I had professors ask us to raise our hands if we’re a feminist, and usually every young man did. This was in the Obama administration, before the right became so fascist, but still. We don’t expect you to have an equally deep understanding or to be familiar with academic feminist works. We just expect you to believe women are equally valuable individuals, who have the right to pursue their own happiness, live their lives how they want to live them, and be supported by their community in their health, wellbeing, and pursuits.

I hesitate to call myself a feminist because it seems like there is a presumption of understanding women’s experiences

Being a woman is the only thing that gives someone access to women’s experiences, but being a woman doesn’t automatically make someone a feminist. Neither thing presumes the other.

The phrase I use as a male is “I emphasize with feminists” it puts them in the drivers seat but I’m there to support them.

No, never.
Because I don’t even understand what feminism is. There’s so many conflicting opinions under that umbrella that the label doesn’t even make much sense to me.

“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”

That bit is just common sense, though.

Feminism is, indeed, just common sense

So, why is it so uncommon?

Fuck the -ists and -isms. Consider policies and actions on their merit, not the label. I support things that help people live better lives. Feminism is a freighted word no matter who is using it but no one has right to claim their freighted definition is ‘THE’ definition, not even you. If you want to help women, don’t worry about what people call you, just help.

I wouldnt, because it is not mine to claim the descriptor, if anything, I get highly suspicious if a man feels the need to mention they’re a feminist. If a woman describes my behaviour as feminist I’ll gladly wear it, and I do believe it would be a validation of what I believe in / my values.

“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”

With this definition in mind, would you call yourself one?

Absolutely

But what I’m trying to say is it feels more impactful and real to be called one than to claim to be one idk if that makes sense

I was raised with Gloria Steinem’s definition of feminism shaping my understanding, and have called myself a feminist since I was a child:

“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”

A more modern and inclusive version of that same idea, adopted by UN Women:

“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”

Feminism is a very complex grouping of movements and ideologies, but I think “membership” within them is very simple: if you believe in equality regardless of gender, you’re a feminist.

How does it feel that the person who defined feminism for you was a CIA agent?

Are you implying that feminism is a CIA initiative?

Steinem worked with the CIA to promote reactionary propaganda and helped direct the women’s liberation movement into a corporate-friendly, anti-socialist direction.

Source: Jacobin

They didn’t imply feminism is a CIA initiative, but the CIA definitely worked with her to influence the feminist movement.

Sure, because they cared about controlling the direction of the political movement, same way they influenced the Civil Rights movement. But once again, unless they are implying that the definition of feminism as offered by Steinem, quoted above, is part of a CIA influence op, or tainted by their influence, then what’s the point of bringing that up?

To have a conversation? To get further insight into how a person thinks? To gain understanding? To talk about the ideological framework through which the person views the world, and hopefully gain some perspective out of that talk?

If they truly intended it to be a neutral question, then they used a particularly bad choice of phrasing.

Most people understand the CIA is a tool of imperialist violence/authority, but framing that as “how does it feel to x” is clearly a condemnation of the association being pointed out, which in this case would only matter if that association itself in some way taints the topic it was brought up in response to… I.e. the definition of feminism by Steinem.

Fair point.

Not great!

This raises the question whether feminist is the right word for those definitions. Humanist, maybe?

I’m not trying to “all lives matter” the situation – the history of the treatment of women warrants specific advocacy. But I think of a feminist as someone who (regardless of gender) is actively an advocate for change, not just someone who believes in equality.

That’s the connotation I have for the word anyway. Clearly UN Women are a more authoritative source, and they specifically use the word “belief,” so my connotation seems to be wrong.

What’s different to me is it’s feminism not femalism, in that feminine doesn’t tend to mean women specifically. I would actually argue it’s mostly used as a modifier of explicit non-women, and is, in a roundabout way, directly about men and anything unassociated with women as well.

As if to say “this isn’t about women, it’s about the opposition to non-manliness that exists in the world”.

Like a white person is not black, but a man can be feminine. That’s not to say black issues aren’t pertinent to white people in a similar way (if one of us is not free, none are free, nonblack people demeaned for cultural blackness, etc), but it’s an identity that can be wholely intrinsic to a man.

Oh, and another point you bring up I think is interesting is the distinction between holding the belief and directly or strongly acting on it, and should we consider a believer or passive actor as non-ideological? I think that comes down to a No True Scotsman sort of mindset.

Kind of rambling and pedantic, but I like to think about the little details.

Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, the more it kind of is the same as BLM, and I think even just holding the belief is important.

Calling myself a feminist would be stolen valour.

Yes. Even in the most cynical light, standing with women is within my own self interest because my rights will surely erode alongside theirs. But also i like women and am disgusted with how they are treated socially and economically, and want that to change for the better. So a feminist i am.

Yes. I was raised by feminist parents and have always supported equal rights and equal pay, and stood against misogyny and sexism. You’re right go not want to be presumptive, but the answer to that isn’t to shy away from feminism, it’s to listen.

It’s really hard to call yourself a feminist when you realize that all major achievements of western feminism aren’t the direct result of activism but rather capitalism. To paraphrase DiCaprio’s Character from Django, activism had their curiosity, the financial incentive had their attention.

Industries and governments realised that they were essentially not capitalizing on 50% of the population.

Women in the work force wasn’t a noble grant of freedom, it was an increase in production and profit. If it were truly as noble as it is made out to be, they would’ve given them equal pay from the start.
Same thing goes for women being able to have their own bank account. Women having their own money means they will spend it, driving the economy. Even the right to vote just provides another angle of attack to influence and radicalize the population. Those are the 3 corner stones, work for capital and pay income tax, spend your money and pay sales tax and vote for whoever the TV tells you to vote. Everything else is just comfort to sweeten the deal. That’s also why 3rd wave feminism has grinded to a halt. The is no capitalist financial incentive to give women even one more inch of freedom than they already have.

Women haven’t won anything they’ve just gotten of the side lines, right into the corporate meatgrinder.

And now we’re here, where a two head family can’t afford to have a child because both members working 9-5 can barely support themselves financially, yet alone have the money or time to have a child. And neither corporations nor the government are eager to support them as if giving back even a single cent of profits is a cardinal sin.

Damn dude. Great read.

Fuckin a

I’m sorry, but that is a huge crock of horseshit with absolutely nothing to back it up but vibes. That’s like saying the abolitionist movement achieved nothing because it is superceded by a broader class struggle against capitalism.

Women fought for and won the the right to self determination, the right to vote, the right to divorce, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to be legally treated as persons instead of as the property of their husbands, etc, and none of that is diminished by its byproduct of a larger workforce being better for capitalists. “Women haven’t won anything” fuck outta here

Maybe I simply have a hard time imagining a world where politicians listened to the demands and protests of the people and governed themselves accordingly.

Maybe 100 years ago politicians where less corrupt and more empathetic towards the problems of the working class people.

Maybe back then it was more difficult to pay off a few key people to let a bill pass in your favor.

Or maybe, an economic plan was created based on the post war industrial development in which out of pure desperation for manpower, women have proven themselves to be just as effective in working at factories as men. And in the name of improving effectiveness, this got the ball rolling to ultimately elevate women’s rights on par with men’s.

Feminism isn’t some new last century concept. Women have been fighting for right for millennia but where always at bane of powers outside their control (AKA monarchs, the church, etc.). So there must be a good reason why it only worked out after the bloodiest most brutal self induced chapter of human history. What was the alternative, saying: “Thanks for the help, now go back home and tend to your crippled husbands.”? That’s actually exactly what governments did, and the result was a severely crippled economy that catapulted the world right into another World War.

No matter which country you’re from, your great great mother has most likely contributed to getting the country through some of the worst times in it’s history. A time when people weren’t buried, they were dying in the streets and eaten by rats. And the reward was… that exception has turned into expectation. And as over the past 100 years almost all the money has wandered from the pockets of many into the pockets of few, women’s right to work has turned into a necessity to work.

I don’t believe for a second that the leaders of the 1920s had given women any more rights than in the centuries before out of the goodness of their hearts unless it was absolutely economically necessary.

Have you not noticed how workers have become customers to their own workplace? Corporation not only want to pay you less, they want you to give your paycheck back to them. And all the safeguards put up over the last decades for women in society and the workplace are being slowly dismantled by a very evident right shift of global politics. All to get you to the perfect algorithmically determined point of anger, desperation and contempt to make you pay exactly one cent less than the highest possible asking price for any given service (or as it was once called “product”). Modern day 1st world feminism is engineered. As evident by every corporation dropping the rainbow flags the second pride month ends, is that if corporations don’t have to care - they won’t. Feminism isn’t excluded from that.

How long ago do you think women’s suffrage was? This wasn’t something that just happened in the last couple of decades. Literally over 100 years ago the 19th amendment passed giving women the right to vote. Nobody is saying that politicians it the government did it out of the kindness of their hearts, it’s because women and allies fought like Hell for it.

A crippled economy is not the reason for a second world war, that’s just ridiculous correlation, and barely even that.

You’re conflating multiple things and assuming that’s causation. Yes, women entered the workforce and started earning their own money. Yes, the economy has changed to the point where people of all genders are now stuck working to survive. That didn’t happen because women were working, it happened and also women are working.

Just because corporations are shit doesn’t mean that feminism isn’t a thing. Look up the definition of feminism. It’s an ideology as well as a movement. There’s still a long ways to go to truly get all genders to be perceived and treated as equals, but the last 150+ years have been huge for women’s equality. It’s been too slow by any reasonable person’s standards, but big changes in society and they way people view each other doesn’t happen over night.

yeah, you’re right. it’s not all just about economics. it’s also about religion.

• “the right to self determination” stems from e.g. calvinism which advocates the “priesthood of all believers”, i.e. that every person is able to conceive what is right and good themselves, without needing the instruction of another. this effectively translates to the right to self-determination in a modern democracy, since a person who is physiologically able to make their own decisions should also be practically able to make their own decisions.

• the whole rest of the rights that you listed are more or less direct consequences of the right to self determination.

Guess everything was better when every woman was barefoot and pregnant, right?

But seriously, what the hell is this analysis? Women have always been a part of the labor and productive forces. Do you think women existed solely in a state of domesticity before fighting for the right to vote in the US? This entire argument rests on the notion that capital is the driver of social change. I guess you might not know that people can react to their material conditions just as much as capitalists can react to people. Like there’s some kind of…oh I don’t know, a dialectical relationship between these forces.

To expand on what @FishLake@lemmygrad.ml said, this analysis ranges from reductive to completely ahistorical.

Women have been part of the productive workforce long before the notion of equality was even on the table. The idea that women were exclusively bearing and rearing children before the industrial revolution is nonsense, women were crucial workers in agriculture and manufacture and it was impossible for a family to be fed only by the patriarch.

The relationship between capitalism and feminism is actually partly the other way around from what you are presenting. Industrialization required centralization and urbanization, which meant it was easier than ever for women to organize with their colleagues and comrades and demand equal rights. It also eased access to weapons, which allowed for direct violent action to force the ruling class to pay attention. Capitalism accelerated or even sometimes spawned feminist movements, which were always in direct contradiction with the actual capitalists who were entirely male at the time.

The idea that women haven’t won anything is just bullshit. You are right that they didn’t “win” the “right to work”, because they had that “right” forever. But what they actually did win is a smaller gender gap in pay and economic opportunities, access to better education, right to political representation, legal prohibitions on some kinds of gender violence. If you think all of this was somehow “granted” by (male) capitalists because it is profitable, that’s just untrue, most of it was directly or indirectly hurtful to the ruling class when those measures were first introduced.

I believe that every human is a human with equally complex lives who all deserve equal opportunities and the right to self-determination regardless of gender, race, or any other uncontrollable factor.

So yes, I would consider myself to be a feminist.

In the sense of “do women deserve equal treatment in society?” 100%!

I idolized my grandmothers as a kid, and they did a better job raising me than my actual parents. Both sides of the family always seemed much more matriarchal to me.

The one time I was ever in charge of anything was at a fairly sexist job and I repeatedly fought to get the ladies’ pay more in line with the guys, I reported a few people to HR for making my staff uncomfortable, and I ensured the one employee got a private lactation area after she had a baby.

Now I volunteer with animal rehab, and that is a field that is about 90% women, and they are all so badass, compassionate, they do every job, and come from every walk of life.

To see all I’ve seen and to not think anyone deserves the same treatment as me because of their gender would be insane. I don’t like labeling myself, because I’m always not going to fit someone’s definition of that thing, they can call me whatever they want, but I like to see whoever is around me getting treated right.

Woman here and we could use more male feminists

From your perspective, is there anything in particular you think would be helpful to see from male feminists?

Solidarity

I wouldnt have 5 years ago, but I would today, but I’d still say I’m a Marxist first

When I thought of myself as a cis man I considered myself a feminist, but I didn’t call myself one. Maybe I would’ve if someone asked directly, but no one ever did. Mostly there wasn’t any reason to say so that wasn’t performance; better to act and think in accordance with the principles than conspicuously claim it.

Yes, of course. I don’t feel the need to lead with it unprompted because that’s not where I focus my attention in terms of advocacy, but:

1. Anyone who isn’t a male chauvinist is a feminist by process of elimination
2. As a bicycling advocate, feminism comes with the territory because biking was a big part of the women’s lib movement back in the Victorian era. (Quick explainer, deeper dive)

YES

Yes, absolutely.

You don't have to understand a woman's experience so much as you have to not be a dick when she tells you her experience.

Look at all the men that got butthurt over "bear vs rando man" and I'm gonna be honest, I'd choose the bear over many of them too. They refused to listen to what was actually being said by that statement.

Hit the nail on the head. Being cis white het doesn’t make you automatically the enemy. Your actions do.

There are dozens of us!

–

Seriously though when I hear reactionaries complain about the different movements condemning the white patriarchy, all I can think is “oh you thought they were mad at you? Well I guess they were right to be”. It’s really not that hard to recognize the injustice and violence inflicted in the past and to try to stop it from continuing. And most importantly it’s not hard to know when to sit down, shut the fuck up, and listen

That’s a lot of buzzwords to agree with me.

Would you call yourself a feminist?

Yes.

Anyway the “shaming men for being feminists”/“only women can be feminists” thing is absolutely a thing the fascists have peddled to cripple feminism.

Yes 100% bc the literal definition of feminism is the equal treatment for all genders. I don’t go around just telling people that. They can probably just tell I am bc I’m not shitty to a specific gender…

I think the whole appeal of feminism for me, is the questioning and evaluation of rigid gender structures. I’m not sure if it’s my place to call myself a feminist or not (since I’m non-binary). But I do think that feminism and queer issues are contiguous.

I think in the purest sense yes, a general platform of equality for genders.

However I’m growing increasingly cynical and wary of continuing to advocate more in this direction. Not that it’s inherently wrong, it’s that the movement has been co-opted by the capitalists. Very swift to make sure women still bear all of their responsibilities, now also must enter the workforce in order to make a combined living family income. Yet no additional social supports. Men’s gender roles changing in society, but absolutely no future planning or accommodation for what men are supposed to change into, or what role to take.

We are slaves and I think it’s always important to remember that. We get the scraps we’re allowed. And all of the forward progress isn’t as forward as we want to self-smugly believe. We are still being played as the underclass.

No I’m not a feminist.

Feminism has had several waves with varying ideology behind it and I definitely don’t agree with all of the ideals espoused by feminists.

I’m a humanist egalitarian which better describes my position.

What ideals don’t you agree with?

I somewhat recognize my own position in the message above and to me it’s not so much about not being a feminist, as it is that I’ve seen too many people calling themselves feminist while proceeding to do things like: call all men pigs, be transphobic, generally try to push down others in an attempt to rise themselves. If by feminist you mean “for equality between men and women (and all others)”, then sure I can agree to that, but I’m not sure that’s the best way to describe that position anymore

Well TERFs are feminists.

Humanist egalitarianism is a (I hope) clear stance on human rights for all and social measures to address inequality for anyone based on their individual circumstances.

It’s not a view that is clear from feminism where you for example have liberal feminism, libertarian feminism and egalitarian feminism.

There are deacdes of ideology built up within different feminist beliefs that require nuance to differentiate, and misteps associated with some of those movements that I don’t feel the need to associate with.

I don’t think TERFs are feminists try as they like to say they are. They are literally against some women have rights.

No True Scotsman isn’t a great way to address the existence of TERFs and isn’t likely to change how I describe my beliefs.

I thought you might respond with something more interesting to be honest.

I mean it’s the only part of what you said that I disagree with. I don’t have much else to say beyond you shouldn’t let weirdo freaks take labels for themselves and we should proudly claim to be feminists because capitulating these things to bigots just entrenches them in the conversation further.

I don’t know.

My concern was always about showing respect to others, regardless of gender. I want for others what I want for myself.

I grew up surrounded by womens and, as a kid, I heard horrible stories about men behaviour but also heard countless dismissals from women to women about those same male behaviours.

As a teen, I became so concerned of my existence as a man, I went so deep into neutral and non threatning territory I had girls telling me I was being flirted with because otherwise I wouldn’t notice nor correspond. I was quick to point out bad attitude/behaviour from guys towards girls as well, which did not make me popular with my peers.

As an adult, I started working under the supervision of women. No concern, no friction. I did became extremely aware how women would easily create and maintain terrible and damaging relations between them, for futile reasons. Even today, where I work at, where the majority of responsability roles are women, the way even polite conversations are held are laced with tension.

I reached a point where I act in accordance to my conciousness. I loathe disrespect, I get revolted by hearing anyone talk less of others. And I am learning to call others on their words and actions, regardless of gender.

I do recognize a lot of violence, of all kinds, is still enacted upon women because they are women, solely, but I am also aware a good deal is still dismissed and even abided by other women.

Feminism is about all genders having equal rights. Are any of your experiences with women reasons for them not to have rights? Their behavior as you’ve described it isn’t really exclusive to women, nor does it seem like a reason to deny them rights.

No and I don’t think I’ve writen nothing that hinted in that sense.

What I tried to convey is that a good part of what is holding back women to achieve equality are other women and that is unreasonable to me.

In my humble enby opinion you can call yourself a feminist if you believe in equality between genders. There are many flavours of feminism and they often contradict each other. You will never be a perfect feminist in every feminists’ eyes. And you shouldn’t try to be.

But be humble and curious when other feminist and particularly women try to explain their point of view.

Hard yes. If you believe in equality and justice what the fuck else would you be?

Though, I suppose there are those that don’t… They can fuck off

No. I would not. I don’t like the label - but I’m in no way opposed to their position. Rather smugly I’d like to claim I’m an egalitarian.

I agree about avoiding knighting ourselves with the title of feminist because it’s absolutely something some aggressors use to lower their target’s guard, and because it’s easy to call yourself something to gain social standing and then not deliver when the time comes

Otherwise absolutely do read feminist theory and act according to feminist convictions. Doing so without making it about yourself being one of the good ones only makes it better

Of course I would and I do. I find the arguments that there are many branches of feminism to be a reason to not consider yourself a feminist to be kind of ridiculous. There are multiple branches of everything. Not all anarchists agree, not all socialists agree, not all communists agree. No group is a monolith with perfectly aligned values and thoughts.

I think modern feminism does more harm than good, since it is what makes separation visible in the first place. Since I view separation as the root of virtually every problem in human history, I would therefore consider myself a “humanist” who views all people—regardless of gender, skin color, origin, or other characteristics that could serve to create separation—as equal. We must overcome this division.

What’s divisive is having a society defined by gender-based hierarchy and discrimination. Pointing this out and trying to change it isn’t divisive, it’s an opportunity for solidarity.

I agree that gender-based discrimination exists, but the path to equality is not to demand quotas for women and thereby discriminate against other genders. Either there are equal quotas for all groups (gender, religion, skin color, etc.) or there are none at all.

This just upholds existing problems though by pretending they don’t exist. It’s the same exact argument against reparations and DEI, full equal treatment cannot exist without addressing the lingering impact of historic inequality.

You can address issues without putting yourself in a position that excludes others. Where will we end up if there are only “marginalized groups” trying to strengthen their position? In this example, the feminist movement is met with masculism (“Manosphere”), the rise of right-wing/fascist movements (Proud Boys), and so on. And on the women’s side, there are also movements against “woke” feminism (Tradwives, religious movements, etc.).

Giving advantage to one group automatically results in the disadvantage of another—or at least that is how it feels to the “disadvantaged” group. Let’s take the example of women’s quotas: all other marginalized groups—and men as well—are disadvantaged by this, because suddenly it is no longer their performance that counts, but only their gender. This is exactly what men are constantly accused of.

That’s why I stand by my position that discrimination cannot be defeated through exclusion and accusations. We need a unified perspective that grants everyone the same rights and responsibilities. Those who do not give love will never receive it.

That’s not how quotas work, though. Policies that aim for supporting women and increasing the number of them as a ratio does not mean qualifications do not matter. Performance absolutely counts, but systemic barriers to employment also exist that lower the number of women in fields like tech.

Secondly, the fact that reactionary groups form as a resistence to social progress does not make social progress a bad thing. Again, trying to give full legal equality without addressing lingering impacts of historic issues leads to those issues persisting for far longer than they need to. Under the banner of “equality,” reactionary groups merely defend existing inequality.

The solution is to address historical inequalities that persist to this day actively, through social programs. Legal equality is merely the first step to achieving actual equality.

Absolutely, but I also think it’s not enough to just say you’re this or that, you have to act on it. And Imho a lot of people’s feminism starts and ends at declaring themselves feminist.

i used to, that was 10 years ago when i still believed that feminism would actually improve the world. instead, it has just made the world shitty in different ways.

women today all have mental illness. that comes from instagram, where they learn that the world is bad and they have to fear everything. women get told that the circumstances are unacceptable, that other people are out to hunt you, that you can never be satisfied. all of it contributes to an general unwellness.

on top of that, what has feminism actually improved? has it improved the relationship between men and women? no, it has just caused women to be angry at men all the time for being “predators” or something. sexual harassment may have gone down but so have serious attempts of starting relationships.

That’s funny because absolutely none of these ramblings have any connection to real life. Get well soon.

i’m not sure how large the distance between us has to be sothat you have never made any of these observations when you actually look. how different can things be over at your place?

Bruh, you done been black pilled.

Brushing away “sexual harassment going down” as not an actual improvement is a real tell on yourself. I’d wager if given the choice most women would prefer to not be sexually harassed even if that meant they wouldn’t have a “serious relationship”, or at least they need to be able to make that choice.

has it improved the relationship between men and women?

You seem to be making things about men again. Men are already an exceptionally privileged demographic compared to other genders, feminism does not need to help them, it needs to help women.

women today all have mental illness.

I’ll ignore that part to keep the discussion good-faith and I sincerely recommend you to remove it from the comment

that comes from instagram, where they learn that the world is bad and they have to fear everything. women get told that the circumstances are unacceptable, that other people are out to hunt you, that you can never be satisfied. all of it contributes to an general unwellness.

Actual statistics and history back up the fact that the world is bad. Men have systemically oppressed women for centuries and still do, which lets them get away with some awful shit. Men are more likely to be trusted by police or courts, they generally have more wealth and power, they are on average stronger than women. Men are statistically way more likely to engage in abuse and violence, both psychological and physical. It is reasonable for a rational woman to take precautions when interacting with men, even those she knows already.

it has just caused women to be angry at men all the time for being “predators” or something.

One in three women have experienced sexual violence at one point in their lives. About 15-20% have experienced rape. Almost every woman has experienced some form of sexual harassment. The vast majority (>90%) of perpetrators of those crimes are men.

It is not unreasonable to be angry all the time when you are being sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped, and the society enables and protects the perpetrators. In fact it would be totally unreasonable to ignore an issue as serious as this.

First off, I agree with your comment of course, wow the person you’re responding to is delusional. But I want to raise a point of discussion:

has it improved the relationship between men and women?

You seem to be making things about men again. Men are already an exceptionally privileged demographic compared to other genders, feminism does not need to help them, it needs to help women.

If the definition of feminism adopted by most feminist organizations is truly that all people, regardless of gender, should be treated equally, then surely that would mean they should take actions to solve gender-related issues that don’t exclusively affect women? If not, then the definition they’re using is at odds with the actions they’re willing to take, no?

I think it’s a fair question/point. Different factions within feminism will give different answers to that. Personally as a cis man I am fine with feminism focusing primarily or exclusively on women’s issues (it’s in the name), we should have other movements to deal with the way those same issues affecting other genders. Activism and organizing is almost never a zero-sum game, someone can be a feminist and an LGBTQ activist and a socialist for example.

The way this ties into the OC is that it is OK for feminist activism to take away privileges from men if that means improving rights for women. Even if there was a dichotomy of “there are fewer hetero relationships but women are safer from sexual harassment” as presented by OC — which, to be clear, is a false dichotomy and not actually what the vast majority of feminists are advocating for — it would be a fine step to take.

What I’m saying is, I think both of these views are entirely reasonable, but that it’s incompatible to truly hold both of them simultaneously:

• It’s okay for feminist organizations to focus on women to the detriment of men, but not to focus on men to the detriment of women
• Feminism is a movement focused on correcting gender issues of all kinds, not just women’s issues

I recognize that people don’t tend to hold both of these views simultaneously, but it’s not like it never happens. Regardless, to me it seems like this is a rather important distinction between two popular types of feminism.

This is an extremely male-centric view that erases actual struggles faced by women around the world, and is atrociously reactionary. Feminism has been important in tackling systemic issues that exist and persist to this very day (largely because capitalism and class struggle still exist), and women that are angry have every right to be angry.

If Feminism is equality between genders, then yes, I am a feminist.
But if Feminism is unconditional trust towards women, then no, I’m not a feminist.

In my experience people who call themselves feminists often put women above men, and will deny any criticism towards them because they’re women, and women never do anything bad.

Well feminism is from Latin “femina” - a woman, so it is a fight for women’s rights, and not for gender equality. Men also face lots of expectations that can be called toxic, like supressing their emotions, being the one responsible to bring the beacon home, going at war etc. These things are out of scope for feminism.

If you have to pull out an etymology argument to justify a political position, you’re wrong by default. Because you’re blatantly ignoring the actual movement & extracting whatever meaning you want out of that word.

Feminism fights against the patriarch, which in modern terms include both traditional restrictions placed on women and men. So the fight against patriarchal expectations placed on men, among them toxic masculinity, are absolutely part of feminism as a political movement today.

Etymology doesn’t exist separately from the meaning of the word. If something is called “womanism” (the literal translation from Latin), that means it actually does have to do with women.

Yes, I have heard a lot of feminists talk about also fighting against patriarchal expectations placed on men, but again the opposite of patriarch is matriarch, not gender equality. So women are still considered victims and men are considered aggressors - or victims of other men, for that matter. It’s still in essence a fight of women against men. If it wasn’t, it would be called something else. For example, humanism, because the word “human” makes no gender distinction.

My interpretation of it equals to same standing. Both in duties as well as in wages.
A woman should get the same wage regardless of if they get a child or not.
Same Job? Same output? Same wage!

Was going to say essentially this. It can really feel like the most outspoken feminists have a ‘women good, men bad’ mentality (of course many men are equally deranged).

The injustice towards women is absolutely greater, but look at health and happiness metrics and it looks like men are much worse off, and those two points are very much intertwined, a lot of cause and effect both ways (just my opinion and how I’ve made sense of everything). I think there’s probably no such thing as womens problems or mens problems. Only human problems that bounce around and affect everyone.

I think there’s probably no such thing as womens problems or mens problems. Only human problems that bounce around and affect everyone.

To your point, yes absolutely these issues affect us all, because we’re all connected as humans. But you might want to reconsider how you phrase that. This has big “I don’t see color” energy.

Both men and women absolutely have unique and specific issues that need recognition if we are to meaningfully address them.

True we certainly have lots of issues to recognise and address, but we’ve been trying for decades and not getting all that far. You don’t think it’s at all worth considering these issues in a broader sense? How some men’s treatment of women is influenced by women’s treatment towards men? Or what women can do to help those men be better. It’s not like one person’s actions is anyone else’s responsibility, but surely it could be an area of focus?

I have never met a feminist that does these things despite being a feminist and in feminist circles for decades.

No. I think every sane person is against sexual harassment. Term has become so broad and there are many things under that label that I disagree with. And because its so broad and popular it has attracted all sorts of slimy politicians to it.

My eyes roll 720 degrees when I see prolific feminists addressing EU parliament and taking photos with all sorts of celebrities and politicians. At the same time there is loud silence when the most high profile sexual scandal comes out that involves one of the top politicians in the country. And the rest of “feminist” nomenclature just rolls with it domestically and internationally. Bunch of spineless politicians.

Yes, I’m a cis man and I am a Marxist feminist. Feminism is not exclusionary to cis men, and Marxist feminism is critical as patriarchy is a secondary contradiction that rests upon the primary contradiction of class society. Attacking sexism attacks capitalism, and attacking capitalism attacks sexism. They are connected.

Thanks for saying this. There was a rather popular unpopular opinion a while ago about how the only struggle should be the class struggle, and feminism was getting in the way. People need to see that they’re both part of the same fight.

This is a vulgar materialist conception, from those who do not grasp dialectical materialism, as well as those who reject it deliberately. Class reductionism doesn’t recognize secondary contradictions that rest upon the base of primary contradictions, seeing each as separate and butchering how contradiction actually works as an engine of change in dialectics.

Highly recommend reading Domenico Losurdo - Class struggle for more on this.

It gets into how there’s not just a single class struggle, i.e. working class versus bourgeoisie, but many different and related class struggles. Both Marx and Engels held this multivariate view of class struggle too, and it was only later that chauvinists, anti-feminists, and imperialists restricted its meaning to the workplace only.

Absolutely.

If you’re a guy, you’ve heard guys talk about women when none are around. Maybe it’s coworkers, maybe it’s family, but the culture of misogyny is not some on-the-wane thing, it is alive and well.

I did until the gender wars intensified online. Now suddenly the word feminist conjures up images of wild misandrists.

I still believe in the core concepts, but now since all the big systemic fights have already been won its just Bill and Ted rules.

The big systemic fights have not been won, though.

Yeah but I’ve got absolutely no control over what goes on in subsaharan Africa or the middle East or wherever.

In the UK women are legally equal. There’s still a lot of social issues to work out, which the bill and Ted thing pretty well covers.

Legal recognition of equality still does not address lingering issues from historic inequalities. There is no place on Earth that is free of this historic impact, and active measures to address these inequalities are necessary to create a new level playing field by which legal equality can translate to actual, de facto equality.

I feel like we’re saying the same thing. Would you say these are social issues that could be addressed by being excellent to eachother?

How do you get people to be “excellent” to each other? Social programs addressing historic inequalities are the solution.

Like Scholarship programs and Mentorship programs and stuff like that?

Sure! Those are good steps. They aren’t complete, though, and that’s why work still has to be done beyond simply saying “men and women are equal legally, so there’s no more problems to be worked out.”

In the UK women are legally equal.

Trans women in the UK are not even close to legally equal, and that’s just the first group that popped into my head. Imagine how many more women might not actually have equal rights.

The only reason that the word “feminism” conjures up images of wild misandrists in your mind is due to a long running reactionary campaign to make that happen.

Stop letting fascists define the terms of debate.

Every movement has crazies, there doesn’t need to be a consipracy to discredit the movement for that to be true.

I mean there probably is a coordinated effort to discredit it, but there would be crazies either way.

Every movement has crazies

That’s exactly my point. Billionaire funded reactionary media figures always point to the crazy ones and say they’re representative of the entire group. People need to stop falling for it.

True!

I would say yes, but the term is much less often used today than in the past and some people have very strange notions of what it means. I don’t think I’ve ever had the need or opportunity to use it to describe myself, even though I would fit the reasonable definitions.

I understand what you are saying, but you don’t need a lived female experience to be a feminist.

I will declare you one. You are a feminist. Be proud.

Feminism is a social movement, made up of the practical activity of people in solidarity with each other. While centering and amplifying the voices and experiences of women and other victims of chauvinism is absolutely essential, remember that there is an incredible need to organize. Movements need people to take notes, make phone calls, promote campaigns, educate, show up to events, share our own experiences where people we care about were victims of patriarchy, and much much more.

Feminism isn’t just an idea, and patriarchy victimizes men as well as women, though obviously in drastically different ways and to drastically different degrees. Ideas don’t make up social movements, people do. Ideas help us name the world/the problem, which is the first step of revolution, but actual abolition of social structures takes work. Leaving all that work to the victims of patriarchy actually reinforces patriarchy.

Patriarchy and other consequences of class hierarchy are defeated by the contradictions that they create in society. A man who devotes himself to the abolition of male dominant society is the embodiment of such a contradiction. That’s what we are, don’t over think it. Just roll up our sleeves, listen and take good notes, offer to help organize and always center the voices and experiences of the victims of patriarchy.

Maybe but if you forced my hand yes. The following is just my own viewpoint of feminism I have basically never interacted with literature or the community. (Yes I know I need to!)

I believe feminism is more than women’s right. It’s inherently the rights of everyone. The focus on feminimity I would say is because it’s the largest oppressed class under patriarchy.

Women’s rights are linked with trans rights because you must be able to accept the rights of whether or not someone identifies as a woman, a man, enby, or any other type of identity.

It links with men’s rights because not only do men have privelage they also lack freedom of expression which also interlinks with trans rights. Men have privelage but they have also lost the right to decide the kind of man they want to be that doesn’t follow within the narrow perspective of what society expects. That’s harmful to both men and women.

Following in line with the last 2 it links with race because men, women, and trans people are a part of racial minorities. Inherently by treating anyone of a racial minority different you are trampling one someone’s rights be they man, woman, or trans person.

That:'s just big topics without getting into parental rights, the rights of people with disabilities, immigrants, etc.

Following the you don’t necessarily need to know a woman’s experience to be able to acknowledge it’s validity.

More than anything I think to strive for equality for everyone is feminist AF. I might be diluting what feminism is though.

In shorthand, it just means you want equality. It’s practical and makes sense that everyone takes this stance. We should all be feminists.

So many in this thread confusing feminism with egalitarianism. We have different words for a reason.

I am an egalitarian because I believe everyone is and should be treated equally.

I am both a feminist AND an egalitarian, because I believe everyone should be treated equally. They are not mutually exclusive. That also doesn’t mean they mean the exact same thing.

I’m going by the actual definitions and not my own personal take on what they mean. If you feel that then you do you. My only concern is that everyone gets to live happy, healthy, and free from oppression.

I used to, but I don’t think I should any more. I’ve been kicked out of two feminist spaces:

1. Someone said childcare is exclusively a women’s issue, as in men cannot or do not help with it, and I disagreed.

2. Someone said it was hilarious that some men think there are unique challenges men face that women do not, and I disagreed.

So if 100% of feminist groups I’ve joined don’t believe I’m a feminist, I guess I’m not a feminist. I guess you could say I failed the purity tests.

I prefer the term “egalitarian”. Functionally the same, but firmly places the focus on equality regardless of gender, and creates distance from the toxic misandrists who have tried to co-opt the “feminist” label.

Most feminists I’ve talked to about it say they hate people who describe themselves as “egalitarian,” essentially equating it to the “enlightened centrist” meme.

And I hate the misandrists who describe themselves as “feminists”, equating it with the “red pill” guys who turned a metaphor for radical systemic awareness into misogyny.

True, but they seem to dominate every feminist space I’ve been in, so the definition of “feminist” is hard for me to work out; nicer people seem to think it’s 1:1 with “egalitarian,” but then why have two words for the same thing?

So my conclusion has been that I’ll just keep voting and speaking in the interests of making our world treat men and women equally, and just shrug my shoulders at the labels. As I said elsewhere, that’s not enough for some feminists, so they’ll just have to continue disliking me. Misogynists dislike me too, so I’m used to it.

I’m always hesitant of identifying myself as anything. I don’t wanna carry a tag around, cause whenever you do, for some reason you carry the baggage of every idiot or horrible person who also identifies as that tag. I’m a vegetarian, I agree with almost everything vegans say, but damn I’ll never associate with that moment cause the crazies there are too crazy.

Also you gotta understand, yeah there are some crazy feminists out there, but Feminism as a whole has become a fight for survival. If they’re aggressive or obnoxious, just remember there’s a first world country that’s threatening their rights. They’ve already lost their right to abortion, and there’s no saying what else they might loose. So even if you don’t agree with what modern feminists say, just remember they’re somewhere paranoid for their future, and you might be hearing that paranoia, not their unadulterated views on the subject.

Probably more egalitarian than feminist, just because of the bad branding over the years. Same principles still apply, though. Equal rights, equal pay, full maternity/paternity leave, equal draft laws, equal dress/beachwear, etc.

Having differences between genders has always rubbed me the wrong way. People are just people.

Absolutely would call myself a feminist and here’s the reason. Calling yourself a feminist is a declaration that you aren’t in performance for brownie points for men’s sake and you aren’t going to fade to the background the first second the going gets tough. Feminists don’t “hate men” but the fact that their issues get sidelined the minute anybody’s feelings about their personal masculinity gets hurt means most of the time any discussion about women’s issues become about mincing around insecure men.

Feminism is egalitarianism, it is strictly NOT female superiority. The issue with calling feminism egalitarianism is it tends to be a label summerizing the passive part of the movement that asks nothing of people.

Systems that aren’t artificially adjusted just end up replicating the same shit they always had over and over and the adjustments don’t feel fair or equal to the people who have always benefitted before the change. Justice sometimes meaning giving up something to the party in need. Damn near everyone is up for equality in theory, but the moment they are asked to give up anything suddenly it’s women’s superiority. They don’t look at being passed over for the promotion in favor of an equally deserving and more generally underrepresented woman as being just or needed when it’s them who doesn’t get chosen. They still in their heart of hearts believe that whenever a woman comes out on top it’s not because she deserves to be there.

And it’s hard. It’s hard to put justice first. It’s hard to hire someone who isn’t your close personal friend who looks just like you and instead choose someone who acts or looks different who you won’t be as comfortable around. It’s hard to change your culture to be mindful of needs you don’t personally have to make someone else comfortable. The whole POINT is that it’s hard. Everything that is hard for you is a comfort, a point without personal friction you have, a PRIVILEGE that you are purposefully choosing to not cash in on anymore because that privilege was never on the table for someone else.

If you aren’t willing to face the minor discomfort of being devisive and calling yourself a feminist and gaining the ire of other men what other comforts are you not going to give up?

Feminism is egalitarianism, it is strictly NOT female superiority

Exactly, the latter is matriarchy and that’s the one I really want to try out! I don’t think it would be perfect but I am just curious how it would turn out? For science!

Honestly me too. And YES i am biased as hell here. I don’t like people in general and my objective opinion is that power will attract the wrong people regardless of gender.

BUUUT my subjective experience will not let me believe that women in charge would not change things for the better overall. From a purely curious place i would really like to see how it would work out, a failure would be just as interresting to me as a success.

I want to add that i also believe the main problem of patriachy is not the oppression of women but the oppression of “female” coded traits. What i would really like to see is a society that favors empathy and collaboration, i don’t need women in charge for that and i certainly don’t base my support for anyone on their genitals, that would be crazy.

I absolutely call myself a feminist even if the word isn’t maybe entirely descriptive anymore.

This is our fight too.

I wouldn’t, but some definitions I’ve heard fit me, I personally just call it basic decency + common sense

100% I’m a feminist in the original sense of the term, and not the radical (misandrist) way it’s come to be recognised as. As a man I don’t pretend to 100% relate to the BS women have to put up with on the regular, but I can listen, I can empathise, and I can recognise it stems from a society in which men are viewed as “superior” for some reason.

Similarly, I recognise a lot of issues men have also stems from our patriarchal society. For me it’s not about quantifying the harm (although if I had to, hot take but on average I’d say the people not in power have it worse), but about pointing to a problem and saying “This is stupid and causing a lot of harm to everyone, why keep it?”

No.

Yes, I can support feminism without being a woman.

“Not all men,” yes, all men Need all men for what we’re solvin’ Can’t be what it’s been but we’re evolvin’ You see for yourself now get involved in

• Dana Dan by Bloodywood

Fellow cis-gendered male feminist, we outchea

I’m a woman who calls myself a feminist because I don’t want to let the transphobes known as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have the word. (Potentially useful to highlight that whilst not all transphobes are TERFs, all TERFs are transphobes)

Some people are opposed to using the term TERF because of how misogynistic TERF ideology is — they don’t just hurt trans women, but all women. Whilst I agree that their form of feminism is harmful to women everywhere and vehemently disagree with their views, there is no “Council of Feminists” who decree who gets to call themselves a feminist. So if I want to call myself a feminist, it means having to share the room with TERFs. I don’t like that, but I’d rather do it than let them define what it means to be a feminist.

Yes and if someone had a knee jerk reaction to that that gives me valuable info about them. If they want to know more about it they’re free to ask, or make assumptions, doesn’t matter to me how other people feel about the word.

I remind myself that it’s mindfulness, speech and conduct that that matter. Labels by themselves are meaningless.

I don’t have a gender (I lost it somewhere, sorry), and I still call myself feminist.

I think feminism is something more related to the fight against a type of oppression rather than an identity thing.

I once met a girl (or should I say, she once met me), who wore a shirt that said: "Feminism is the radical notion, that women are people, too. "

So, yes, I consider myself a feminist.

Now I have Norwegion Wood stuck in my head

English is my second language, and a lot of my English skills just consist of rearranged song lyrics and movie quotes.

So, what can I say except: you’re welcome!

Yes. Though there are men who just wear the word as a label without changing their behaviour, it’s up to men to set a positive example of how we should treat women and each other.

I grew up being taught feminism is about equality between men and women. It’s not about one sex being dominant over the other. In that sense, yes, I’m a feminist. But unfortunately, I later learned in life that feminism and gender equality is taught differently in different places, or not at all. Feminism has morphed in the minds of many that it’s about women getting privilege.

You mean the propaganda against feminism, worked on you?

Where did I say I am against feminism? Did you miss basic comprehension in preschool?

yeah it’s useful to call yourself a feminist and it doesn’t cost much. you might be overthinking this, do not deprive yourself of future interactions with people who share your values

Of course you’re a feminist, you have feminist beliefs.

I tend to be fairly sensitive, and I haven’t been very successful in quieting my own kneejerk defensiveness when “yes all men” and “male tears” come out. A lot of feminists are justifiably angry but I don’t have to stay in a room where I don’t feel welcome.

So I tend not to label myself a feminist even though I agree with feminists on most things. I vote for feminist candidates, I’ll defend feminism when people tell lies about it, but I can’t be a feminist myself because I can’t participate in it.

Yeah, I consider myself to be a feminist.

Yes, because I view it as part of being a socialist. Uniting the working class means uniting ALL of the working class, and we can only do that through mutual respect and acknowledging and trying to remedy existing biases.

Unfortunately liberal feminism co-opted the movement at the mainstream level and has used it to legitimize the status quo. The fact that there are TERFs or people who call themselves feminists but support capitalism, which impoverishes women, and imperialism, which kills women around the world is insane. It clearly shows that those people don’t actually understand or care about bigotry. At best they want to make their own lives better and at worst they use it as cover to justify those things.

So yeah. I’m more than happy to associate myself with anyone willing to fight for equality, not so much girlboss “feminists.”

EDIT: Also on a personal level, I think something people misunderstand about feminism is that it’s not JUST for women. Men are also hurt by the patriarchy. The flip-side of the societal expectations for women to be passive, emotional, and attractive homemakers is for men to have the pressure of working outside the home, exposing themselves to violence in wars, suppressing emotions and self expression because those are associated with being feminine and if women are lesser, then that also makes them lesser, hence transphobia and less extreme versions of gender policing.

Feminism is good for men too. It’s good for trans people. It’s good for non-binary people. It’s good for anyone who doesn’t fit the rigid expectations society has burdened them with since birth. Even if you consider yourself to be a heterosexual cis man, do you never feel stifled by people not taking your emotions seriously or looking down on you for having them? Do you not wish that you could stay home and see your kids more?

Even for purely selfish reasons men should want to be feminists.