had the following interchange with a commenter on Kennesaw State University Men Facebook Group
. It clarifies some important points:
Chris Loving-Life - @Victor Zen:
What is a "non-feminist" and how does that differ from a "chauvinist", and is the end result to combat the "mysogynists"?
Victor Zen - @Chris Loving-Life:
Non-feminists are just those that look at gender issues in an alternative lens. Humanists that don't identity as feminist classify as non-feminists. So as you can tell, it's actually pretty broad. We mention them because they don't have many places to share their views.
But we're against hatred, period. Misogyny, misandry, racism, etc have no place in KSU Men.
Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:
How does "non-feminist" differ from "chauvinist"?
Look at the words. "Non-feminist" simply means that one is not a feminist.
"Chauvinist" has an entirely different meaning.
Merriam - Webster's online dictionary defines 'Chauvinism" as follows:
" an attitude that the members of your own sex are always better than those of the opposite sex
: the belief that your country, race, etc., is better than any other"
Hence, a "chauvinist" would be one who displays "chauvinism".
So on this basis, if you compare the two terms, there is no reason to suppose that "non-feminist" means the same thing as "chauvinist".
Chris Loving-Life - @Fidelbogen:
I agree. I originally asked this question an effort to better understand what this group represents. As with my other post, this question seeks to better clarify the meaning and purpose of this group in the face of accusations from others, especially on the Internet. I personally believe in Human rights, not just the rights of one gender or/over the other.
Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:
It is important to remember that "this group" is part of a much larger social trend that is cropping up worldwide - for convenience, call this trend the "non-feminist revolution".
The grist of this non-feminist revolution is that the authority to define feminism itself, is no longer entirely in feminist hands. The decision as to what feminism "IS", can as well be made by those who do not identify as feminist. Such persons are more likely to be honest and objective about the phenomenological reality of the world.
So, to pose the question "how does non-feminist differ from chauvinist" seems to imply a framework of feminist semantics as a starting point. It is as if one had already defined feminism in an authoritative manner, and held all conversants accountable to that standard.
Hence, if one had INITIALLY defined feminism as "the opposite of chauvinism", then it would follow merely by rule that to be "non" feminist would mean that one was a "chauvinist".
Thus, it becomes difficult to take any stand in opposition to feminism, or (critically!), even to take a non-oppostional stand *independent* of feminism, without suffering the imputation of "chauvinism" or some other unsavory thing.
In this manner, feminism *controls the language*, and to a great extent likewise the mind of the masses, when said masses take said language on board without giving it any thought.
So among other things, the non-feminist revolution seeks to regain control of the language such that principled opposition to feminism becomes possible, and in a manner that is unfettered by feminist discourse.