a car mechanic instead. Now, this man is in his 30's and he is just now starting a new gardening business. He makes spectacular looking gardens for clients. Imagine what he could have done during the years he was doing something he hated, if gardening wasn't deemed as too feminine in the community he grew up in. I'm more talking about things like that. It's harder for people to do the things that truly matter to them because of the social norms that are imposed on people.

The Black Ponderer _"I knew a guy growing up that was super into gardening. But he was picked on for talking about it. People called him a sissy, a pussy, a faggot and words like that. So he got discouraged and became a car mechanic instead."_ That's an example I can relate to. I was discouraged from being a gymnast when I was a kid. I was good at it. I was called all the typical names. I gave it up. These same people discouraged me from getting into weight-lifting, thinking, and expressing myself. It wasn't the words, but the bullying. Is your problem with sex-roles, or that some people use them as a bullying tools? Or is the issue that you want people to be kind and fair?

Francis Roy My issue is the handicap these kind of actions place on human progress. If you can be in a profession that you are passionate about you are more likely to do better in that profession and contribute more to society. When people are instead pigeonholed into a profession that they don't particularly care for due to some false social standard, they are less likely to contribute at a high level because they are not motivated. People should be allowed to channel their interests and passions toward meaningful contribution. Gender inequality makes this difficult to achieve.