Eine interessante Studie nimmt sich Gemeinsamkeiten und Streitpunkte im Feminismus vor:
An increasing number of people identify as feminists, but there is disagreement about whom and what feminism should be fighting for. Using a multi-method approach, across three studies (total N = 3,387), we examine
(1) disagreements in today’s feminist movement and how these disagreements come together to form different ideological groups as well as
(2) psychological variables associated with different feminist beliefs and ideologies.
In doing so we establish a nuanced picture of contemporary feminism in the UK and the US. Study 1 used open-response data to identify topics on which today’s feminists disagree. Study 2 used exploratory factor analyses to examine how views on these topics hang together, resulting in eight feminist beliefs scales. Finally, Study 3 used cluster analysis to determine what ideological groups of feminists exist in quasi-representative samples from the US and the UK and explored the associations of these beliefs with relevant psychological constructs. Transgender issues, sex work, and the importance of marginalized perspectives were the most polarizing issues across studies, highlighting that feminists are more divided on the issue of who feminism should fight for, than what feminism should fight for. These studies show the heterogeneity of feminist ideologies and the continued barriers to a truly inclusive and intersectional feminist movement.
Quelle: Sex Wars and TERF Wars: The Divisiveness of Who is Included in Feminism
Aus einer Besprechung der Studie:
In a new study just recently published, researchers sought to examine the beliefs of contemporary, everyday feminists.
In three separate studies, they identified the issues on which contemporary feminists agree and disagree. They examined how these views coalesce into broader feminist beliefs and explored the psychological variables linked to these beliefs. Additionally, they analysed how these beliefs shape the ideological factions within the feminist movements in the United Kingdom and the United States.
The most commonly mentioned topics of contention were trans issues, sex work and intersectionality.
The researchers identified eight distinct feminist beliefs: perspectives on sex work, the need to prioritise marginalized women’s viewpoints, the compatibility of feminism and religion, views on trans issues, andro-critical views, the importance of freedom of choice, efforts to combat workplace sexism, and endorsement of gender/sex differences. Based on how strongly individuals endorsed these beliefs, they identified six key ideological groups within feminism:
proscriptive feminists, – believe women need to abandon traditional gender norms in order to achieve equality
anti-sex work feminists, – are very much against sex work and see it as inherently exploitative
conservative feminists, – score low in feminist identity, don’t value marginalised perspectives, low in trans inclusion (I have seen it argued in this forum that one cannot be conservative and a feminist)
liberal feminists, – also score low in identity, highly value women’s freedom to chose the life they want
selectively inclusive feminists and solidarity feminists, – both highly value marginalised groups, very inclusive of Muslim women and trans individuals. Sex work is the dividing issue, with solidarity feminists being accepting.
The researchers state that this new framework of describing the ideological factions within feminism does not align closely with ideologies previously discussed in the literature such as in this study.
So how well do these groupings represent the diversity present within the feminist movement today and does splicing the beliefs as such help or hinder the cause?
Eine interessante Aufteilung des Feminismus, hier noch einmal etwas geordneter:
The researchers identified eight distinct feminist beliefs:
- perspectives on sex work,
- the need to prioritise marginalized women’s viewpoints,
- the compatibility of feminism and religion,
- views on trans issues,
- andro-critical views,
- the importance of freedom of choice,
- efforts to combat workplace sexism, and
- endorsement of gender/sex differences.
Based on how strongly individuals endorsed these beliefs, they identified six key ideological groups within feminism:
- proscriptive feminists, – believe women need to abandon traditional gender norms in order to achieve equality
Das wären ja jedenfalls solche der „alten Schule“, also etwa Beaudoir und Butler
- anti-sex work feminists, – are very much against sex work and see it as inherently exploitative
Da wären die „Sexfeindlichen Feministen“ dabei, gerade auch die Radfems
- conservative feminists, – score low in feminist identity, don’t value marginalised perspectives, low in trans inclusion
(I have seen it argued in this forum that one cannot be conservative and a feminist)
Ich habe den Volltext der Studie leider nicht im Netz gefunden, sci-hub hatte ihn noch nicht. Sehen sich anscheinend gerade so als Feministen, sehen aber keine Opfer und wollen keine Transinclusion.
- liberal feminists, – also score low in identity, highly value women’s freedom to chose the life they want
Vielleicht die Frauen, die anführen, dass Frauen sich ändern müssen, sich mehr auf den Job konzentrieren müssen und eben, wenn sie das nicht machen, Vielleicht das was wir „Equity Feminismus“ nennen?
- selectively inclusive feminists and solidarity feminists, – both highly value marginalised groups, very inclusive of Muslim women and trans individuals. Sex work is the dividing issue, with solidarity feminists being accepting.
Das wären dann wohl die intersektionalen Feministen.
Und von einer der Autorinnen:
Und die dortige Abbildung:
Feminismus Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede
Und noch ein Ausschnitt aus dem gleichen Thread:
5/n In Study 2, we developed items based on these responses and gave those + established feminist beliefs scales (from Henley et al., 1998) to a group of 1008 self-identified feminists to see what beliefs “hang together” using EFA, resulting in 8 feminist beliefs scales.
Da wäre die genaue Auflistung wirklich interessant. Wer an die Studie rankommt kann sie mir ja vielleicht als Pdf per Mail schicken oder eine Quelle verlinken in den Kommentaren?
Und noch eine:
6/n Four of these were related to inclusion (in the category feminist, category women etc): Support for sex work(ers), importance of marginalized perspectives, religious inclusion & trans inclusion. Interestingly, those had the largest SDs, suggesting that they are most divisive.
Das wären also die Punkte in denen der Feminismus sich intern am meisten streitet:
- Unterstützung für Prostitution
- Die „Perspektiven der Benachteiligten“
- Inklusion von (best.) Religionen (ich nehme an es geht einzig um den Islam)
- Einbeziehung von Transpersonen
Und weiter:
7/n There seem to be some interesting gender/sex and nationality differences
Zuerst: Der Hinweis unter der Tabelle hat was. Sie haben bei den Feministinnen nicht mehr als 13 Nicht-Männer-oder-Frauen zusammenbekommen?
Interessanterweise scheinen die Männer in allen Bereichen niedrigere Werte zu haben als die Frauen was den Mittelwert (=M) angeht, bis auf bei den Geschlechterdifferenzen. Die Standartabweichung (=SD) ist hingegen größer. Feministische Männer scheinen also „diverser“ zu sein.
10/n We ran most analyses on feminists only, but the non-feminists were a nice comparison group. To identify ideological groups, we had them fill out the feminist beliefs scales from Study 2 and ran cluster analyses and determined a 7-cluster solution was most interpretable.
11/n As you can see in this dendrogram, trans issues and views on sex work were most divisive. Also, labelling these clusters was HARD. We went through so many different labels and these are still far from perfect.
Das sind dann die Ergebnisse in Tabellenform
12/n As you can see here, someone identifying as a feminist tells us very little. For most scales, some feminist groups score higher than non-feminists, while others score lower. The exception is the belief that women should be free to choose whatever path is right for them.
Hier werden also noch andere Gruppen genannt, wenn ich es richtig sehe. Aber interessante Aufstellung. „Freedom to choose“ ist überall sehr hoch. Wäre interessant, zu welchen Punkten sie das abgefragt haben.
13/n These groups also differed in psychological variables such as essentialism, attitudes towards different groups, system justification, etc. (they made me delete these figures from the paper, so I’m glad y’all at least get to enjoy them in all their rainbow glory).
Und weiter:
4/n How common are these groups? The most shocking take-away for me from this study was how common gender-critical views are. The 1st image shows the % of the different groups. The 2ndimage shows these divided based on views on trans issues. These aren’t just a few loud voices.
Das ist eine interessante Aufstellung, weil sie zeigt, dass der intersektionale Feminismus zahlenmäßig durchaus nicht so groß ist, wie ich dachte.
15/n Finally, if you’re wondering which psychological variables are most predictive of endorsement of different feminist beliefs: the most consistent predictors were attitudes toward different groups, gender essentialism, and gender system justification. E.g.:
Und dann:
16/16 I could nerd out about this paper all day (such interesting, rich data!), but I guess I’ll stop here. This project was so hard and so fun. Please go read the paper! You can download it here: …https://6065f709-e7d1-45f5-8165-0af3d7b11614.filesusr.com/ugd/d76e66_72d2217679e7452fb4d5eaef67c5a578.pdf
Verdammt, ich hätte den Thread nicht erst lesen und gleichzeitig zu jedem Punkt was schreiben solle, da ist ja ein Link zur Studie.
Daraus noch einmal die Gruppen:
Proscriptive Feminists. Of the meaningful clusters (i.e., excluding the undifferentiated feminist cluster, which 21.97% of feminists fell into), the proscriptive feminist cluster was the second largest cluster with 15.39% of feminists falling within this cluster. While being gender critical, they were relatively accepting of sex work, suggesting a mixed tolerance of the inclusion of marginalized groups. The quality that stood out the most for this group was that they had the lowest endorsement of combating sexism at work, even less than non-feminists. In other words, they endorsed views that feminism had gone too far and that women should act differently if they wanted equality. Similarly, this cluster scored higher than all other clusters in anti-femininity proscriptions, that is, the belief that women need to stop adhering to feminine gender norms to combat gender inequality. Given that the two scales, which set apart this cluster from all other clusters, focus on beliefs about what women should not do, we labelled them “proscriptive feminists.”
Interestingly, however, this cluster was also characterized by scoring the highest out of all clusters on “andro-critical views” and “hostility towards men”, that is, views critical of men and masculinity. Thus, proscriptive feminists believed that women should not adhere to feminine norms to achieve equality while simultaneously having very critical views of masculine norms. This cluster also scored highest in feminist identification and among the highest in feminist activism.
Other notable characteristics of this cluster were that they scored the highest in
ingroup homogeneity, and were among the clusters most critical of religion in general, across all religious groups we asked about. Together with conservative feminists (see below), they scored the highest in gender system justification and gender essentialism. Moreover, proscriptive feminists were one of the two feminist clusters whose political views leaned towards conservative. Members of minoritized ethnic and racial groups had the highest representation in this cluster. Of the six meaningful clusters, this was the second youngest cluster with a mean age of 38. They were significantly younger than all other clusters except for solidarity feminists who were significantly younger than them.
Anti-Sex Work Feminists. A total of 14.65% of feminists fell within this cluster. This cluster was held the most critical views of sex work out of all clusters, which is why we chose the label “anti-sex work feminists,” similar to anti-pornography feminism in the context of the feminist sex wars. Note that the term SWERF (sex worker-exclusionary radical feminists) is a more commonly used term (see Siegel & Calogero, 2024) but, similar to TERF, is viewed as a slur by those endorsing these views. We therefore decided not to use this term.
Other than their extremely low levels of support for sex work, they shared many similarities with conservative feminists and selectively inclusive feminists (discussed below). They showed high endorsement of gender essentialism, albeit not as high as proscriptive and conservative feminists. They were on average 51 years old and only differed in age from prospective feminists and solidarity feminists.
Conservative Feminists. This was the smallest cluster, with only 7.96% of feminists falling within it. It was characterized by low levels for all inclusion-related measures. Indeed, conservative feminists had the lowest levels of trans inclusion and endorsement of the importance of taking the needs and perspectives of marginalized women into account, even compared to non-feminists. In line with these beliefs, they also held the most negative attitudes towards trans people and, together with proscriptive feminists, towards minoritized racial and religious groups. Out of all feminist clusters, they showed the lowest levels of feminist identification. Together with proscriptive feminists, they were the most conservative out of all feminist clusters. Minoritized racial and ethnic groups were particularly underrepresented in this cluster while feminists from the UK were over-represented in this cluster. Because of their political attitudes and general rejection of progressive ideas such as transinclusion or a focus on marginalized perspectives, we termed this cluster “conservative feminists.” They were on average 51 years old and only differed in age from prospective feminists and solidarity feminists.
Liberal Feminists. This cluster represented 10.19% of feminists and largely mirrored descriptions of liberal feminism in the literature on feminist philosophy – a high importance of the freedom to choose (although not higher than many of the other clusters) and relatively low values for andro-critical views, similar to conservative feminists, undifferentiated feminists, and non-feminists. Their views regarding sex work, marginalized perspectives, and trans issues were ambivalent, but together with solidarity feminists, they scored the highest on religious inclusion. Together with conservative and undifferentiated feminists, they had the lowest levels of feminist identification and activism – these patterns also fit with notions of liberal feminism. They were on average 46 years old and only differed in age from prospective feminists and solidarity feminists. UK feminists were overrepresented in this cluster.
Selectively Inclusive Feminists. Of the meaningful clusters, this was the largest
cluster (20.49% of feminists). This cluster showed similarities with solidarity feminists (described below) in that both clusters placed high importance on the needs and perspectives of marginalized women, on combating sexism at work and had high levels of religious inclusion and trans inclusion, although solidarity feminists scored higher on the latter two scales. Both clusters showed the lowest levels of gender system justification. The most pronounced difference between the two clusters was in views about sex work. Selectively inclusive feminists viewed sex work very critically, while solidarity feminists had very supportive views of sex work. Feminists in this cluster also endorsed colonial feminist beliefs
and anti-femininity proscriptions more strongly than solidarity feminists. The combination of their lack of support for sex work and colonial feminist beliefs suggests a somewhat paternalistic view of some, but not all, lower status and marginalized women. We chose the term “selectively inclusive feminists” for this cluster to reflect the inclusion of marginalized perspectives, transgender people, and Muslim women in the feminist movement, but also the exclusion of sex workers’ voices. This cluster was on average 49 years old and only differed in age from prospective feminists and solidarity feminists.
Solidarity Feminists. Feminists in this cluster (9.34% of feminists) showed many
similarities with selectively inclusive feminist but demonstrated even higher levels of inclusivity: They were even more inclusive of Muslim women and transgender identities. This cluster was also by far the most supportive of sex work. Additionally, this cluster scored lowest in gender essentialist beliefs. Demographically, this was the youngest of all clusters with an average age of 31 and sexual minority groups made up almost a third of this cluster. We chose the term “solidarity feminists” to indicate that this group of feminists went beyond
inclusion, listening to the voices of marginalized groups such as sex workers, who largely argue for the acknowledgement of sex work as work (e.g., NSWP, 2013).
Gefällt mir Wird geladen …
Alles Evolution 