Just curious, how many of you identify as feminists?

[KitKat1230]

Hello, I'm somewhat new to ChristianForums, mostly in that I haven't posted much until recently. I've been viewing this forum frequently in the past few months because I'm a Christian egalitarian. But I've been wondering about whether or not I should go back to identifying as a feminist as well as an egalitarian.

I grew up in a fairly conservative family with mostly egalitarian, (e.g. women can speak their minds, women can go into whatever careers they want, college and work is good for women, mothers can work inside or outside the home, whichever one they think will be best for them) but a little complementarian as well (e.g. churches shouldn't have female pastors, the husband is the de-facto leader of the household, even though the husband and wife are mostly equal in decision-making).

I thought like this when I was younger, then when I was a teenager, I got into third-wave feminism in the early 2010s. But when I was 17-18 years old, I started becoming more conservative again, though I still considered myself a feminist. Then, I started getting into the anti-SJW movement and GamerGate and I started to feel like feminism was being hijacked by secular liberalism, Tumblr, and the Social Justice movement, so I started distancing myself from the feminist movement. I also wanted to support men's issues like the suicide and homelessness rates, divorce and custody inequality, and double standards against men. However, during an episode of scrupulosity OCD at 22 years old, I encountered The Transformed Wife's blog and had a big OCD episode where I was fearing that I possibly wasn't being a good Christian woman because I was going to be a grad student and I wanted have both a career and husband, but no children. Then I started browsing more and more, been reading more on this forum, and now feel secure in my faith and am an egalitarian. Should I identify as a feminist again? Should I just stay an egalitarian? I still kind of have hope for the feminist movement and there are some things I agree with. I just don't like that the movement has embraced some very worldly and sinful things.

 

[PloverWing]

I am very comfortable identifying as a feminist. I am a generation older that you, I think. Some of the rights and freedoms you listed, like the freedom to pursue higher education or the freedom to work in male-dominated occupations, were still controversial ideas when I was young, and I see these as feminist victories.

This doesn't mean that I agree with everything that every feminist has ever written. Feminists aren't a monolith; we have our own individual ideas. But the basic idea of equality of the sexes, and the task of recognizing and remedying patriarchal oppression where it exists, is something I'm very much in favor of. If anything, I've become more strongly feminist as I've gotten older.

Whether the label "feminist" fits you, I can't say. To my ears, "feminist" and "egalitarian" mean much the same thing.

 

[KitKat1230]

I think that makes sense. I am starting to warm up again to using the label of feminist. I do think that patriarchism can be just as harmful to men as it is to women, and I think that feminism has done more good for society as a whole than bad. So I think I will identify as both.

 

[Tolworth John]

Should I identify as a feminist again? Should I just stay an egalitarian? I still kind of have hope for the feminist movement and there are some things I agree with. I just don't like that the movement has embraced some very worldly and sinful things.

Why must labels be study on everything?

As you say the feminist movement is adopting some dodgy ideas.
As a Christian one has plenty of ammunition to argue for justice for everybody.

It is Christianity that supports equality, no other philosophical idea does.
It is Christianity that places value on both men and women yet also assigned separate roles to them.
Stats show that where people follow these roles they report greater levels of mental health, happiness and contentment

May I suggest forget label but seek to live as a Christian.

 

[KitKat1230]

That is true. Before anything else, it is our identities as Christians that must come first. I guess I always felt somewhat unsure about where I should stand on things like that. I also know that men and women have certain things that they do better than the opposite sex as a whole. I just think people should be able to make the choices that fit their skills, talents, and temperaments best, within reason and within God's law.

 

[bekkilyn]

Why must labels be study on everything?

As you say the feminist movement is adopting some dodgy ideas.

So has Christianity.

As a Christian one has plenty of ammunition to argue for justice for everybody.

True, but at the same time many Christian churches and organizations are often opposed to justice when it doesn't fit their brand of politics.

It is Christianity that supports equality, no other philosophical idea does.

Check out some of the threads here on "women pastors" or "should women_____?" and you'll find out that oftentimes Christianity is dead last at supporting equality.

*Christ* supports equality. Christianity oftentimes dreadfully fails at it.

It is Christianity that places value on both men and women yet also assigned separate roles to them.

"Different roles" being the code-word for Complementarianism, a false doctrine that in actual practice sets the male as superior to the female and promotes abuse of females by the males who seek to dominate them, and of males by the churches who censor and abuse them for not appropriately doing their "God-given" duty to rule over their households and women.

Stats show that where people follow these roles they report greater levels of mental health, happiness and contentment

"Stats" can show anything you want them to show, but people forced into roles that don't suit them based on harmful gender stereotypes are anything but healthy, happy, or content when it comes to actual reality vs. Complementarian fairy tales.

May I suggest forget label but seek to live as a Christian.

"Christian" by itself is a meaningless label. The only thing I can know when someone says they are "Christian" is that they belong to some wide and diverse religion known as "Christianity". And there is no real agreement as to what living "like a Christian" even looks like, but here in the Egalitarian forum, women being kept at home and shrouded "modestly" from head to toe and popping out babies for her salvation and for the glory of God isn't it.

(Not saying that's what you're promoting, but it's definitely a view within the umbrella of the Christian religion.)

 

[bekkilyn]

I identify as both an egalitarian and a (radical) feminist. They have largely the same meaning for me, but "feminist" does put focus when necessary on women's issues that tend to be ignored when using broader labels.

 

[Gregorikos]

Feminism is "the f-word" in many churches, and it is thrown around very disparagingly, setting up "the feminists" as the enemy of all that is right and good. For that reason I embraced it wholeheartedly, and gladly use it in church settings for myself anytime I hear what "the feminists" do or think. I say, "Well I'm a feminist and I don't believe that." And I think it is important for egalitarians in Christian circles to do exactly that in order to help others understand that they have a very wrong impression of feminism. Let's redeem the word!!

However..... I have met some feminist women (usually not Christians) that are hurt and offended by men appropriating the title for ourselves, and feel that by doing so we are once again invading their space. I have been told I can be a feminist ally, and no more. I want to be respectful of that, and so I very cautiously use the term for myself when and if it is appropriate.

 

[Gregorikos]

It is Christianity that places value on both men and women yet also assigned separate roles to them.

The whole rhetoric of "role distinctions" was off-base from its inception in the 1970s: “… ‘role distinctions’ are a euphemism for role restrictions of the disadvantaged party; in the traditional paradigm, men have no ‘role distinctions’ because they can theoretically fill any service slot in the church, even kitchen duty and nursery if they are willing to do it. Pragmatically, only women have assigned and specific ‘role distinctions’ in the church. Cynthia Westfall, Paul and Gender pp 171-72

 

[bekkilyn]

I personally like it when men are able to admit to being feminists because I don't view feminism as solely a women's thing, but I can understand how some could feel hurt or offended. Like the OP said in an earlier post, both men and women are harmed by the patriarchy and feminism is beneficial to both women and men.

 

[WolfGate]

When somebody uses the word "feminist", I often have to ask them to clarify their definition. The word has been used in so many different context (positively and negatively) that it has no clear meaning anymore. The result is, depending on the context, my answer could be "yes" or "no".

 

[Paidiske]

To me, being a feminist means that I believe in the full equality of men and women, recognise the way our society works against this, and work to overcome those socially-imposed limitations. I don't, in any way, find that incompatible with Christianity, since Christianity is about following Christ, who came that we might have life in abundance.

I agree that advocating for "separate roles" for men and women does not fit the SOP of this forum.

 

[KitKat1230]

I personally like it when men are able to admit to being feminists because I don't view feminism as solely a women's thing, but I can understand how some could feel hurt or offended. Like the OP said in an earlier post, both men and women are harmed by the patriarchy and feminism is beneficial to both women and men.

I agree with men being able to identify as feminists. I don't see feminism as this girls-only, "no boys allowed" club. I honestly say, the more, the merrier.

And adding to my earlier post, patriarchal norms have put limits on men's expression as well as women's. For example, it was in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, one of the periods where gender norms were the strictest, that it really became unmanly in Western society for men to cry. It was also the time period, and the Restoration period, when society began to perceive and portray men as "rakes" and as being highly sexual, while women were regarded as being pure, over-emotional, and sexless. It was also around this time that our understanding of "the keeper of the home" and "the housewife" became a thing in middle-class Europe and America. Rich women, of course, did not have to work outside or inside the home (they had servants to do that), and poor women still had to work for the most part, especially in the Industrial Revolution.

 

[KitKat1230]

And I would like to say, thank you all for commenting. It's great reading your responses and has helped me better understand all of this.

 

[NBB]

But equality is impossible, men and women are different.

I don't think the percentage of engineers in this world are mostly men because some 'mysoginistic' thing, men find this area easier/liking it more to do than women.

Another thing, do feminists want to go to war, clean sewages, build houses, paid the bill at dinner, being treated with classic courtesy by their husbands.

There has been women leaders of countries for a while now, maybe since forever, if society was so 'patriarchal' this would not have been possible i would think.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't want anyone to go to war.

I don't particularly want to clean sewage, but don't think it's beneath me if it needs doing and I'm on hand to do it. Similarly with building.

As for paying the bill at dinner, I'm my household's breadwinner, and I have no problem with that at all.

"Classic courtesy"? That needs some unpacking. I'd like to be treated with respect and care, and expect that I should treat others that way as well. It's not a gendered thing.

A quick glance at the parliaments of most countries will show that we are a long, long way from equality for women in government. This speech is illustrative:

All of that said, I will reiterate: arguing that equality is impossible "because biology" is really not in keeping with the SOP of this forum.

 

[KitKat1230]

I agree that we will never achieve complete equality, just as we will never achieve world peace or any other kind of perfection on this earth. And I also agree that men and women do have things that they are better at and like more as a whole. For example, men are more likely to do jobs involving manual labor, combat, guarding, etc. than women, while women are more likely to do jobs involving fashion, child care, etc.

While there are many feminists I am sure that don't want to do those things, including feminists who don't want women to have to register for the draft (frankly, I don't think men or women should have to fight in a war that they don't believe in or that may be mostly political, e.g. Vietnam), I do know that women, and feminists, aren't a monolith. Three women who I went to school with went into the military after high school. I also know women who are in more traditionally feminine occupations. I cannot speak for all egalitarians and feminists, but gender equality to me is equal opportunities, not equal results. I don't really care what men and women do for a living, I just believe it should be something that makes them happy, something in which they have sufficient financial security (whether it comes from a paycheck or a working spouse), and something for which they are well qualified.

I don't think women should be forced into certain occupations just for the sake of social progress, but I do think women should have a choice, and even encouragement. I've heard so many stories about women who, from girlhood, wanted to be scientists, mathematicians, astronomers, astronauts, etc., but were shot down and discouraged by those around them, and that makes me sad.

 

[WolfGate]

But equality is impossible, men and women are different.

I don't think the percentage of engineers in this world are mostly men because some 'mysoginistic' thing, men find this area easier/liking it more to do than women.

Another thing, do feminists want to go to war, clean sewages, build houses, paid the bill at dinner, being treated with classic courtesy by their husbands.

There has been women leaders of countries for a while now, maybe since forever, if society was so 'patriarchal' this would not have been possible i would think.

Your first sentence confuses "equal" with "identical". They are not the same thing.

Interesting comment on engineering. I got a BS in Electrical Engineering many decades ago from a large, competitive program at NC State University. I also recall when I was in high school in the late 70s that I, with good grades and high math SAT, was advised by our guidance counselor to go into engineering. My girlfriend, who was our valedictorian and very adept at math and science, was advised to look into nursing or becoming a teacher. Two years prior, my sister, who was salutatorian of her class, was advised to go into the same types of professions. My wife, who I met in engineering school, had gotten the same advice from her guidance counselor to pursue some stereotypical female fields. Thankfully, all of them ignored that advice and went into STEM fields where they were very successful. I noted when I was attending engineering classes that a very small percentage were women. No surprise given the advice given to them at that time and the rarity of female role models. Certainly my experience since has shown that women are just as capable as men and as their percentage of the field increases, that has been shown even more to be true. In other words, your comment was interesting because your assumption doesn't align with the facts, history and data.

 

[NBB]

Your first sentence confuses "equal" with "identical". They are not the same thing.

Interesting comment on engineering. I got a BS in Electrical Engineering many decades ago from a large, competitive program at NC State University. I also recall when I was in high school in the late 70s that I, with good grades and high math SAT, was advised by our guidance counselor to go into engineering. My girlfriend, who was our valedictorian and very adept at math and science, was advised to look into nursing or becoming a teacher. Two years prior, my sister, who was salutatorian of her class, was advised to go into the same types of professions. My wife, who I met in engineering school, had gotten the same advice from her guidance counselor to pursue some stereotypical female fields. Thankfully, all of them ignored that advice and went into STEM fields where they were very successful. I noted when I was attending engineering classes that a very small percentage were women. No surprise given the advice given to them at that time and the rarity of female role models. Certainly my experience since has shown that women are just as capable as men and as their percentage of the field increases, that has been shown even more to be true. In other words, your comment was interesting because your assumption doesn't align with the facts, history and data.

Men always liked more, and were interested more in building, seeing how things works inside, inventing stuff, etc, i'm not saying they are more smart, they have a innate more inclined 'passion' for this kind of stuff, i am not saying women cannot like this, but in relation to women.

I seriously doubt there is so few women enginneers because of the patriarchy and men being mysoginistic.

Also, men are more inclined to be more competitive and aggresive, something that can be useful in leader positions etc, and advancing job positions etc.

 

[NBB]

The same with women inventors, what stopping women in going into a garage to invent some stuff, you know Bill Gates started in a garage with his company, what stopping women more in this age? maybe there is some difference?

You also cannot say 'gamers' are mysoginistic, but the difference between male teams and female are abysmal, maybe men hava a bit more of a knack for this stuff? And you need to move the mouse around most of the time in this, no need for physical strenght.

Again i'm not trying to say men are better than women.