Yes, You Are

[fanatiquefou]

I don't know about anyone else, but I get so sick and tired of people prefacing their statements with "I'm not a feminist, but..." as if feminist or feminism were dirty words - it happens all the time on these forums, and elsewhere. Well, if you've ever said such a thing, or thought it, or are afraid to publicly associate yourself with feminism, I've got news for you:

Yes, You Are a Feminist!

Here's a brief excerpt from the article:

feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests -- feminist n or adj -- feministic adj​

Above, the dictionary definition of feminism -- the entire dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not ask for two forms of photo ID. It does not care what you look like. It does not care what color skin you have, or whether that skin is clear, or how much you weigh, or what you do with your hair. You can bite your nails, or you can get them done once a week. You can spend two hours on your makeup, or five minutes, or the time it takes to find a Chapstick without any lint sticking to it. You can rock a cord mini, or khakis, or a sari, and you can layer all three. The definition of feminism does not include a mandatory leg-hair check; wax on, wax off, whatever you want. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
...The definition of feminism does not tell you how to vote or what to think. You can vote Republican or Libertarian or Socialist or "I like that guy's hair." You can bag voting entirely. You can believe whatever you like about child-care subsidies, drafting women, fiscal accountability, Anita Hill, environmental law, property taxes, Ann Coulter, interventionist politics, soft money, gay marriage, tort reform, decriminalization of marijuana, gun control, affirmative action, and why that pothole at the end of the street still isn't fixed. You can exist wherever on the choice continuum you feel comfortable. You can feel ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. You can like the ERA in theory, but dread getting drafted in practice. The definition does not stipulate any of that. The definition does not stipulate anything at all, except itself. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.

 

[katautumn]

Too bad your more outspoken feminists who are on the forefront of the movement (the ladies...ahem, "womyn" over at NOW, for example) do a terrible disservice to the feminist movement.

I think the reason why women are hesitant about being identified as a feminist is because there are your more verbal feminists who are a disgrace to women. They target their socially elite audiences and ignore the working class, show contempt toward motherhood and claim their aim is gender equity when it's really gender superiority.

And I really don't think there's such a thing as gender equity,as a whole. I believe in a woman's right to vote, drive a car, make equal money for equal work, play sports, obtain reproductive services, own a home, etc.; however, second and third wave feminist activsts need to realize that there are things we, as women, cannot do as well as men and there are things men cannot do as well as women. We need to focus more on how our gender traits can lend a hand to one another and not how one sex can either be just like or better than the other. Totally suppressing all that comes natural to us just so we don't show our weaknesses is not doing any good.

 

[shadowmage36]

Personally, I make a strong distinction between rational feminists who truly are out for equality and the "Feminazis" who are (seemingly) out to bring all men into subjugation for the oppression women have suffered in the past. There is, after all, a rather big difference.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Personally, I make a strong distinction between rational feminists who truly are out for equality and the "Feminazis" who are (seemingly) out to bring all men into subjugation for the oppression women have suffered in the past. There is, after all, a rather big difference.

I have never, ever, in my LIFE met a "Feminazi." And I've been a pretty ardent supporter of feminist issues, I read Ms. and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and still, I have yet to encounter one of these supposed feminazis that have hijacked the movement. I'm not saying that there aren't a few wackos who go too far. But they're few and far between, and on the extreme fringe of the movement.

 

[katautumn]

Too bad the ones that simply want to be treated fairly aren't the ones heading up the nation's largest feminist lobbying organizations and writing the books for feminists.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Too bad it's the ones that simply want to be treated fairly aren't the ones heading up the nation's largest feminist lobbying organizations and writing the books for feminists.

Um...they are...??

You think NOW is made up of radical "feminazis"??? You think all the recent feminist publications are radical extremists? Can you give me some examples?

 

[katautumn]

You think NOW is made up of radical "feminazis"??? You think all the recent feminist publications are radical extremists? Can you give me some examples?

Sure thing.

To quote Betty Friedan (who, by the way, claimed she used to be an oppressed housewife until she was enlightened one day. She actually held a steady job as a journalist as was heavily involved in political activism long before her The Feminine Mystique was published):

A woman is handicapped by her sex, and handicaps society, either by slavishly copying the pattern of man's advance in the professions, or by refusing to compete with man at all.

To quote Linda Hirshman on her opinion about stay-at-home mothers saying they find their work very fulfilling:

"I would like to see a description of their daily lives that substantiates that position," she said. "One of the things I've done working on my book is to read a lot of the diaries online, and their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated person, for a complicated, educated person."

To quote Marilyn French:

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."

To quote Robin morgan, contributing editor of Ms. Magazine:

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

To quote Sheila Cronin of NOW:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

To quote Catherine McKinnon, feminist author and lawyer:

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

To quote Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:

"The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it."

To quote feminist author, Vivian Gornick:

Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that

Also, look on any message board that is specifically for the discussion of feminism and tell me there aren't countless jokes and slams against marriage and motherhood as a chosen profession. Jokes about how us housewives must be too ugly and fat to actually work for a living, or how we lack the ambition to do anything than be "baby factories" and "broom pushers". Read the "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Magazine" article about being childless by choice where it says kids are merely "sex (only the dirty expletive word was used) trophies".

Now, please bear in mind that perhaps most feminists don't espouse the views of the women whose quotes I posted above. I realize that most feminists don't live by the S.C.U.M. Manifesto. I just think that alot of your more out there, vocal feminists are against marriage and motherhood as a valid life choice which I think does a huge disservice to the feminist movement.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Well, I'd agree with you that devaluing ANY choice a woman makes is wrong and a disservice to feminism. I think a lot of feminists would argue that, historically, the "choice" to be a homemaker hasn't actually been much of a choice at all for many women. Still, I agree that expressing anger or hatred against homemakers or marriage in general is not what feminism ought to be about. As for the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] quote, I'm pretty sure you're taking that out of context, or taking a very extreme quote. I read that piece, and I remember it being fairly balanced - most of what I heard wasn't AGAINST motherhood, just angry at the pressure they felt to have children. There have been many articles in the magazine ABOUT being a mother and a feminist that have taken a positive look at it.

Anyway, the whole point of what I posted wasn't really to get into an argument of what makes for genuine feminism, what's too radical, etc., and I'm sorry I turned the thread that way - I didn't want to make anyone feel like I was judging them as not being feminist enough - after all, as the article says, you don't have to agree on politics or stay-at-home moms or anything to be a feminist.

 

[katautumn]

You're right. For years, being a wife and mother wasn't a choice for most women. It was simply something that you did; however, alot of younger feminists today (and even some older ones) tend to accuse women such as myself as betraying the feminist ideal and sending women back into the 1950's. I, personally, do not see it that way.

And you're also right that the article in the magazine itself did not say that (what I posted above). It was a quote within the article that was an excerpt from a book. The article was fairly balanced and I noticed in the next issue that there were many SAHM feminists who wrote in and weighed in on the article. So, that was encouraging.

I don't personally believe that eradicating anything that is a nod to an era when women didn't have a fair shot at accomplishing their goals will solve the problem. I think we should be looking to help one another, not trampling all over men simply because men have trampled all over women since the beginning of time. I think this angry backlash has really harmed and confused the male gender. When men are afraid to be chivalrous or don't know how to act around women ("will opening the car door for her offend her?"), then they don't know how to treat women with fairness and respect, which just perpetuates the vicious cycle of men abusing women and women, in turn, hating men for it.

 

[shye]

so many feminests are so sexist.

 

[fanatiquefou]

so many feminests are so sexist.

Care to back that up?

 

[fanatiquefou]

You're right. For years, being a wife and mother wasn't a choice for most women. It was simply something that you did; however, alot of younger feminists today (and even some older ones) tend to accuse women such as myself as betraying the feminist ideal and sending women back into the 1950's. I, personally, do not see it that way.

And you're also right that the article in the magazine itself did not say that (what I posted above). It was a quote within the article that was an excerpt from a book. The article was fairly balanced and I noticed in the next issue that there were many SAHM feminists who wrote in and weighed in on the article. So, that was encouraging.

I don't personally believe that eradicating anything that is a nod to an era when women didn't have a fair shot at accomplishing their goals will solve the problem. I think we should be looking to help one another, not trampling all over men simply because men have trampled all over women since the beginning of time. I think this angry backlash has really harmed and confused the male gender. When men are afraid to be chivalrous or don't know how to act around women ("will opening the car door for her offend her?"), then they don't know how to treat women with fairness and respect, which just perpetuates the vicious cycle of men abusing women and women, in turn, hating men for it.

One of the things that I love that a lot of women seem to have gotten into lately is the resurgence of crafts and traditional women's arts. I started knitting a few years ago and I love that there's such a wonderful community of feminist knitters who see knitting as a way of returning to and valuing the traditions of our foremothers. I think for a while the pendulum swung too far the other way - when everything traditionally female was devalued in favor of entering "the man's world." And there's no doubt that there were a lot of barriers to break down and that women needed to concentrate on that for a while. But I think now a lot of women are finding out that we've sacrificed some truly valuable things along the way - things that are valuable because they belong to women and always have - by devaluing such activities, women were simply accepting the prevailing masculine view that "women's work" wasn't as worthwhile as men's. Now women are realizing that isn't true, and that if men aren't going to value such things, then it's about time women stood up for them. I love that.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Whenever someone (a woman) says, "I don't need to be liberated!" it's always useful to tell them, "You wouldn't be able to say that and be taken seriously if you weren't liberated."

 

[shye]

Care to back that up?

some feminists are so empowered by the feminist revolution that they are turning around and treating men like how men treated women thousands of years ago. and some just hate men all together.

 

[TimmyPage]

some feminists are so empowered by the feminist revolution that they are turning around and treating men like how men treated women thousands of years ago. and some just hate men all together.

It's true. Feminism is an attempt for women to push all men down to nothingness. They aren't looking for equality, they are looking for OVER-equality, to be treated as higher than everyone else in society. Then in 1000 years, men will be cooking and cleaning and suddenly there well be a masculanism movement.

I'm for complete equality between the genders. However, theres one thing we can't change and even feminists can't deny.. men are made entirely to get things pregnant, and women are made entirely to be pregnant and have the children. It's simply, from a biological level, all we are made for.

 

[fanatiquefou]

It's true. Feminism is an attempt for women to push all men down to nothingness. They aren't looking for equality, they are looking for OVER-equality, to be treated as higher than everyone else in society.

No, it is not true, and feminism is nothing of the sort.

 

[flicka]

some feminists are so empowered by the feminist revolution that they are turning around and treating men like how men treated women thousands of years ago. and some just hate men all together.

You don't have to wrap the "feminist" label around that. SOME women hate men. SOME men hate women. SOME people treat other people like scum. Actually, the combinations are endless with/without feminism.

 

[TimmyPage]

No, it is not true, and feminism is nothing of the sort.

Ann Widdecombe, a British Conservative politician and former leadership candidate, claimed that feminism slowly evolved into its antithesis[5]. She argues that 1970s rhetoric emphasized equal rights and self-sufficiency, whereas 1990s rhetoric demanded special assistance for women and implied that women could not look after themselves. She identifies with the former variant, and describes the latter as "absolute tosh". (Wikipedia Article on Feminism)

I'd have to agree. Go for equality, not one sided gender groups.

 

[Pikachu]

I don't know about anyone else, but I get so sick and tired of people prefacing their statements with "I'm not a feminist, but..." as if feminist or feminism were dirty words - it happens all the time on these forums, and elsewhere. Well, if you've ever said such a thing, or thought it, or are afraid to publicly associate yourself with feminism, I've got news for you:

Yes, You Are a Feminist!

Here's a brief excerpt from the article:

I'm not a [dirty word]feminist[/dirty word], but on occasion I act a bit feminine.

Does that make me a feminist?

 

[gwenmead]

I was raised during the days when second-wave feminism was in full swing. I have to acknowledge that second-wave feminism (focusing on social inequalities in addition to legal ones) forms the backbone of my own thoughts on a lot of relations between the sexes.

But I suspect that feminism is a lot like atheism: that is, there are perhaps some core ideas, but as many variations on the same theme as there are feminists. Second-wave feminism might be where I came from originally, but I'd think myself stagnant if I hadn't grown my own opinions and ideas about sex and gender, independent of what any particular school of feminist theory might espouse.

In a nutshell I look at adult men and women as sovereign human beings entitled to the same rights and responsibilities necessary to live on this planet. Biology is not destiny: personal fulfillment is.

Trying to gain equality by making women more like men is not genuine equality, as it perpetuates the idea that things "feminine" are inferior. Putting women in charge, on the other hand, creates matriarchy, which differs from patriarchy only in what set of genitalia rules the world. Hatred of men might be understandable in some context, but it's misandry instead of misogyny - neither one is good.

I suppose what irks me as a woman are things like, say, the assumption that I am man's moral inferior somehow because of my sex, or that I am less capable of any given action because of my sex. Granted, I don't know how to do everything - I am not capable of every action in every situation - but most of the things I can't do don't have to do with my sex. (I am not capable of brain surgery because I was not trained as a brain surgeon, and I don't want to be a brain surgeon - not because I am female.) I might also have a particular moral compass, which differs from someone else's, but if it's morally bankrupt, it isn't because of my being, it's because of my own conscious actions.

Stuff like that. And honestly, some of that is probably oversimplifying, but that sums a lot of personal philosophy up right there.

Incidentally, I just started reading Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. It's pretty interesting so far, though I've drawn no conclusions yet.

Anyway. Thanks for reading this late-night ramble.