That's a lot of stuff to reply to.
I had time.
The thing is, the apolitical (and very niche) flavors of feminism you mentioned are well, politically irrelevant.
I didn't say that the example views were completely apolitical, just that legal and political rights are varyingly focused on, depending on which feminist theory/strain you look at. For some, that's all it is; for others, it's much more interior-focused; and for others, it's different mixes of both. And I brought that up because this thread is called, "Feminism discussion thread," yet 99% of the commentary, particularly but not only by those negatively disposed to what they think feminism is - usually poorly defined (or intentionally or negligently erroneous) characterizations of "libfem" and "radfem," or just lumping it all together to declare all feminists are either sluts ("libfem") or insane man haters ("radfem"), or "based anti-trannies" (TERFs, I guess, though seems like that might be a misnomer, but that's another discussion), is dedicated to scattershot anti-woman comment.
Another reason I included examples of feminist viewpoints that are not focused solely or primarily on rights activism was that "feminism" is commonly discussed or casually understood as whatever is the current loudest political voice. Today, two supposed feminisms typically juxtaposed (though
not always rarely accurately characterized or at least not fully captured) are "libfem" and "radfem."*
*I'm amused but not really in a positive way by the constant references to Andrea Dworkin, who was an outlier and extreme even among her sub-type of feminist thought in her active years. Her views were taken literally by few in the broader spectrum, though the very fact of her radicalism did open conversations and worked to shift some underlying assumptions. She was just one perspective (on men, on women, on feminism, on society) among many, not a spokesperson for all of feminism. I'm not sure she was even representative of all of radical feminism back in the day. She was loud, radical, and sensational (not in a bad way, but also not in a practical way). So seeing her words/views constantly cited lately (both positively and negatively) without any broader perspective and treated as a day-to-day guide or set of immutable truths or beliefs rather than as a provocative theory/theories is...frustrating, to be imprecise about it.
Again, this thread is called, "Feminism discussion thread." A discussion of any topic needs to start with agreement on what exactly is being discussed. "Feminism" is the antithesis of monolithic. Even the various "waves" (which, btw, aren't even sharply defined after the second wave - pick a source and it will say there have been three waves, and another will say 4) are only loosely bound by general focus, not by theory or by goal or ideal future state. Poo-flinging random declarations of male superiority isn't a discussion of feminism - that is (amusingly and annoyingly made live), exactly the point: feminism isn't about you, and a "Feminism discussion thread" isn't about male anything. Likewise, it isn't a "discussion" to run in and respond to, say, a TERF laying out the trans-exclusionary rationale with a comment that it's what women deserve because slutty feminists created the tranny menace and so die, bitch. A TERF's focus has nothing to do with that - afai understand, the TERF thing is specifically about "women's spaces," even though that typically flows into or maybe is based on more rad characterizations of male-female dynamics. Lobbing the "slutty 3rd wavers fucked you all, and you deserve it because you're women and call yourselves feminists" grenade is just shitposting or looking for any wedge of an opportunity to shit on women in general - not a discussion or debate. A
good-faith debate means assuming positive intent and approaching the discussion with the same.
In the interest of discussion, I tried to distill down the common notion among the various permutations of "feminism": women's innate humanity and the conceptual, inherently equal worth and quality of women and men as human beings.
I'm not referring to whether men and women are "the same," "equally as good as a group at everything as the other group," capable or incapable as a group or as individuals of outperforming the other sex - just starting with the inherent human value point. On that concept, I am interested in whether anyone considers that basic concept (just the essential one, to start) objectionable, absurd, contemptible, radical, offensive, wrong, or whatever. If so, I'd be interested in why.
If that core concept is "wrong," then for folks who have that view, there's no need to get into anything more specific.
If, on the other hand, that concept is a common ground for the discussion, then it is possible to discuss different theories or operational goals that are feminist in nature.
And we live in an era of nearly overt power seeking and group interests legitimization.
Yes, but does that change inherent worth of a whole class (sex/gender) as members of the species?
Power-seeking has shown to be a general human tendency - whether done overtly or implicitly, by brute force or the power if money, by direct assertion or by attaching to others who assert on others' behalf. Which path, if any, to select is bounded by things like geopolitics at the nation-state or other organizational level, but does not need to be bounded philosophically by sex, if that's what you were getting at (not sure I understood your point with this).
"Humanity" is also nearly irrelevant. We can all acknowledge that the bantus, Amazonian tribes and Sentinelese are human, because if we take one of their women, and we put her in Cairo or Oslo, she will be able to reproduce with any male of any ethnic group. That alone guarantees belonging to the human species.
Problem is, inside the species there is a lot of variation and on an intellectual and cultural level, some people are very familiar and close to you, while others are nearly alien.
OK...not seeing where you're going with this, in context.
Also, being a human alone does not guarantee you any rights or privileges, as it's obviously visible from various wars and historical state oppression of groups they dislike, which continues to this day.
Humans are imperfect, complex, and frequently compromise certain principles for others, sure. That doesn't change essential truths about the worth of each human. Civilians dead due to war are understood as an inherent consequence of in-the-ground war, and anyone the least bit intellectually honest recognizes that the loss of life that way is still the death of human beings. Humanity as a whole reckons with this, and that's the reason there are international agreements about the laws of war. Plenty of individuals disagree and/or place the larger goals (whether those goals are honorable or despicable) higher than the consideration of human life, or just dgaf about people, but on the whole, humanity recognizes at least a theoretical or moral value to life.
Being strong and a great warrior also does not guarantee anything, as you will get old and careless, and you will face annihilation eventually. It's an endless cycle of competition, people rising to the top, and people failing.
I think this is all that matters in the end.
BTW, I don't "believe" in hierarchy, I just notice that it is inevitable.
I agree with you, to some degree (though not sure to what degree), but some people take the inverse view and try to use the fact of hierarchy - whether rational, well-founded, or based on anything objectively ptovable, or not - as proof of natural moral superiority. Again, another topic altogether.
There is no society without hierarchy on the planet. Even the communist society that I was born in and which allegedly pursued the uprooting of unjust hierarchies only placed different people on top.
It's obvious that once it's clear that hierarchy is inevitable, you want to end up as high as possible, but more importantly, you will struggle to never, ever be at the bottom where anyone can shit on you.
Congratulations: you're a feminist.
