Are YOU a Feminist?

[Placebo]

Poll question: Are YOU a Feminist?

Are you a feminist?

I am a PROUD MALE FEMINIST!

Ask me anything :D

[WindRavenX]

1. hells yes

I want to earn as much as a man does for doing the same job as me; none of this 70 cents to a man's dollar BS.
I want to have control over how many babies I wish to have or not have.
I want to be seen as EQUAL to a MAN in the CONSTITUTION and I WANT to be seen as an EQUAL to all men in this country!

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Feminism..not just for women anymore!

I am proud to support all women!

[sidestreamer]

3. I'm an equalist.

Equal opportunity for all, regardless of gender.

[WindRavenX]

4. that's what feminism is all about

The problem is that we NEED to have feminists and feminist thought because women are STILL second class citizens in many ways in this society; we earn less than men for doing the same damn job and there are many jobs that still are not open to us.
We need feminism until people wise up about that just because we have boobs it doesn't mean we're stupid..

[Placebo]

5. ^ What she said.

:toast: :pals: :toast:

[WindRavenX]

6. As Teresa Heinz said...

...many women are looked upon as being odd creatures for being intelligent and outspoken on our beliefs- we're not "Smart", we're "opinionated". How condescending is that??
Look at how people respond to Teresa- is it a "oh wow, she's well read, traveled, and a lady!" No. It's "she's a crazy feminazi with an accent!! Run!!"
Women act stupid to get male attention. It's sad, it's really sad to see my female colleagues run CIRCLES around our male counterparts, and yet must act ditzy to get any romantic attention.
This needs to change.

[Placebo]

8. I LOVE TERESA!

[WindRavenX]

10. Teresa is fabulous N/T

N/T

[0007]

24. That's the only way to go

[TahitiNut]

107. A secular semi-humanist, huh?

:shrug:

[nolabels]

7. Can't we all just get along?

I have no hang up on what sex is best for what task. The days where physical strength to do toils of heavy work are gone. Mostly machines do all that stuff


(snip)
History of masculism

The first kind of secular response to feminism came from Ernest Belfort Bax, a socialist theoretician in the height of socialism at the beginning of the 20th century, and an associate of Karl Marx. Bax wrote The Fraud of Feminism in 1913, which was in essence the first masculist text. However, the term masculism did not gain usage until the end of the 20th century and even today is sometimes misspelt "masculinism" or even confused with misogyny.

According to some masculists, feminists consider the genders as having the same capacities in virtually every respect and denounce differentiated gender roles as an oppressive artificial construct. These masculists believe, to the contrary, that profound gender differences are inherent in human nature, and claim that feminists who have attempted to negate these differences by legislation and other means are viewed to be taking people through a fallacious experiment. However, this view is also held by many who are not masculists, and there are masculists such as Warren Farrell who celebrate the notion of a gender-free society and fluid gender roles. Many masculists ascribe to feminism the high rates of divorce (see marriage strike), alienation of the genders, female chauvinism, love-shyness, disintegrating communities, fatherless children, high school dropout, drug addiction, consumerism, teenage pregnancy, suicide, violent crime (especially murder), road rage, and overfilled prisons. Others argue that all these points have reasons and origins that are multi-faceted in nature, and that feminism is not the sole cause of this.

Some masculists further state that sexual equality laws (beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964) have resulted in making feminist ideology, as they see it, as mainstream - that such laws serve primarily women and have created significant unconstitutional discrimination against men. While, in their view, some feminists rail against an "all-powerful patriarchy", many masculists consider patriarchy "inevitable". Many masculists accuse feminists of characterizing women as powerless victims of patriarchal oppression, and of using this as a device to justify the negative views they may have of men and the moves seen as the curtailing of men's rights. Some masculists claim that so-called "fascist feminism" has achieved a covert matriarchy by means of such devices, helped by chivalry towards women that itself undermines the notion of female oppression.
(snip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

[WindRavenX]

9. ah yes, more "discriminated white male" stuff...

Some masculists claim that so-called "fascist feminism" has achieved a covert matriarchy by means of such devices, helped by chivalry towards women that itself undermines the notion of female oppression.
LOL, a "covert matriarchy"...:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

12. knowledge is power

Those in the "majority" often feel they are under attack when people strive for equality. As a man, I am not threatened by strong women, I adore and revere them. As a white person, I am not threatened by strong people who are from ethnic minorities, I welcome and revere them. I am proud of who and what I am, and I will work for others to feel that same pride!

Brightest Blessings!

[Comicstripper]

57. Well, technically..

women are the majority.
But i know what you mean.

[nolabels]

17. Actually I was looking for a definition for feminism from Wiki

but I guess it turns into some kind of flame fest or something so they shut it down. I generally do a lot of things around the house myself including caring for our two children's many different needs. I am not as good as the wife on certain things but that's just because she likes to do them more. You probably won't find much contest with me. I only posted that to contrast the original posters.

Mostly there are good reasons for everything that exist, you just have to find them. I have met some people who like a vanilla flavored world but mostly I see them far and in between. Really instead of what everybody else's take on how you think I should be, could there be a place on how you wanted yourself to be?

If you really wonder, look here
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Feminism/Talk

[WindRavenX]

18. that's different though

How gender roles are seperated is not the government's job- say, "men and do this, women can do that".
What you do, be it a "masculine" or a "feminine" job, is your decision IN YOUR HOME.

[nolabels]

21. I mostly fix larger trucks for a living and see no females clamoring..

for my job. I would more than welcome any, but there are almost none. They don't want to get dirty and greasy, scar up their hands etc. I don't care about that, I seen enough dainty men to know it's has nothing to do with ones gender.

A lot of men are pigs when it comes to being fair. Some are worse with females than males at being fair, but it also works the other way around where men in charge are harder on men. Then again vis-versa with women in charge. I am not going to defend men just because I am one, that's ignorant.

I know full well a lot of mess we have in the world today is caused by the bravado crap. Chimpy is a prime example in more ways than one.

Females are a long way off from being treated fair even in the US and not just in jobs or at home. I would say that when the females step up and stop buying into it whatever it is, will be the only time it changes

And I did find that definition

http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Feminism

On edit, title syntax, little tired and i am going to bed :hi:

[REP]

22. We Don't Always Have A Choice

Ask any woman if she really wants to be paid .70 for every $1 her male coworker makes doing the same job, and chances are she'll say not really. Women's bills aren't 30% lower, so sometimes a woman is stuck in a job where she knows she's being screwed, and she isn't in a position to sue or strike.

Sometimes, it's just not worth the time and aggravation to straighten out good ol' boys - like when the car needs work. When a woman tells the mechanic the master cylinder is out, odds are pretty good some mechanics will do a version of "just let me see about that lil lady" and take a car with no brakes out on a busy street. Advising the service manager of why his shop has just lost a customer and finding another mechanic is about the only things to do - even though the service manager may just laugh about the pushy bitch, if he remembers at all. Most women have had to put up with similar indignities with varying degrees of frequency (ever notice that dry cleaners charge more to clean women's clothes than men's, though women's clothing is no more complicated to clean?), and even though each time something should be said, most people have things to get on with and not much time for anything extra.

It would be a big help if more men had the balls to stand up and say, "That's not cool" whenever another guy (probably out of habit, and without malice) does one of things to put a woman down, or questions why a procedure that disfavors women for no reason is in place.

[Eloriel]

64. What else would be a big help is if male DUers would step

right up to the DU plate and denounce all the goddamned sexism that goes on right here at DU, often (not always) in the form of oogling/drooling over women's bodies, looks and sexuality as group sport. Some of the sexism here is much worse than that, coming in the clearly "anti-woman" or misogynist flavor -- these tend to erupt in abortion and legal/criminal issue threads.

In any case, your help would be appreciated. Sexism IS against DU rules, even tho it's not enforced to a very high standard. So feel free to Alert on sexist posts you see.

[truthspeaker]

131. We don't all agree that ogling is sexism.

That's why we don't "step up to the plate".

[nolabels]

69. That's B.S. as far as I can see

You must be giving up too soon or something. My sister is a nurse, a career she decided to take up after her two children were half grown. She now makes twice what I do even though she has been at her career 10 years less. She decided that's what she always wanted to do and now she does it.

She makes three times the income of her husband and he seems mostly content and un-threatened by her initiative. This in a setting of a more rural atmosphere, where roles of mostly opposite. My sister is not that special. Mostly her biggest asset is she has figured out a way to hook her drive up with her dreams for her life. She loves what she does for a living. That does not seem that hard to imagine to me.

On the other hand my wife just tolerated her job when I first met her but now is on a trajectory to pass me in wages in a couple years. This even though I have a good position and at the top worker pay scale at my firm. Mostly hers all started with a little career counseling which I was showing to her from what I learned many years earlier. Now she is even more gung ho about her job than I am of mine

Mostly from what I can tell it's all about the belief in yourself. If you believe what someone tells you about yourself that will be your reality. Grab them things you like and find out for yourself.

Btw some male truck drivers can be the biggest snibblers about getting their truck fixed (and mostly do). It's not a wrong thing being pushy, it is must what you must do to get your car fixed sometimes. A little secret is to offer it to your mechanic as a challenge rather than something you need done.

[REP]

119. Then Get Glasses

If you can't see it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means you're wearing blinders.

As for babying mechanics - if I wanted to deal with babies, I would have had some. It's just easier to do business with competent professionals.

[skygazer]

80. There are other reasons for this than cleanliness

When I was in high school (mid 70's), I very much wanted to take the shop courses and the auto mechanics course. I was told that I could not because I was a girl and could only take home ec. If I hung out with the guys and asked to learn about how an engine worked, I was scoffed at and shooed away. This is the main reason you don't see women in those jobs - there is a climate of discouragement from a young age.

I taught myself how to do simple stuff like oil changes and tire rotation and I used books to do more challenging stuff like changing my water pump or starter. It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I went to work with a friend who had a snowmobile shop and he taught me how to work on 2 stroke engines. Loved it. I like to work with my hands - nothing masculine or feminine about that.

I've worked road construction, I've run heavy equipment (dozer, bucket loader, backhoe, Gradall forklift), worked as a snowmobile mechanic, farmhand, carpenter, logger. I can run a chainsaw like nobody's business (and let me tell you, ol's Chimpy is just posing with his). I am very obviously female, I'm not the stereotypical 'butch' woman in construction. I am considered "pretty" and I am well respected by all the male co-workers I've had in all those jobs, god bless 'em all.

Yeah, I'm a feminist!

[RhodaGrits]

110. It was around 1967 when my mom dragged all of her little

girl scout troop into the parking lot and taught us how to change a tire. She said it would do us all alot more good then selling cookies and damn was she right LOL

[noiretextatique]

75. here's to an OVERT matriarchy

:toast:

[Bucky]

11. I've never heard the term "masculism" before, but it sounds pretty dumb

It also sounds pretty un-defined. Based on all the qualifiers in this article ("According to some masculists; These masculists believe; there are masculists... who celebrate the notion of a gender-free society; Some masculists further state") I have to guess that there could be three leading masculists who fundamentally disagree on nearly everything that masculism is and stands for.

I mean, feminism, at its heart, is about promoting a more equitable society. It sounds to me like the ranks of masculism is divided on this question, which hardly makes for a defineable movement at all. It actually seems to only be a catch-all phrase meaning "thoughtful men who are reacting to feminism in society." That's an interesting group to study, but it hardly makes for an "ism."

[baldguy]

34. "Masculist" - sounds like the "He-Man Woman-Haters Club"

or the "National Organization of Men Against Amazonion Masterhood" aka "NO MA'AM"

[Cheswick2.0]

53. ROFL

[niyad]

13. "masculist" does not show up in any of my dictionaries

[Misunderestimator]

59. It's actually MASCULINIST

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/masculinist.htm

[niyad]

60. then perhaps it should have been spelled so in the article

[Misunderestimator]

61. No argument there.

[Misunderestimator]

66. Actually according to the link I put... it's both

:shrug:

Looks like Masculist is a second spelling of the term.

[lukasahero]

67. The original article says it's masculism noting

"even today is sometimes misspelt "masculinism"".

If it's a take on "feminism", masculism would appear correct. It's not femininism after all. :)

[Misunderestimator]

68. True enough...

[durutti]

123. "Masculism" is to women's rights what "state's rights" was to civil rights

It arose as part of the backlash against the women's movement. It is nothing more than warmed-over misogyny.

I have no hang up on what sex is best for what task. The days where physical strength to do toils of heavy work are gone. Mostly machines do all that stuff

No sex is "better" at any task. Even where genuine average sex differences exist, there's still an immense degree of overlap.

For that matter, the only average sex differences that can be said for certain to be biologically innate are those in upper-body strength, and even then the differences aren't as great as is popularly thought.

[Selwynn]

136. Thank you for stating that truth.

[Grey]

14. yes

I am smart and opinionated, the two are not exclusive.However I am also soft, feminine,worldly, a DU'er, that thinks as an individual, and possibly, no, probably, a radical ( I need help here, equalifier)
What is the word for all things (people) being equal?

[UdoKier]

15. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Saw that on a bumper sticker today. I liked it. We may disagree on some issues, but Yeah, I'll be a feminist.

[niyad]

16. feminsim-- the radical notion that women are people

sorry, posted before I saw the above.

"I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both." -- Pat Schroeder, New York Times Magazine, 1972, in response to a question about being both a mother and a Congresswoman

[eightyferrettoes]

19. Are you single?

AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!! Just kidding. I already have an enlightened guy--

Best thing about being a feminist is realizing how different individual women are from each other... not seeing a homogenized commodity.

[slinkerwink]

20. yes, I am

[Vladimir]

23. I'd like to think so

Feminism is an emancipatory discourse, and not only for women. Men too are degraded by the sexism of the society we live in.

[dave29]

25. My little brother,

who is also gay, was PRESIDENT of his high school's feminist club.

I'm a feminist as well, but I think he has me beat.

[sendero]

26. I wish I knew what Feminism really is...

... it started out being "women should have the same rights men with respect to the law, employment, and other areas of civic life".

Somewhere along the way it got hijacked to mean "women are the same as men except for the obvious anatomical differences". And, "you can't use any words that could be interpreted as demeaning to women, but those demeaning to men are OK".

I'm totally a feminist with respect to idea 1. I don't buy idea 2 for a second, and most people don't and that is why it was so easy for the right to discredit feminism.

I realize my viewpoint is not popular here, too damn bad, I saw this all happen.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. could you give some examples?

I am not sure what words you find acceptable that women object to and why. What are the words women use to demean men and exactly what power do those words have in effecting the real quality of men's lives?
Why do you care if the "right" (some of the worst sexists I know are liberals) discredits feminism. What effect does that have on you?

[sendero]

32. Words like ..

.... "jerk", "bastard", and "prick" affect men's lives about as much as words like "bitch" affect women's lives.

But in general I don't hear men complaining about words but lots of women seem fixated on them.

I claim this is a huge mistake and detracts from the larger argument which is equal rights for women.

[Runcible Spoon]

40. Interesting examples...but...

"jerk" is not instrinsically gendered, "bastard" is also not technically masculine but I will admit I hear it used more in reference to males BUT from a wider social perspective bastard is more a judgment on the moral impurity of the mother, from whom an illegitimate bastard was borne. "prick", "dick/head" I feel is on the same level as bitch but IMHO there is no male equivalent for teh nastiness and vitriol expressed in "cunt".

[sendero]

43. I would argue...

... that "prick" and "cunt" are pretty much equivalent. It's just that vitriol expressed towards men is seen as "justified" and towards women as "pathological".

My basic argument is that these words have nothing whatosever to do with "equal rights for women" and people who insist on hijacking the feminist cause with this nonsense have done it possibly irreparable harm.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. bah

How can women hijack the feminist cause? Do you really feel that you, as a man are the right person to make that judgement?
Again how does someone calling you a prick harm your life? Are you more likely to be violently raped by women who sit around in bars complaining about all the pricks they have known in their lives and suggesting they just need a good f**k to set them straight?

[sendero]

49. I have very...

... little stake in the feminist movement. My wife does just fine and I have 3 sons. I'm merely making an observation, expressing my opinions. I'm trying to be civil.

How does calling someone a bitch harm their life?

When you start bringing rape into the whole discussion you pretty much make me lose interest. You are happy to play to a negative stereotype of men, but GOD FORBID that anyone EVER do the same to women. And if you think that women are all sweetness, purity and light, you haven't been around.

I'll give you the last word because we are simply not going to agree and to continue would only involve repeating the same points which I feel I've adequately made.

[noiretextatique]

76. have you ever been called a bitch by someone twice your size?

yelling in your face because you didn't respond when he said he wanted to:
suck your breats?
touch your ass?
get some of that?
other comments that are too lewd to post here...
and so on...
or have you passed by a group of men who say those things...alone, perhaps on a street where no one else is around?
i have...more times than i care to remember. have you been harrassed by a strange man, called a cunt, bitch, whore, etc...simply because you didn't say hello?
if you don't think that's traumatizing, perhaps you should ask your wife, or you mother, or your sister about it.
some men use sexist slurs to intimidate...because they can.

[Kipepeo]

96. What she said ^ :)

Examining sexism is an important part of feminism. Feminism as a movement doesn't end with "I believe women should have equal rights to men," although it does stop there with a lot of people. The challenging thing is thinking about how all "-isms" play out in day to day life and how to change the culture that creates these interactions. Day-to-day experience of sexism for a woman can vary from being whistled at and called a bitch for not responding, to walking from your car to your house at night and having to clutch your goddamn mace because a man you don't know is walking behind you, to being passed over for a job promotion and told you need to "doll up," to turning on the tv and seeing countless stereotypes of dimwitted women whose value is in how attractive they're deemed by straight men, to being a little girl and noticing that almost everyone scrubbing toilets/cooking/doing laundry in commercials are women, etc. Little things like this on their own can seem insignificant, but it's their totality that's important. And a culture of sexism has negative impacts on men as well, as others have pointed out. The barrage of male-enhancement commercials lately can easily attest to that.

My personal peeve lately is people who spout the Right Wing spin on feminism and yell "oh quit playing the victim!!" when someone tries to discuss these issues. It's not "playing the victim" to point out inequalities or to work to change them. I think of victimhood as seeing a problem but not having the courage to say or do anything about it.

[sendero]

105. I'd like to respond to...

... you and noiretblu who made similar overlapping points.

I'm not going to debate that men in general are more likely to act like assholes. Touching anyone uninvited is assault and it should usually be treated as such.

I can be rude to you and put you down hard without ever using a sexist term. A person who calls someone a sexist expletive because they are angry or offended or just a bully would still be angry, offensive and a bully if they did not use sexist terms.

Expecting a woman to "doll up" as a condition of employement is reprehensible, unless of course her job is to be a model or somesuch where her appearance is what she is bringing to the table.

You are free to feel that sexist words are bad, but as I have tried to point out, many people do not see the connection between equal rights for women and such language. Many people, myself included, also get sick and freaking tired of the idea that only women suffer from sexist language or treatment, and sick and tired of being told "you can't say that", period. I'll say whatever I want and I don't need anyone with a false veil of moral superiority to call me out about it.

[noiretextatique]

106. feel free to use whatever sexist epithets you choose to use

i think you are mistaken if you believe language, attitudes and behavior aren't intricately connected. language not only affects the way we see the world, it also shapes our very perception of it.
as long as some people feel free to denigrate other people, is it so hard to believe that the denigrated cannot achieve equality?
i think social history proves that what i am saying is accurate.

[sendero]

108. when I see...

.. folks with your point of view getting equally exercised about all sexist language, then I might change MY point of view.

Right now, I hear mostly a "it doesn't matter if it's against men, only if it is against women" attitude and that is just hypocritical.

It is kind of like some African-American leaders saying a few years back that blacks could not be racist because they have no power. Bullshit times a million, on both counts.

[Kipepeo]

112. deseo...you are still not making a distinction

between power on an institutional level and power on an individual level. But before I get to that I want to point out something about this sentence of yours:

"when I see folks with your point of view getting equally exercised about all sexist language, then I might change MY point of view."

This reminds me of a recent discussion I had with my (white) father who was spouting the anti-affirmative action line that Bush wants voters like him so desperately to believe. He was talking about how if you get a "point" for race (as some colleges give in admissions in the interest of diversity...just like you might get "points" for playing an instrument, playing a sport, or being the child of an alumni) then that is unfair to white students. He was going on and on about it. But when I asked him, "Ok, but do you think it is fair that students get "points" for having a relative who is an alumni? Because really, that puts people of color at an automatic disadvantage considering that a lot of those schools were white-only for so long," he had to agree that this was unfair and a racist, classist policy. BUT he's still up in arms about affirmative action over legacy. When he moans and groans about something at the bar after work it's going to be affirmative action and not legacy, even though legacy has been around a heck of a lot longer and has given a lot more undeserved boosts to dumbasses...and boosts that go UNQUESTIONED (just look at Dubya and how he got into college). Essentially what both you and my father are saying to me is that even though society is not an equal playing field, and it's still unfairly stacked against women and people of color, you won't consider what it's like to walk in those shoes because you're upset that equal attention isn't paid to the plight of the those populations that hold the power. ?!? Am I reading you right?

Ok, about the individual vs. institutional...I hope you are reading through the whole thread because many have made excellent points about this, but essentially, what you are talking about here:

"Right now, I hear mostly a "it doesn't matter if it's against men, only if it is against women" attitude and that is just hypocritical.
It is kind of like some African-American leaders saying a few years back that blacks could not be racist because they have no power. Bullshit times a million, on both counts."

...is institutionalized prejudice. And what they are saying is not bullshit. You are just not hearing what they are actually saying. OF COURSE *any* person can be individually prejudiced based on race, sex, gender, religion, etc. But if that person lives in a society that *backs up* that prejudice through it's history, it's government, it's business, it's media and entertainment...then that prejudice has a lot more power to hurt.

A teacher I had used to break it down this way, in regards to institutionalized racism: Anybody can have and act on prejudice, but it's Prejudice plus Power that equals Racism. It's the same with sexism. The totality of those who have the power to inflict any prejudice they might have is slanted in some very obvious ways along gender, race, sexuality, class and religious lines. Look at it in the extreme: If every man woke up tomorrow with prejudice against women in his heart women would be in a shit-load of trouble, seeing as how men control government, business, business, media, etc in most of the world. But if the opposite were to happen, well, we would all wake up with an intense prejudice but not have the power to inflict much harm with it.

Do you get how some people make a distinction in their language between prejudice by itself and prejudice plus societal power?

[noiretextatique]

152. thank you, Kipepeo

for your most interesting and informative posts. you know...definitions are a real problem in discussing race and gender here. it's almost impossible to have a disccusion about racism here without the oft-repeated phrase "everybody can be racist" becoming the focus of the discussion. like, DUH: of course everybody CAN BE racist, but :wtf: does that mean in THIS country, considering black and other people of color only got full privileges of citizenship in my lifetime, and i'm 45? that goes for women also. the assumption that "everything's all equal now" and the white men, in particular, are now more oppressed than anyone else is absurd. of course a class of white men have always been oppressed, but they still had it better than women and people of color.
i am also glad that you addressed the absurd notion that to be concerned about language that is denigrating to women and people of color somehow automatically means that you accept denigrating language directed towards white people and/or men. being an advocate for women doesn't mean you are
"against men." sheesh!!!!! anyway...i appreciate your posts, and i look forward to reading more from you. peace :hi:

[noiretextatique]

151. blacks have no power to disenfranchise you

but white people still have the power to disenfranchise black people, among other things. that's the difference between institutional racism and individual racism. when people talk about the POWER to oppress others, that's what they mean...not that a black person can't use racial epithets or otherwise act like an asshole. and again...it surprises me that you can't make that distinction, given the history of institutional racism in this country...it's not like it should be a big surprise.
personally...since i know the power of language, i try to be cognizant of the language i use. unlike many here, i don't routinely use denigrating language.

[Kipepeo]

109. to your response.

"I'm not going to debate that men in general are more likely to act like assholes. Touching anyone uninvited is assault and it should usually be treated as such."

But it's not about men in general being more likely to act like assholes...and that wasn't what I was arguing anyway. You are looking at it on an individual level as opposed to an institutionalized level. It's not that men in general may or may not be more likely to "act like assholes" (as you put it) it's that in a sexist world, the words you (meaning anyone) choose have power. When a man calls a woman a bitch it's much more loaded than a woman calling a man a prick. It's not happening in an equal world. It's not happening in a vacuum.

"Many people, myself included, also get sick and freaking tired of the idea that only women suffer from sexist language or treatment, and sick and tired of being told "you can't say that", period. I'll say whatever I want and I don't need anyone with a false veil of moral superiority to call me out about it."

Of course you can say whatever you like...and women can tell you when they find those words hurtful (and try to explain why), but if your response is only that you are "sick and tired" then I don't expect you're open to any kind of give-and-take or open dialogue or maybe even a new understanding.

[sendero]

111. Thank you...

.... for a reasoned response with points worth considering.

My concluding rant is not precisely indicative of how I feel about all this, it was a bit of hyperbole. I do NOT go out of my way to offend people or make them uncomfortable, especially in a personal meatspace setting, quite the contrary.

But online, there are lots of ideas I fundamentally disagree with. One of them is the idea that as part of "feminism", we must eliminate all sexist language that is "against females". Well, I do agree with your point that language carries a subtext. But I disagree with your conclusion that sexist language against men is inconsequential.

Because it is not. It is all part of a general belief among many women and perhaps society in general that men are all testosterone-poisoned neanderthals who deserve the epithets and stereotypes tossed at them routinely.

This is, IMHO, as untenable as racism or patriarchy. If you are going to permit and condone an attitude about men in general, then don't cry foul when men do the same to women. Men deserve to be judged individually like every other element of society, but they are not.

[Kipepeo]

116. response

eek. I posted #112 before reading this response but I have something to say about this one too.

"One of them is the idea that as part of "feminism", we must eliminate all sexist language that is "against females". Well, I do agree with your point that language carries a subtext. But I disagree with your conclusion that sexist language against men is inconsequential."

Two things here: Firstly I don't think anyone says any part of language must be eliminated, but what I do hear a lot is that it must be called out if it's sexist/racist/heterosexist and discussed and thought about (instead of being used casually by those that it's not disparaging without regard to its implications). Secondly I have NEVER said that sexist language against men is inconsequential and I don't recall seeing anyone here say that. What I *am* saying is that sexist language against women carries a much larger weight in a society that is already slanted against women. (warning: snark ahead) Excuse me if I don't give enough attention to sexist language against men when sexist language against women is carries a lot more power behind it and is reinforced by sexism in government, the media, business and entertainment. I am not saying sexism against men doesn't happen, but it's mostly on an individual (as opposed to institutional) level and is mostly *currently* a way for Repukes to avoid addressing the very real sexism that exists on EVERY-fucking-level against women in this country (the same way they like to yell "reverse racism!" to distract from the fact that we still live in a messed up racist world).

What I'm saying is that until there's an equal playing field, until we've achieved equality of access, then the fight for me is not with the population that has always held power, but with the population struggling to gain that equal footing.

"It is all part of a general belief among many women and perhaps society in general that men are all testosterone-poisoned neanderthals who deserve the epithets and stereotypes tossed at them routinely."

I don't know what to say about this because I don't know anyone who thinks this and every woman I know is a feminist so that gives me a pretty good sample. :) This sounds like Limbaugh-stereotyping and demonizing of feminists imo. Have you read any feminist texts? One of the best intro-to-feminism-kinda books I've read lately is "Feminism is for Everybody," by bell hooks. It's a short quick read and I promise anyone who reads it will get something out of it.

[sendero]

120. Not everything...

... I said in my post was directed at you specifically. I'll tell you flat out, many of the "feminists" around here and in the world at large DO think men are "oppressors" and that sexist language towards them is inconsequential and deserved.

How many times in this thread does anyone acknowledge that sexist language and behaviours cut both ways? When was the last time YOU heard a "feminist" rail against the absolute bullshit treatment men often get in divorce and child-custody cases? All of the achievements towards rectifying sexism have been for the benefit of women, but if a divorce happens, regardless of the reason, unless the mother is a drug addict or mentally ill, she will get custody of the kids even if the father is clearly a better parent. Is that institutionalized sexism? You bet your ass it is. (Custody rules vary from state to state)

"Institutional sexism" is still there, but IMHO it is about 90% less than it was 30 years ago. Is that good enough? No, not really. But some of the measures and factoids used to demonstrate this bias really don't work very well for proving anything. Wages for example. The numbers are not really as indicative as folks say they are because certain factors are not considered in the data. So to be blunt, I reject the idea that there is still this big umbrella of oppression against women in the US today. Corporations exist to make money and the ones run by astute people have learned that women can indeed make them money by doing a job well.

And finally, you and another poster have hinted that I might get my perspective from Limbaugh or other winger media. I find this downright insulting. I listened to Rush about 20 minutes in my entire life, 19 of them over 10 years ago. I don't listen to winger media, or watch it, even to see "what the freepers are thinking" because when I hear these people talk I want to throw the radio/tv in the garbage.

I come by my opinions through observation and life experience. And hypocrisy, even in the name of a good cause, rankles me.

[The Straight Story]

115. Changing culture?

The challenging thing is thinking about how all "-isms" play out in day to day life and how to change the culture that creates these interactions.

Changing culture to our liking - is this the same thing as the US going into another country and changing it's culture to on it views as superior/right? Or the same as christians trying to change the culture here to one they see as right?

Other than the old 'might makes right' mantra, from where do we get our ideas, and how do we get other people to buy into them (short of an evangelism, if you will, to the people)?

To answer that question sometimes we first need to ask a question of people - things like, what makes you happy, what do you feel is the 'right' thing to do, how do you want to be treated, and so forth. The problem I see sometimes is that people (not all, I am talking general here) will bash, say christians (insert group of your liking here) over moral ideas they have and want to see carried out while at the same time wanting to do the exact same thing with their own morals. Our ideas of equality and fairness are more for legislation (such as, you can't discriminate when hiring, et al) but should it end there or should one push to convert others to their moral views on speech, personal conduct (interactions between the sexes/races/et al)?

The left and the right see themselves as morally superior in this regards, and it comes down to a battle of ideas, sometimes they cross paths. We speak of freedoms on the one hand, while wanting to re-educate people on the other to think like we do because we see it as better.

Forgive my babbling if you will, as a libra perhaps I try often to see both sides without a committment to either because both have their merits and downsides. I only wish to discuss, and not deride, the varied issues which crop up in our society.

I have a man from Iran who works for me, his family fled that country due to the harshness of the islamic rules. They wanted freedom and were oppressed by a government run by people who said they knew what was best for him. So I am leery at times of imposing moral values, yet at the same time it is obvious that such is the staple of any society (ie a group of people who come together for a common cause will enact laws which promote that cause). Sometimes it seems to go too far and I think from what I have seen here and elsewhere that others have issues with feminists who have went from ensuring the equal rights under the law and those who have went beyond law to morals which echo religious fervor in their attempt to impose their morality on others.

[Kipepeo]

117. I like

your post, and I am a libra too so I don't mind you testing the scales. :)

I admit straight out that I want to see a change in culture. I want to see a culture that does not denigrate people for who they are, for their race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, class, etc.

But the difference between myself and say, my fundie aunt who wants to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, and interracial marriage (among other things) is that I hold my neighbor's rights in high regard. If my neighbor is a sexist...well, I would hope I'd be able to make one small change just in talking with him/her. But I am not going to fight for the government to outlaw the word "bitch."

[The Straight Story]

118. Agree and thanks

But I am not going to fight for the government to outlaw the word "bitch."

Would have to agree, working to change people, or perhaps add to their view points, is one thing. Making them obey your view is another. We don't need the government to guide us, in the competing arena of ideas I think the best ones will win out if presented properly and to the public at large. We will never get everyone to view the world/social issues as we do, but I guess that is true diversity.

I am a christian by choice (or try to be, I certainly do not live up to the name) but I don't want my views forced on others, such would not be a choice. Making people see your view by punishing them if they don't (through legislation) is wrong imho. Our society is based on a constitution/rule of law which deals with how we govern ourselves, moral matters should be left to the person to deal with for the most part (outside those constructed by a general consensus of the involved parties, ie the people).

We cannot outlaw abortion anymore than we can outlaw terms people speak, if one wishes to change the abortion matter (just as an example) they should work towards getting their view out in a manner people will relate to - but outlawing it (and other things) presumes a moral authority which goes beyond the ideals we hold to be self evident, and those which I see God as having given us - that is, a choice to make our own decisions. When the government starts controlling more and more of our freedoms we lose them, and as a christian I want the right to make my own choices within my own moral construct.

This is not to say there are not morals we can glean from other faiths which are of value to us as a people (and I have been atheist, agnostic, tibetan buddhist, and other faiths) but I feel, myself, that the core value is freedom to make our own choices (but even that can be a tangled web in a broader sense).

thanks to you for your civil reply, after many years of lurking here I am glad I signed up.

[JudgeSmales]

158. Ha ha

I am not a feminist because I am a male. I do not abuse women. I am polite and gracious. But that is as far as I go. If you have had men abusing you then I recommend you call the police because physical abuse to another "Human" is illegal. Plain and simple.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. interesting

Jerk and bastard are non gender related so we can throw those out. Prick is gender related but I fail to see how someone using it effects mens lives. Are you saying that employers sit around calling men pricks and laughing, making it easier not to see men as fully equal human beings and therefor don't hire men for the higher paying jobs?

Words do matter in the fight for qual rights. I think you are just reserving your right to use sexist language.

[sendero]

47. I think the very idea....

.... of eliminating sexist language is tilting at windmills.

However, in the workplace there is no room for harassing language of any kind, and there is law to back this up.

Certainly any medium to larger company has policies in place against this and that is as it should be. I don't work for a company but where my wife works you get one warning about that sort of infraction and if you continue with that behaviour you are terminated - I have no problem with that.

What is acceptable in the workplace is not the same as what is acceptable in society at large IMHO. And taking a fair, just and right idea and embellishing it to the point where others' rights are infringed is a huge mistake.

Here is an analogy. Some spokesman for the African-American community say that AAs cannot be racist because "they have no power". If you buy into that argument then we're wasting our time - we will never agree. In my opinion, the strident feminists, and face it they are the vocal ones that everyone hears, took all of the steam out of the movement when they started in on language and with the absurd idea that men and women are "the same" instead of "equal in the eyes of god and the law". The latter is as obviously true as the former is ridiculous.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. You are right we will never agree

I will fight for the rights or women and minorities while you fight for the status quo. You have bought the arguments and language of the backlash. There for you have become part of it.

[Eloriel]

70. It's hard for me to reply to your posts without

being insulting to you. To outright reject the notion that disparaging language has a negative effect on historically discriminated against classes is so ludicrous, esp. on a progressive board, that it makes me feel REALLLLLLLLLLLLY shrill.

Of COURSE language is a key in fighting discrimination of ALL kinds. When you can speak disparagingly and insultingly about any identifiable group, it becomes far more acceptable to discriminate against them. THAT IS WHY we in polite society do NOT use words like kike, wop, wetback, nigger and many, many others. As a society, we SAY we believe in equality for all; you quite simply can not HAVE equality in an environment where some groups are routinely disparaged via language (which is our ONLY way of discussing and sharing ideas and plans) without it negatively affecting our stated value as a nation in favor of equality.

Why should the language used to describe women be somehow excluded from that? The very idea fills me with rage, frankly. And I can only agree with the poster above (Cheswick?) who said you are merely trying to protect your own cherished sexism and sexist practices by defending sexist language.

Language not only reflects what we think about things and HOW we think, it also AFFECTS what and how we think.

When you (you = anyone) hear or read words, you form mental images in your mind as a result of those words, especially the more concrete (as opposed to abstract) those words are. (Concrete would be chair, stick, dishes, sky and the like; abstract would be honor, integrity, malfeasance, etc.)

When male-centric language included words like chairMAN, it was difficult to impossible for readers/listeners to form a mental picture of a person OTHER THAN a male heading a committee or corporation. When that language, thanks to feminists, began to be more inclusive through the use of the term chairPERSON, it automatically opened up at least the possibility that the person of authority being referenced was a woman, and that made it easier for women to actually BECOME chairpersons.

Similarly the word MANkind. Imagine all the history (and sociology and science and so forth) books all these centuries discussing the achievements of MANkind. Sounds as if men were the only achievers, the only ones doing anything of importance through the ages. And, of course, that's because they liked to make believe that was the case. Routinely, anything women did throughout history was rendered "less than" -- partly because that's the way society (run by men) saw things and so eliminated and ignored the contributions of most women, and partly because that's what their own history and sociology, etc., books fed back to them. It was all so nicely self-referential for MEN.

However, when you read the word HUMANkind, it includes women. You get the idea that women also contributed to the advancement of culture and society, as they have and do.

Language is incredibly important. As I said (and it's worth repeating): it not only REFLECTS how we think and what we think ABOUT, it also affects, for good or ill, what and how we think. It would behoove you to research the subject a little.

I will also add that your notion that feminism involves the claim that there is NO difference, other than anatomical, between men and women is equally ludicrous. That's an ill-informed -- aka: ignorant -- portrayal of feminism.

However, it's important for you to realize that many of the actual differences between men and women have been historically polluted -- actually, perverted -- to force ALL women to conform to what some women are like, which has ALWAYS been a central tenet of feminism. Example: As a generalization about the group known as female, it's true we are by nature more nurturing than our male counterparts. However, this has been used against us in the past to force ALL women into nurturing roles to the exclusion of more powerful roles. We were pretty much forced either to say at home and "nurture" our families, or into nurturing role jobs in the workplace -- nurse, secretary, housekeeper, teacher, stewardESS.

It's far more accurate to say SOME women are more nurturing than men; some MEN are more nurturing than some women. And saying it that way makes it clear that ANY human can do nurturing jobs if that's where their own talents and interests lay, and ANY human can do more powerful jobs if that's where their interests and abilities lay. The same even holds true for obvius physical differences: Most men are stronger than most women; however, SOME women are stronger than some men.

Same for manual dexterity (which had been used against women because they "didn't have enough" to be brain surgeons, and against them again because they were the ones with "better manual dexterity" so they were the ones who SHOULD be typists). On and on it went, with stereotypes about women (and often outright lies about us, too, in the case of "manual dexterity") to keep us in our places, and allow the better jobs to go to men ONLY, and the more powerful roles in society to go to MEN ONLY as well.

Women still have a hard enough job of just trying to be equal in society without the kind of unjustified criticism you are laying on us. What's happening to our youngest women and girls, who try to emulate the likes of Brittney Spears and Christina Aguillara (sp?) horrifies me. This sexual objectification of their own bodies is SO harmful to them. The last thing we need, frankly, is to have to fight these age-old battles again and again with men who SHOULD BE educated on the subject, SHOULD BE willing to forego their own sexist behaviors, and SHOULD BE standing up WITH us against the rampant sexism in this society.

As I've said many times before: you can't call the repugs on their sexism if it's rampant among Democrats as well. And it is.

It's VERY discouraging.

[lukasahero]

74. Wow.

:yourock:

Excellent post. Your argument is both well-reasoned and well-spoke. You have voiced what I have been thinking for years. I'm thinking of printing it out to refer back to as needed.

And, while I don't know what the original poster is going to think, I don't think you were "shrill" (hey, isn't that one of those "loaded" words? ;) ) at all.

[Eloriel]

81. By all means, print it out, bookmark it, whatever

And of course I wasn't shrill -- but I sure as hell wanted to be. :evilgrin: In fact, I probably wanted to be even more than that.

Thanks for your kind words.

[smirkymonkey]

100. Another Great Post from Eloriel!

Thanks for saying what most of us are thinking and are unable to put quite so eloquently!

[Buck Turgidson]

126. Recommended reading

The F-Word: Feminism In Jeopardy - Women, Politics and the Future by Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner

http://tinyurl.com/4bfqx

She believes that young women are an under-represented constituency with the potential to be a political force for good in the US and the world.

[noiretextatique]

78. individual vs. institutional racism

when people say no group can be racist in america, except the dominant group, they are referring to institutional racism, not individual racism.
like eloriel, it never ceases to amaze me that even on DU, people still fail to understand the difference between the two definitions.

[Eloriel]

82. Hi, noiretblu

Haven't seen you for a while, have I? Or did I just miss you. In any case, good to see you now.

:hi:

[noiretextatique]

95. hey eloriel

:hi: i have been around. great to see you, as always :loveya:

[Behind the Aegis]

161. great post!!!

I agree with you!! However, it comes down to people misuse words and thus they become confused. Outside of the issue of racism, look at how people will use Muslim and Arab interchangeably. The same has happened with "racism." It is often used to mean bigotry. People then become befuddled when they hear, "Blacks cannot be racist to white people." That statement is true, but blacks can be bigoted to whites. So when some use the term "racist," they actually mean "bigoted." Of course, to make it more confusing, when people accept that blacks cannot be racist to whites, they draw the incorrect conclusion that blacks cannot be racist at all. Again, not true, as blacks can be racist to other blacks (the power base at the institutional level is the same) or to, say, Native Americans (the power base favors blacks in this case). Therefore, in my diversity presentations, I tell my participants, to avoid all the confusion, use the term "bigot," as it knows no race and anyone can be a bigot!

On the issue of feminism, I am surprised to see so many people here who equate it with female domination! It is not about that at all! It is about equality. The idea we need a similar movement for men is as ludicrous as needing a "white history month" or a "straight pride" parade! Whites and straights get plenty of support through everyday education. And, as for men, we also get the same attention. The interesting thing about feminism is that it does not exclude men, but helps understand the role of men in creating an equal society.

Brightest Blessings!

[Pithlet]

79. It's easy for the right to condemn feminism

because we call men names, or we say it is okay to do so? That is ludicrous.

Feminism isn't about calling men names. There is enough name calling on both sides. Point to me a feminist movement that is all about calling men names.

It isn't okay to call names, but derogatory terms for a group that has been oppressed has a lot are more loaded because of history. I'm sorry your group has been on top, and therefore terms regarding their sex aren't considered as bad by everyone. But, you know what? Given a choice, I think most people would rather not be the oppressed minority, names or no.

No one likes to be called names. I certainly don't like to be referred to as a "breeder". But, I'm not going to slam the whole equality movement and boohoo about how rights for equality just means it's okay to call heterosexuals names. I'm sorry, but that is absurd.

[no_hypocrisy]

27. Feminism is often mistakenly confused with female superiority.

It sometimes happens, but the concept is gender neutrality and equality either way.

[Bettie]

29. Yes, I am

And I am raising my two sons to be that way too.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. Feminizi and not backing down

I have tried the other methods and I am running out of time. I want a woman President in my life, so I can leave the world knowing the USA has finally joined the rest of the civilized world. I have another 30 or 40 years left but I am afraid that is not long enough. Except for the current backlash against women, I don't think I would be so discouraged.

[WillyT]

31. Yes !!! - How Can Any Thinking Person Not Be ???

:shrug:

[smirkymonkey]

101. As Gloria Steinem said, "If you are a woman

and you're not a feminist, you're a masochist."

Real men are not threatened by real women! :)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

35. "feminazis"???? Tell Rush I said

"Go Cheney yourself"

Thanks ;-)

[slinkerwink]

39. "feminazi" is a REPUBLICAN right-wing term

Feminism IS about equality between genders----that's basically what it is.

[prolesunited]

42. Oh, please elaborate here

Tell me about your experiences with the "feminazis" and tell me more about how women are sexist against men.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. What exactly is ridiculous about it?

What is ridiculous?

[Selwynn]

54. LOL - I didn't even see the message and it pissed me off! :)

Hehe just looking at the responses, I can tell this message was lame. :)

[JNelson6563]

36. Humanist here

:toast:

[Cheswick2.0]

48. As soon as women have equal rights because they are considered

fully human, I will join you. Until then Julie, humanism is a meaningless word. It doesn't protect either women or minorities from the excesses of the dominate white male power system.

[JNelson6563]

62. It means a lot to me

I guess that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. I believe in rights for all humans. Equal rights. I consider myself a secular humanist. Sorry to read that you feel that what I hold dear is "meaningless".

Julie

[Donkeyboy75]

99. No, humanism is equal rights for all.

It's true that women don't have equal rights, and aren't treated fairly by society. That would, by extension, make a humanist a feminist for all intents and purposes.

One could argue, cheswick, that if you are a feminist, you don't care about minorities. How many terms do we need? Do we need to call someone a feminist-civil rights activist? No. I think humanist sums both up perfectly.

[Mad_Dem_X]

37. Damn straight!

I'm a feminist and (unlike some of my peers) I'm not afraid to admit it! :hi:

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Shallah Kali]

41. I am a Feminist

I would only say I am pro Human Rights but so many seem to assume that doesn't include equal rights for women. For me Feminism means equal rights to men. I am not worth less as a human being simply because I have a few different bits here and there.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. you are right....Humanismist mean never having to recognise

the way women are still not equal in the world. In fact people not only don't care, but they don't even SEE the facts.
We only invade another country for genocide against men. We NEVER SEE the genocide against women. That can go along for decades and as a nation we do nothing. Did we ever bring sanctions against a nation which treats women with all the status of dogs such as Saudi Arabia? Did we care before 911 that women in Afghanistan were murdered by their families on a regular basis for such crimes as having been raped?

[Selwynn]

52. First, Second, Third wave feminism, feminist theory --

I get the distinct impression that more than a few don't necessary fully understand the different dimensions of feminism, or the fact that it is rooted not in mid twentieth century activism, but in intellectual roots that spawned that activism. But that doesn't matter - I just wanted to point out that there is a lot about feminism to know.

I appreciate the contributions of feminist theory to philosophy and other forms of academic scholarship and believe that the critique against modernism it offers is sound and needed.

I strongly support the values and work of the social feminist movement in most all forms, and I furiously reject the fringe male backlash that tries to argue that men are now the exploited sex. Looking at our society and how it treats woman even today and making a claim like that is just incredibly offensive.

I am a male, and I am strongly, actively, outspokenly incredibly pro-woman! I call myself a feminist because I believe that the principles, philosophical concerns, and social concerns of feminism do not have gender boundaries. However sometimes some woman take issue with me using the term like that and their points are not wholly without merit. Whatever the label I adopt, the bottom line is I fully and wholly support the advancement of women, the elevation of women's social status, the reshaping of social views about women, the philosophical critiques and contributions of feminist philosophers, and so on.

[Eloriel]

72. In that case,

will you marry me?

:D

Just kidding, I found my own male feminist, tho it took 2 tries. ;-)

WELL said, Selwynn, and thank you.

[Selwynn]

84. Yay - at least someone is offering! :)

Looking for that inspiring, independant, woman still... :)

[Eloriel]

94. You'll find her

I promise. There are a gazillion of 'em looking for a man like you.

:loveya:

[niyad]

55. feminism defined and explained

Feminist Utopia: Feminism Defined
What follows are different branches of feminism theory that are recognized by feminists and feminist scholars. These different theories of feminism are widely acknowledged and taught in women's studies courses, gender studies courses, and the like.

Like many, I also recognize that people have created their own definition of feminism to best suit them. The definitions here are theorectical, and are an example of the diversity among feminists. See where you fit in, or even if you do.

Feminism

Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially.

This is the core of all feminism theories. Sometimes this definition is also referred to as "core feminism" or "core feminist theory." Notice that this theory does not subscribe to differences between men and women or similarities between men and women, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering women's causes. Most other branches of feminism do.

Why you believe in feminism and what your ideas are to make feminism a reality is what causes arguments within the feminism movement.

You may find that you believe in the theory of feminism, but do not see yourself fitting into the branches of feminism below, that is common. You can believe that women and men should be politically, economically and socially equal for your own reasons and hold your own ideas pertaining how you can make that happen. If that is the case, then generally you can consider yourself a feminist.

Feminist

One who believes in the theory of feminism that is mentioned above.




Amazon Feminism

Amazon feminism is dedicated to the image of the female hero in Greek mythology, as it is expressed in art and literature, in the physiques and feats of female athletes, and in sexual values and practices.

Amazon feminism focuses on physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look, or behave as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless. Amazon feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of heroic womanhood.

An Amazon feminist, for example, would argue that some people are not cut out physically to be a fire fighter, serve in combat, or work in construction. Whereas some people are physically capable of doing such jobs. No mention of gender is made, as the jobs should be open to all people regardless of gender. Those men and women who are physically capable and want to, should pursue such jobs. Amazon feminists tend to view that all women are as physically capable as all men.

Cultural Feminism

The theory that there are fundamental personality differences between men and women, and that women's differences are special and should be celebrated. This theory of feminism supports the notion that there are biological differences between men and women. For example, "women are kinder and more gentle then men," leading to the mentality that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. Cultural feminism is the theory that wants to overcome sexism by celebrating women's special qualities, women's ways, and women's experiences, often believing that the "woman's way" is the better way.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism is a theory that rests on the basic principal that patriarchial philosophies are harmful to women, children, and other living things. Parallels are drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchial culture, eco-feminists believe they are also resisting plundering and destroying of the Earth. They feel that the patriarchial philosophy emphasizes the need to dominate and control unruly females and the unruly wilderness.

Ecofeminism states that the patriarchial society is relatively new, something developed over the last 5,000 years or so and that the matriarchial society was the first society. In the matriarchial society, women were the center of society and people worshipped Goddesses. This is known as the Feminist Eden.

Feminazi

This term was made popular by the radio/tv host Rush Limbaugh. A feminazi is defined by anti-feminists as a feminist who is trying to produce as many abortions as possible. Hence the term "nazi." Limbuah sees feminists as trying to rid the world of a particular group of people (fetuses).

Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism

Individualist feminism is based upon individualism or libertarian (minimum government or anarchocapitalist) philosophies. The primary focus is individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence and diversity. Individualist Feminism tends to widely encompass men and focuses on barriers that men and women face due to their gender.

Material Feminism

A movement in the late 19th century to liberate women by improving their material condition. This movement revolved around taking the "burden" off women in regards to housework, cooking, and other traditional female domestic jobs. The Grand Domestic Revolution by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a reference.

Moderate Feminism

This branch of feminism tends to be populated mostly by younger women or women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They tend to question the need for further effort, and think that feminism is no longer viable. They often view feminism as embarrassing (it's thought that this is the group most likely to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist").

N.O.W. Feminism (also referred to as Gender Feminism)

My own term for the type of feminism the National Organization for Women represents. This theory is based on the notion that in order for men and women to be equal (as the core of 'feminism' states), women must be granted some special privilages, and men should not be an issue in feminism.

This could be exemplified by N.O.W. publicly supporting women who wish to enter traditional all-male scools. While N.O.W. will take strong and loud stands to support that, they are silent regarding men being able to enter traditional all-female schools. Another example could be how N.O.W. is quick to support women as public icons who are victims of sexual harassment, yet offer no public support for men as pulbic icons who are victims of sexual harassment. In both instances, N.O.W. feminism encompases only women and fights to offer special privilages to women with the intent of making women equal to men.

Pop-Feminism

Pop-feminism is often mistaken by people to be feminism in general... the negative stereotypical man hating ideology. There is no proof that such feminists exist, I have yet to meet a feminist who hates men and indeed, many men are feminists. But, if such a category of feminists exist, they should be referred to as 'pop-feminists.' This would be the type of feminism that degrades men in all manners and glorifies women.

Radical Feminism

Radical feminism is the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism. Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, and no longer serves to solely define the term, "feminism."

This group views the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions.

Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines between biologically-determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior in order to free both men and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles.

Separatists

Separatists are often wrongly depicted as lesbians. These are the feminists who advocate separation from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. Women who organize women-only events are often dubbed separatist.

The core idea is that "separating" (by various means) from men enables women to see themselves in a different context. Many feminists, whether or not separatist, think this is a necessary "first step," for personal growth. However, they do not necessarily endorse permanent seperation.

It is inaccurate to consider all lesbians as separatist. While it is true that they do not interact with men for sexual fulfillment, it is not true that they automatically shun all interaction with men.


http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/ecocult.shtml

[smirkymonkey]

102. Thanks for the post and link!

It's very helpful to distinguish between the types of feminism, although I believe that all these approaches have contributed greatly to our general understanding of the humanity of 1/2 the population.

[Selwynn]

138. The definition of feminist *theory* is utterly wrong

This makes me seriously question the rest of the content

[seabeyond]

56. we did same with feminist as we allowed with liberal

bad me. so proudly i say feminist here, ya got issue with, wink. and any guy that wants to be a feminist, oooosh, no better turn on for a woman than a male feminist. so dont let those ball grabbing males tell you john wayne is what us women want. eeeewwwww

[jukes]

58. YES

female subjugation is criminal.

[lukasahero]

63. Showing my age here but

I proudly announced at the age of 7 that I was a "woman's libber". I always liked that phrase - woman's liberation. No implication of superiority (of which feminists are, I believe unjustly, accused) - just liberation from the stereotyped roles we were being defined in.

At 7 years old I knew there was no reason for me to be thought of as less than any man or boy just because of my gender. From the mouths of babes, huh?

[expatriot]

65. I voted yes, but I prefer the term "androgynist"

It is pretty much feminism, but is a bit different.

an analogy is the difference between black nationalism and black marxism, they have the same enemy just a different ideological framework.

[Chovexani]

71. As a woman in America today

I have no choice but to be a feminist.

[noiretextatique]

77. i second that

it's a requirement as far as i'm concerned.

[Ilsa]

73. You bet. And I thank older women who paved the way

for me to be successful in everything i undertake.

I was reminded of their struggles 24 years ago when I was just starting my career and a female SVP reminded me that it wasn't always so good for women.

Yesterday, a new grandmother told me how she had to fight her pediatricians in order to breastfeed her babies 35-45 years ago. She had to fight an established male medical culture to do what her body told her was the right thing.

[rene moon]

83. I am and always will be.

It's about equality for all of us.

[Frangible]

85. I don't know, what do you define the word to mean?

I think everyone should be treated equally; equal pay, equal rights, equal standards in society. However, not many people will agree with me. I think women should be able to be drafted as men are.

Most of society doesn't want equality for women. It wants to protect them from the draft and dangerous jobs. A man who has sex with a lot partners is admired, a woman is scorned.

There are different expectations for men and women in society. I don't agree with that. I don't think gender should matter and people should be judged as individuals.

But I realize such an opinion puts me in the minority, not the majority.

[Pithlet]

87. Too much emphasis on the draft

I honestly don't know how some people can complain that women can't be drafted, when women still don't have equal pay for equal jobs, and we can't even pass the damn ERA. To me, the draft isn't even close to being relevant until we've had equality, and we've had it long enough to know that it isn't just some trend that will be easily reversed when enough of the wrong people gain power. Personally, I'm against the draft for all, but it is annoying to me that it almost always gets brought up when discussing equality. It's like looking at a sapling, and talking about building a house. We're years away.

Further more, I don't know of too many feminists that want dangerous jobs to exclude women. How many more female firefighters do you hear about now, as opposed to twenty years ago? And who's fault is it that women are scorned when they have multiple partners? The feminist movement? I hardly think so.

[Frangible]

89. It was just one example

Society currently has some sort of focus on "protecting" women. And I never said discrimination was the fault of the feminist movement. I just said it was something I don't agree with.

I just think everyone should be treated equally and judged as individuals, not part of a group.

[Pithlet]

90. Well, of course

But, it does no good to ignore that the inequality is there. Because enough people DO judge according to what group a person belongs to, that has to be addressed. Simply saying "ALL people should be equal" in response to a call for equality does no good, and doesn't address the problem. Most people who are progressive can agree that all people should be treated equally.

Your post wasn't entirely clear, or I misread it. It appeared as though your points were complaints against the feminist movement.

Edited to remove a copied link. :crazy:

[Frangible]

91. Sorry if I was unclear

No no, I was mostly trying to refer to the double-standards for men and women that a lot of our society has. Such as the point about sexual partners. Women have a lot of obstacles that men do not. I don't know what the solution is. Awareness of the issue has helped though, as studies show newer generations tend to treat people more equally.

It's a massive problem encompassing a lot of society's deep-rooted prejudices, and I don't think it's ever easy to change such things.

[DrWeird]

86. Absolutely.

nt

[Generator]

88. Yes

And I love that picture of Kerry, btw!

Also, our man Kerry married as his second wife a woman five years older than him. That doesn't happen much with men in their fifties.

Now back to your regularly scheduled squabling about that chick thang called Feminisism. Darn tooting men can be feminists too, who knew? :)

[liontamer]

92. absolutely

Who's saying no?

[ronnykmarshall]

93. Yup

I was a member of NOW when I was in high school.

My mom was confused when I would get mail address to "Ms. Ronny K. Marshall".

[HEyHEY]

97. Feminism: I think it's about time they put a man on the job to get it done

*DUCKS*

Just kidding!

Iwouldn't say I'm a feminist, I'm a humanist...just equal rights and respect for all.

[Placebo]

98. Great to see the poll numbers so high!

Would be happier with 100% 'Yes' though. :bounce:

[Tight_rope]

103. Hell Yeah...And?

[TowelBoy]

104. I would say mostly yes

But I have no problem oogling over females like some would tell me is bad!

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

113. Yes!

I scream at people at my school for being sexist/homophobic. We all need to be equal!

[NightTrain]

114. Fuck yeah!

I may not always behave like a feminist, but I sure as hell am one, y'all!

[Mike Niendorff]

121. No, I am not.

I believe in women's rights.
I believe in men's rights.
I believe in human rights.

To the degree that any philosophy rejects or fails to recognize the importance of any of the above, I reject that philosophy.

Thus, I am not a feminist.


(on edit: I expect that this post, if replied to at all, will generate all the usual "well you just don't understand feminism" responses. In reponse to those expected replies, let me simply say : yes, I do understand it, I've studied feminist theory, I've had this discussion repeatedly with self-proclaimed feminists both in person and online, etc, etc, etc, and, when all is said and done, I stand by my assessment 100%. Flame away.)


MDN

[durutti]

122. Interesting...

One would think that one who's so thoroughly familiar with the subject matter would be articulate some reason why s/he feels that feminism rejects women's, men's, or human rights. But alas...

[Misunderestimator]

127. And would not use a term like "self-proclaimed feminists"

which all by itself indicates to me that s/he doesn't understand feminism.

[Mike Niendorff]

130. You're not listening, are you.

See, this is why I rarely bother with gender-issue discussions anymore. People are very quick to pass judgment on perceived heretics, latching onto any convenient excuse they can find, and very slow to take the time and digest the actual complaints being registered.


MDN

[Misunderestimator]

134. Maybe you're not reading?

You used the term "self-proclaimed feminists"... I'm curious why you didn't just say feminists. In any case, it looks like you were itching for some criticism with your "Flame Away" closing.

[Mike Niendorff]

141. *sigh*

<ridiculously pedantic explanation follows>

I used the term "self-proclaimed" because I prefer that to saying "well, I thought this person was a feminist by my definition of the term, but s/he preferred 'proto-neo-semi-anarcho-...-ist', so let me digress for several hours on all the subsets and potential definitions of this particular label before I actually get around to making my basic point." Where self-identification is made, and where it matches with a reasonable understanding of the term in question, I consider that a settled matter. Having agreed upon such foundational matters, the discussion proceeds from there.

</pedantic explanation>


Now, as to me "itching for a fight": I'm not "itching" for it, but, based on past experience, I was expecting it (and, of course, here it is). Anyway, since I'm going to bed shortly, I just figured I'd give people permission to do what they're going to do anyway.


MDN

[Misunderestimator]

142. Good night

[Mike Niendorff]

128. ok, since you want examples, let's start with a glaring one:

Prison rape.

There are over 2 million prisoners in the United States today. Over 90% of them are male. Depending on which study you believe, up to 1/3 of these male prisoners will be sexually assaulted and/or raped while in prison. This makes male victims a significant portion of the victim population for rape and sexual assault. Now, tell me which feminist author even *acknowledges* this fact, let alone deals with it for the epidemic it is?

Since I first logged on to DU, I've been trying to draw people's attention where I can to the issues created by today's mass-incarceration system. This is one of those issues. Since Florida 2000, it seems some here have finally caught on to at least one aspect of our mass-incarceration situation (voting rights), and I'm glad for people are finally starting to wake up. But, to be perfectly honest, there's a big self-interest aspect to this, since Repubs are clearly using felony disenfranchisement laws to pare the rolls of tens of thousands of Democratic voters. And let's face it: it *took* that self-interest angle to wake up a lot of otherwise-complacant people here to something that has been going on under their noses for a long, long time. The situation with prison rape and sexual assault is very, very similar. The victims simply are invisible, and it's apparantly in nobody's interest to do anything about that. The feminist movement, while doing a notable job addressing *female* sexual victimization (and I applaud them heartily for that), have still essentially ignored this very large (and increasing) epidemic of *male* victimization.

It doesn't just happen in Abu Ghraib, folks. It happens here in America. Every day. It's just that here in America, nobody's taking pictures. (Think those correctional officers shipped to Iraq only picked up a willingness to abuse prisoners once they got overseas? Think again.)

The rationalization, at the end of the day, goes a lot like this: "but we're feminists! men's issues just aren't our area of concern". All of which makes my point for me.


MDN

[durutti]

129. Angela Davis, for one...

More later.

[Selwynn]

147. Thats like asking why planned parenthood isn't fighting for Haitian rights

Just because Planned Parenthood isn't actively involved in every critically important issue in the world, doesn't mean that they hate or are against all the other people behind those issues. Planned Parenthood isn't defending prisoners or discussing the subject of prison rape either - why? Because that is not their focus, it has nothing to do with not caring or believing that its OK that man get raped in prison.

The same thing is true of feminism. Pointing to certain issues in the world that are NOT their focus and then criticizing them for that is ridiculous.

Now, I challenge you: cite some examples where "feminism" has come out and said that its OK that men are raped in prison, or said that it's not an issue that matters. But I don't think you can't.

Just because any one group is not able to champion every issue out there that needs a champion in no way shows that they support other injustices. Arguing that was is jaw-droppingly irrational.

[Misunderestimator]

149. Well said, Selwynn.

..."jaw-droppingly irrational" indeed.

[Mike Niendorff]

157. You've just made my point for me. Thank you.

As I said: any philosophy that rejects or fails to recognize the importance of either women's rights, men's rights or human rights is not a philosophy I will support.

You have just completely and totally confirmed my argument on that front, although I'm pretty sure you don't now (and will never) realize it.

The basic reason is this: despite your assertion to the contrary, this *isn't* a case of two completely unrelated and distant concepts that have nothing to do with each other (a la "Planned Parenthood vs. Haitian rights", to cite your analogy). On the contrary: it's a matter of how a movement for whom sexual violence is a primary issue has chosen to deal with two classes of victims when the ONLY differentiating factor between them is the victims' gender.

As you so aptly demonstrate, the difference in response is glaring and inexcusable:

Female victim? Central issue, appropriate outrage, appropriate action.
Male victim? Might as well be talking about "Haitian rights", not our problem, go away.

This was *precisely* -- *to the letter* -- the point I was trying to make. You have just confirmed it, *precisely* and *to the letter*.

So, next time someone asks me to why on earth I refuse to classify myself as a feminist, I'll just save time and point them to your post.


MDN

[Selwynn]

160. It has nothing to do with failing to recognize anything

It is impossible for anyone - including you my friend, to place equal emphasis on every issue that needs attention. Period. And that is the obvious point for anyone who cares to entertain an rational thought.

It's a good thing that there are a wide array of organizations out there *specializing* in the needs of others. Simply because Planned Parenthood doesn't have the capacity to *both* champion the cause of animal rights *and* invest in the absolutely important causes they do is in no rational way a reason to criticize them. In fact, we should be thankful they spend money where they spend money, because the need is so strong.

Refusing to support Planned Parenthood and the work that is part of its charter on the sole grounds that it is not able to both address all the other needs in the world and properly address the needs that are part of its charter is ridiculous in the extreme.

If you'd care to point me to any examples of feminists defending the rape of anyone in prison, then you would have a rational point. But you can't. What's more it is decidedly *UNTRUE* that no feminist ever address the issue of prison abuse, including specifically the issue of sexual violence in prison, including pointing out the pervasiveness of the problem against males. A poster above already gave you one example of that, there are others.

So in addition to your entire premise being wrong, even if it was true that there is little discussion of the problem in that circle, that only points back to the obvious fact that no person or group is capable to giving equal attention to every issue in the world. We have to look at where we feel our particular knowledge and gifts can be best used, and work there. Rather than bitching about feminism, you should be glad that the broad and diversified movement addresses real issues that matter, support that, and then continue on in supporting whatever other organizations pursue the issues that are most on your heart.

The fact remains that your original argument that you don't support groups that don't support all rights is bullshit. Point me to a feminist of any kind that defends the rape of any prisoners, male or otherwise. It is not possible for any person or group to devote equal attention to every issue in the world. But what's more, if you were actually as versed in feminists scholarship as you claim, you would know that sexual violence across both genders - against male and against female is a frequent subject. The fact that you don't know that leads me to conclude that your opinions are based more on supposition and stereotype than they are on actual knowledge.

Now, I notice you've ignored my other post. Feel free to address that one as well.

[Pithlet]

153. Rationalization is one word.

I'd call it something else. No one can proclaim themselves feminists because prison rape exists? That makes absolutely no sense.

I bet if you took a poll, a majority of feminist would be against prison rape, and would agree that something should be done about it. Just because it doesn't fall under the cause of feminism specifically doesn't mean it invalidates feminism. It doesn't mean that feminists don't also care about that issue. That's like saying world hunger negates the pro-choice movement. Why, you can't be pro-choice AND care about world hunger! If you're fighting for the pro-choice movement, you must not care about those who go hungry!

You come into this thread proclaiming that you're not a feminist, just oozing with "I dare you to challenge me, you self-proclaimed pro prison rape feminists!" This is one of the most absurd things that has happened in the feminist threads here on DU.

[Mike Niendorff]

159. Another convenient misreading of my words.

But what else is new, really.

Go back and re-read what I wrote, because your mischaracterization of my argument bears little or no resemblance to it.

What I'm saying is simply this : when a movement adopts sexual violence as a primary cause, but then proceeds to differentiate among classes of victims based on gender, deeming some important and others irrelevent ("not our problem"), that movement *cannot* lay claim to being an egalitarian movement.

My rejection of feminism is *specifically* because of its rejection of egalitarianism in favor of this feminocentric bias. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are not bothered by that, but I am -- just as I would be bothered by a self-proclaimed gender-equity movement that adopted an androcentric bias and then proceeded to disregard female victims of sexual violence. Neither movement would speak for me as an egalitarian, and neither does.

Regardless, I think I've banged my head against this wall long enough here. Brand me a heretic, a woman-hater, a knuckle-dragging closet freeper, or whatever else you like. I stand by what I've said.


MDN

[Selwynn]

144. Claiming that feminism wholesale rejects mens rights or human rights is

a claim that simply won't stand up to scrutiny, whether you add an edit that basically says "don't confuse me with the facts, I know I'm right" or not.

You've studied feminist theory - really? In what capacity? Describe for me the nature of that study? Can you give me a one paragraph definition of feminist theory in your own words? What feminist theorists are you familiar with and what works of theirs have you read?

You make consider these offensive questions, but I believe I'm more than within my rights to ask them, seeing as how you claim to be well versed.

I would also like you to provide specific examples where feminist theory on the whole fails to recognize the importance of any rights? Otherwise I reject your position as baseless.

I would also respond that any grouping of people will have individuals who don't represent that group well. Good democrats have Zell Miller. Good Christians have the fundamentalists right. However what matters is to evaluate the theory, principles and structures behind feminism and to understand the difference between social feminism and feminist theory - which is philosophy - and also to understand the differences even within social feminism or feminist theory.

There is nothing at the structural level that undermines the rights of anyone. And I defy you to point to structural information which contradicts that. In practice, it is possible that there are some who don't value the rights of all, though I've personally never seen it. But I can certainly accept the possibility that they exist. However, that has to do with rejecting individual application/practice of feminism and nothing to do with the principles of feminism themselves.

Sel

[truthspeaker]

124. I think I am because I support equal rights for women.

But some (not all) feminists disagree because I enjoy looking at attractive women and talking about how it makes me feel.

[Misunderestimator]

125. I don't know a single feminist who would claim that you're not

just because you find a woman attractive. I think if you focused ONLY on that aspect and used words like "hot chick"... then maybe I understand. :shrug:

[truthspeaker]

132. see Reply #64

Apparently there is rampant sexism at DU.

[Misunderestimator]

133. I read it before and I just read it again... and I don't see how

you can interpret that the way you seem to be doing. There HAS been rampant sexism in threads here, though thankfully not much that I've seen recently. Of COURSE it would be great for men to be more aware of the words they use. Perhaps taken entirely out of context, if you somehow missed the "sex-wars" here a few weeks ago (though I don't think you did)... then I could understand you not understanding where she's coming from.

[truthspeaker]

135. I saw the sex wars and my take is different from you

I think we have different definitions of sexism. I don't think I've seen anything on DU I would classify as "sexism". To me sexism is perpetuating gender roles, limiting employement and education opportunities for women, and restricting contraception and abortion. Sure, some men judge women based solely on their looks; some women judge men based solely on their looks. Ever see a fat bald guy get hit on in a bar? If so, please tell me which bar!

[Misunderestimator]

137. You haven't read ANYTHING on DU that you consider sexism?

:wow:

[truthspeaker]

139. Nope. Unless you count freeper troll posts.

Can you give me an example?

[Misunderestimator]

140. Nope... there were hundreds... if you didn't recognize it before...

what would be the point of giving you the same examples now? :shrug:

[truthspeaker]

143. Because I didn't see them the first time? I'm trying to understand you.

Granted, a lot of posts may have been deleted by the time I logged in in the morning.

[Misunderestimator]

145. I meant during the "sex-wars"... not recently

[truthspeaker]

148. OK, maybe I missed all the sexist posts.

But for the record, I don't consider "This woman is hot!" to be sexist. Nor do I consider my previous expression of my desire to see under Cate Edwards's skirt sexist.

[Misunderestimator]

150. No thanks... I'm full. Couldn't eat another bite of bait.

[rene moon]

154. You are being a tool

that is all.

[Pithlet]

155. Honestly

Are you really ready to toss aside a good portion of feminism, or at the very least, come into a feminism thread and question some of its merits, or question how much of a feminist you may be, because you perceive that some won't let you say you find a woman hot?

I mean, honestly, even if the whole "you can't look at women" aspect of feminism were indeed true, I would think that people who truly believe in equality for women (which, important clue for you, is the basis of feminism, not chiding men) would just laugh such silliness off.

The whole brouhaha about the sex wars wasn't even about calling women hot. That was a misconception that was repeated over and over, and therefore some believed that that was what it was all about. It was a lot more complex and it was about far deeper issues than that, but as usual, it can never be discussed around here because some people's misconception and downright irrational dislike of the feminist movement always seems to quash it.

[theboss]

146. I think all them broads deserve their rights

But just make make sure you keep yourself lookin' nice and pretty, okay shortcake?!?

[IronLionZion]

156. I support equality

but I like to pimp-slap women or men who try to have it both ways. You can't have equality only when it suits you.