Might help also to describe what you think feminism is, since it’s one of those terms that is overloaded.
I once had a physical therapist tell me she wasn’t a feminist because she thought women couldn’t be as physically capable as men when serving as soldiers, and seemed to believe feminism requires treating women exactly like men.
I told her I was a feminist because I believe in equal rights for men and women, an idea she did not seem so opposed to.
I like the Rebecca West quote: “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
feminist as in “tear down unjust hierarchies”, and definitely not feminist as in “girlboss yay we need more ladies oppressors”
Exactly, also this “all men are bad and monsters” has to stop. This is not how you get the good men to help you stop and punish the bad men.
But yeah, fuck the patriarchy, women should have just as many rights and freedoms as men do, in theory and in practice.
reversing sexism isn’t a solution to any issue, it’s the irrational hierarchies that are bad, not the fact that it’s not your people on top.
also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a feminist talking about “all men are monsters”, but I’ve definitely heard antifeminist men claim they do.
I agree, but sadly I have seen posts claiming that all men are monsters and lots of people agreeing online, and not just once or twice.
the funny thing is that now, me, a cis man, sitting in the loo, claiming to be pro feminist, is about to write “those aren’t real feminists”.
I’m laughing while writing this.
don’t take me seriously please.
You have not been on social media during that time period, maybe. It was everywhere which led some men to become antifeminist.
Yes.
Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters!
– Vladimir Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women
Comrades, there is no true social revolution without the liberation of women. May my eyes never see and my feet never take me to a society where half the people are held in silence. I hear the roar of women’s silence. I sense the rumble of their storm and feel the fury of their revolt.
- Thomas Sankara
I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, be they man, woman, in between or none of the above.
But saying (and perhaps believing) one is a feminist and actually acting like one are often two different pairs of shoes. We all are confronted with so much discrimination, with so much bias, with so much misogyny, it takes active labour to actually behave like a feminist, because no matter how you think about yourself, at some point and to some degree, all that shit we get confronted with every day will rub off on us, and we have to understand that and constantly check ourselves so that it does not influence us in our thought patterns. Constant mental garbage collection, if you want.
That is true for all kinds of discrimination, no matter what it is based on.
I’m a feminist, opposed to any unjust hierarchy really. One of the things that set me off at a young age was how the US never passed the equal rights amendment.
Also in my home country the women’s liberation movement was tied up with the communist movement which also is why I have a lot of the politics that I do
I’ve always thought of women as people. Wild I know. Also I’m transitioning towards being one so y’know, some selfish desire for women’s rights and safety too.
K but once you get there, you’ll tell us if it turns out you’re not actually a person anymore, right?
Yes, as in “women deserve equal rights across the board”
No, as in “feminism is the synonym to and only valid kind of antisexism and every gendered issue should be seen exclusively through women’s struggle”
I’m here for the equality of men and women, and believe that only in cooperation, through consideration of issues on each side, we can efficiently combat sexism.
Feminism should not be “us vs them”. It should be one part of the larger circle that is looking at how we can improve things for everyone - women, men, and nonbinary people.
We should bridge the gap on all sides, so that whatever gender you are, you have equal possibilities in life, career, and everything else, you are safe and can build your life the way you want.
That means no one should be targeted by sexual harassment and exploitation. No one should be denied jobs or have lower salary based on arbitrary characteristics. No one should be forced to choose a binary gender if they’re neither. Kids should not be indoctrinated with traditional gender roles. Etc. etc.
And, honestly, I don’t think many will disagree here. Many of those who “do not support feminism” don’t mean they go against equality - they are rather concerned about a specific form of particularly loud online feminism pretending men are all evil and that there’s no related struggle on men’s end.
It should be one part of the larger circle that is looking at how we can improve things for everyone - women, men, and nonbinary people
Modern feminism does exactly that.
I get that people get hung up on the label, but other demographics’ issues are absolutely part of it. It’s called intersectionality.
The label is important, though, because as long as we call it all feminism, any conversation that does not explicitly target women audience may be maliciously hijacked. I’ve seen this happening in the wild a lot - people arguing that we steal feminism when talking about issues from another perspective.
Also, speaking of intersectionality, isn’t it weird for it to be a subsection of feminism again? Intersectionality commonly includes issues of race, disabilities, transgender individuals, and so on, and as such, men along with nonbinaries who struggle on each of the axis may not get adequate attention and representation under the umbrella of feminism, as again, it’s “about women” (it kinda is).
To me, antisexism should cover feminism, masculism (a term recently hijacked by bad actors, but initially coming from the same place as feminism - equality for all, focus on instances of male discrimination), a movement of nonbinary people.
Intersectionality should go above feminism, and above antisexism for that matter. It is about all struggles of all groups of people, and ultimately stands to cover it all - antisexism, anti-racism, trans inclusion, inclusion of people with disabilities, etc. etc.
I don’t think that’s necessarily malicious. Sounds like those people may have a thing to learn about feminism as well.
It’s not about being a “subsection”. It’s not a competition who’s on top. It’s about recognizing how these issues share a common core and many negative effects, and need to be addressed together rather than competing for attention. That’s exactly what intersectionality addresses.
As far as I’m aware, the inclusive movement that focuses on male issues in a way that regards itself in cooperation rather than competition with feminism (after men’s rights was successfully taken over by the right-wing) labels itself men’s liberation.
Fair enough - but malicious or not, it does cause issues and builds barriers to inclusion.
Talking about subsections is not about competition. It’s about unhealthy arrangement that, again, can easily be used to exclude people. It just doesn’t make sense to divide it this way.
Intersectionality talks about many issues, and one of them, part of it, is sexism. So, putting it under umbrella of feminism is like putting animals under the umbrella of bees.
My experience interacting with men’s liberation is mostly just men going 100% into misandric narrative that men are to blame for anything and everything. As one person underscored it under one such post, “if a woman struggles - it’s society’s fault. If a man struggles - it’s a man’s fault”. There’s no room there for not blaming men for the discrimination they receive.
Yes, and I don’t really feel the need to clarify or weaken that stance by carving a really specific definition or “but not this or that”.
I’m a feminist, take that as you will.
I am a feminist.
Feminism means all genders should be treated equal, but that does not mean men should also get paid menstrual leaves at their job. Equal rights, yes. Everyone should be treated fairly.
I kind of agree on this. Women cannot expect equal pay for less work.
But that’s not what they are expecting. They expect to not have to work if they are sick. And that should apply to anyone, shouldn’t it? Which leaves the question, who has to care for the sick? Historically that would be the family, but nowerdays with the focus on individualism, either everyone has to care (e.g. by some health care system) or we just accept that sick people are not cared for in our society and hope that we don’t get sick. I know I prefer the first solution
The problem is grey area in what sick means when it comes to periods. Is low mood sick? Is PMS sick? Is pain during periods sick? Is being irritable sick? This makes it seem like an excuse at time.
Men should also be then allowed to take leaves when they feel like shit or something. Point is equal pay for equal work. Women can’t expect to be CEOs and stuff when they don’t put in equal work. There are women who get to high posts inspite of all these problems and I respect that. I guess it is more of an individual to individual thing about who puts in efforts, who is truthful, etc.
I absolutely guarantee you one of those things is not like the others. Period pain can be truly debilitating, especially for a person with endometriosis. It is totally worth time off.
Also, I find your insinuation that women take time off for ‘low mood’ and ‘being irritable’ frequently—as opposed to men—rather sexist and offensive, not to mention not reflective of reality.
However, I do like how you inadvertently stumbled into the idea that we should all have more sick days and mental health should be included in the definition of ‘health’. Taking time off for a mental ‘breather’ should be normalized in our society. I also think higher-mental-stress jobs like 911 dispatcher should get more mental health off-time.
If it is a diagnosed disease, then time off is no brainer. However, then they should not expect any promotions over other people without the disease (assuming equal work/hour).
Also, I find your insinuation that women take time off for ‘low mood’ and ‘being irritable’ frequently—as opposed to men—rather sexist and offensive, not to mention not reflective of reality.
I don’t have data, it is based on my observations of people and opinions. I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
inadvertently stumbled into the idea
Because anyone other than “feminists” does not have a brain to come up with ideas intentionally. This statement is the perfect example why feminism is being promoted in an extremely stupid way. You attack the very people who are willing to engage in constructive discussions by calling them stupid. Then, you are surprised when they fight back and call them sexist pigs. No wonder men hate feminism as a movement.
then they should not expect any promotions over other people without the disease (assuming equal work/hour).
Are you saying if they work the same hours, but take off more of their sick days because of a disease, they shouldn’t get a promotion?
No, I am assuming that they do the same amount of work per hour
And where in my previous post did I call you stupid?
You speak of mental health days in a derogatory way, as if you find the very idea that people should take care of their mental as well as physical health offensive, for reasons I don’t understand.
I’m saying that your mocking statement about taking days off for such things should in fact be something we do, and something we should find acceptable to do.
I agree that there is a big grey area on what is too sick to work, but with my proposal at least we are a big step further and instead of the employer deciding for you (who wants you to work for them) or you deciding on your own (who might not want to come to work after a night partying), there is now an (hopefully) independant entity, the doctor who decides.
But I have to admit that of course the doctor can only listen to the patient and decide based on that, because there is just no way to measure pain/sickness objectively. So in the end we have to trust people to decide on their own if they are sick.
With your proposed solution of x sick days, I guess that many people that are actually too sick for work have to work just because they don’t have enough days, while some that don’t get sick might use their sick days anyway, because they have them. And even with my solution, realistically there will be a lot of people going to work when they should rest, while there will also be people that use the system to rest after celebrating. I don’t think a perfectly fair system is possible, but I prefer the system where people are not exploited and supressed.
Coming back to your argument on periods, like I said, there is no way to measure someones pain besides asking them, and ignoring their answer is not the solution, so yes women should be able to take leaves for period pain. And yes, men should be able to take leaves if they feel like crap, even if that might mean taking of a day off that they might have been able to work. In the end the grey area is not perfectly convertable to able to work/not able to work.
If someone is sick, and gets certified as such by a licenced medical doctor, they get leave. Why is this so complicated?
A clear certificate, then yes.
Defining it as paid menstrual leave is kind of the problem. Hear me out.
Women should be able to take paid leaves from work to deal with menstrual problems, but it shouldn’t stop there. All people should be able to take leave from work when they need it.
So, if it is redefined as paid leave, then it equalizes the field.
I think the “when they need it” part is where the feminism becomes relevant - there is a history of women (and men) being denied leave when they need it for sexist / patriarchal reasons (e.g. men are generally not given paternity leave, women might not be allowed to take leave due to menstruation).
The scope of acceptable reasons to take leave is what is debated and where feminism has pushed for paid leave for reasons previously denied to both men and women.
I get you. But say, a company has a policy that we give employees 2 paid leaves per month, for example, a woman can take those 2 paid leaves for the same reasons as the men do, but they would also need a day more of paid leaves to deal with the menstrual pain/stress. If that extra day is not defined as “menstrual leaves” men would argue that why are women getting more leaves, and hence the feminism thing will be broken as both are not treated fairly.
Same in the case of pregnancy. Companies give 2 months of paid leaves for that.
Or maybe the right thing to do is, just say, if you’re pregnant, you get paid time off, if you’re having periods you get paid time off. Do not include gender in it.
Idk man.
And that’s why the amount of paid leave should not be limited by time but by reason. If you can’t work because you’re pregnant or sick or whatever, you get paid leave until you are better. And the employer or coworkers don’t even need to know why you can’t work, that’s for a doctor to decide. And anyone saying it’s not fair if they have to work more because they are not sick as often is obviously just selfish and not interested in equality
I get what you’re saying, but if a woman is given more benefits than a man, businesses are disincentivized to hire women.
Unless the government subsidizes their wages or reduces tax burdens for companies that have more diverse hiring
That’s what we do in my country. If you hire only men you generally qualify for fewer government programs. In some cases you cant bid on the job if you don’t have sufficient representation for specific groups.
But I think the idea is that men should get the same lenience, i.e. just-feeling-wrecked-leave rather than menstrual-leave. The difference in having a baby should be that one needs medical leave too, in my mind.
I consider myself egalitarian
I feel like the term Feminist gives too much of an impression that I tolerate or encourage misandry, which I certainly do not. That and if you look at feminist groups throughout history TERFs have been the norm, not the exception.
Egalitarian, because sexism cannot be tolerated no matter which direction it’s facing.
Yes, my whole life. It’s how I was raised, but now that I’m an adult, it’s also what I choose for myself and how I’m raising my own children.
Feminism is the radical idea that a person’s worth, dignity, rights, and social status are not and ought not to be determined by their genitals.
I can say I was long ago when it was roughly “women’s rights should be equivalent to men’s rights” in terms of personal, work, social values and features.
These days and especially in the last 10 years I don’t think the umbrella of feminism is large enough to encompass all of the discrimination I have seen through my time existing.
The long and the short of it is people’s rights should be similar when applicable, the same when possible.
There are various schools of feminism, some of which have conflicting opinions. But the common feminist standpoints, like equal rights, seem to be just common sense for me, especially in this day and age. I’m not sure where the requirement for equal physical ability fits into the equation.
At least for me, going out and saying that you are feminist carries a sort of special connotation, and since I haven’t participated in any explicitly activist events related to feminism, I wouldn’t readily emblazon myself with the feminist label even though I stand by those ideas.
the physical therapist had a misconception of what feminism is, probably due to conservative misinformation that presents egalitarian movements like feminism as forcing men and women to be treated the same, and in this case the PT thought this meant soldiers were being forced to have women on their units that would slow them down or make them less effective because they weren’t allowed to vary the tasks based on strength because of “feminism”. I’m not even sure her story was based in reality, tbh - I’m not sure whether the military integrates women soldiers that way, but either way she has internalized some griping from her husband about this.
Either way, it’s interesting to me you wouldn’t identify as a feminist even if you agree with feminism - I wonder what connotations it has, and how those connotations will change if people who are feminists don’t own that … That was part of why I owned being a feminist in my interaction with the PT - she clearly had a misunderstanding of what feminism is, so I clarified why I see myself as a feminist. Otherwise she might not ever be challenged in her views, and “feminism” just becomes the absurd strawman she rejects.
If, say, I hear that “Bob is a feminist”, I reflexively think that Bob is somehow renowned or outspoken in contrast to the general public for supporting feminist causes, perhaps as an educator, figurehead, or activist. I’m not sure what other specific situations I would emphasize myself as feminist, but I’d do the same if put in your situation as a way of standing up.
oh interesting, the idea is that being a feminist is more than just about beliefs, it implies something more, like being an activist …
I tend to think identifying as a feminist is a lower bar, it just signifies you are in favor of equal rights among genders. I would have no problem identifying as a feminist just broadly - like on a bio, or in conversation.
I have to think about your meaning more, though - I feel like I have some sense of that, it’s maybe a bit like being “vegan” - it implies not just a belief, but maybe also actions you take. Perhaps being a feminist implies something like that in your world, that you are actively engaged in the feminist movement - whether organizing, theorizing, etc.
Either way, thanks for expanding my mind!
it just signifies you are in favor of equal rights among genders
It doesn’t “just signify that” though, as much as feminists act like it does. The term “feminist” does signify a person who, at least ostensibly, is in favor of equal rights among genders, but using that term also, necessarily, implies belief in the harmful dogma that is inseparable from the term itself (patriarchy theory, etc.). This creates a false dichotomy that makes people feel that in order to support equal rights they must also buy into feminist dogma, and that’s not at all the case.
Luckily, though, feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on gender equality, and it’s important to let people know that fact, both because of how incredibly misleading “feminism just means gender equality” is and because there are plenty of other more useful, more egalitarian frameworks through which to view the push for equality.
I think the reflex naturally makes sense, but from the people I personally know to be outspoken and definitionally feminist, it’s more like calling yourself a feminist says you explicitly side with the feminist cause. Sort of like saying you’re anti-racist rather than identifying as someone lacking racism, which is actually a farce when we’re all biased.
I don’t believe in an -ism. I believe in equal rights. I think the name feminism does more harm than good.
Why does the name do harm? If it was “anti-sexism” instead would it be more appealing, or are all “-ism” labels bad in your mind? (Might I ask why the -ism is problematic? Would you have the same view of anti-racism, for example?)
Egalitarianism is a better term.
That just erases that, currently, women are far more oppressed than men. Men are negatively impacted by patriarchal society as well, we all stand to gain from its abolition, but erasing that it is women that are most subjugated makes room for opportunists to coopt the movement and shut down women.
This is the kind of thinking that pushes men away from feminism. When there is a clear intention to favor one sex over the other, the other will obviously be much less inclined to help.
There is no intention to “favor one sex over the other.” The present system is explicitly cismale-supremacist. Any attempt to erase that weakens the movement and serves to perpetuate sexism against women and non-binary folk. This is similar to the “All Lives Matter” movement as a way to disrupt the “Black Lives Matter” movement.
It might not be the intention but modern day feminism has become so much about what women can and cannot do and how men are pigs.
No, it hasn’t. This is the way conservatives frame the feminist movement, but the actual reality of feminism is far more grounded. When you cede the narrative and legitimize the conservative viewpoint, you weaken the movement.
This.
I’m not OP, but many people associate feminism with strengthening women specifically. If you look up the definition it actually does focus gender equality, no matter what gender you have. So from my perspective the term isn’t really intuitive.
Another thing I don’t like about the definition (at least the one on Wikipedia) is…
Feminism holds the position that modern societies are patriarchal—they prioritize the male point of view—and that women are treated unjustly in these societies.
While I sure get what they mean, I personally don’t like to classify one’s point of view as ‘male’. I agree that there are far more toxic men that seek more and more power. But i don’t dislike such people because they are men. I’d dislike their behavior just as much if they were women, non-binaries or any other gender. Classifying a character trait male IMHO is similar to calling a skirt or dress ‘women clothes’.
So yes, to me personally, anti-sexism / anti-discrimination or even better pro-equality are more appealing.
Do you think women face more inequality than men? What gender inequality is there to address, i.e. why does feminism as a movement of gender equality exist?
Yes, I think women face more inquality than men. And queer people face even more discrimination than women. But also cis-men that don’t fit well into the traditional gender roles, can face discrimation. I do not object the ideology behind femism. I just don’t like the term.
I think women do experience more gender based adversities, but I worry framing it like that creates an “us and them” situation between genders. We should fight inequality wherever it exists.
It also misses intersectionality. Not all men are advantaged over all women. A man born in poverty, violence, with a disability, or of a marginalised race, isn’t automatically better off than a rich white women born to a good supportive family.
Women face different inequality than men. Where women are treated as valuable property, men are treated as disposable tools or dangerous threats. Feminism has done much to elevate women above valuable property, but men are still treated as disposable or dangerous.
Labels that start off as descriptive become prescriptive. People who associate strongly with a label are less likely to have nuance to their views or change their minds. It becomes us and them.
You can become a prisoner of your labels.
isn’t feminism prescriptive / normative to begin with? It’s not a neutral description of injustice, it’s a call to action, a movement … no?
I hear you on the strong connection to a label, the way us-them dynamics can be dangerous - but the extreme opposite doesn’t seem to work either, so I don’t see this as a full justification of rejecting labels. If you are invested in a movement towards equal rights, sometimes having a banner to organize under and communicate by is useful … it might be helpful to think of a time before the feminist movement existed, and the motivations that exist for the movement.
The fact that there are so many definitions of what feminism is, shows that the label is not super useful. If you say you’re a feminist, you then have to explain which version you’re taking about.
It could be anything from “people should be given equal opportunity” to the extreme “all sex between a man and a women is rape”
“isms” are useful, and the name feminism is perfectly fine.
Yeah, specifically I’m fairly third wave in that I’ve been convinced of the value of an intersectional perspective, am pro modern sexual liberation (including the freedom to not want it), and generally am more aligned with the feminist critiques of the second wave. Furthermore I find a lot of the fourth wave to a shitshow, though considering the concept of the fourth wave is not based on academic ideas or coherent demands, but rather the idea that social media changed feminist discourse so radically as to constitute a change to a different wave.
Feminism has always had multiple sides, and like most liberatory movements it has people who are cringe, who are counterproductively hostile, and who generally suck. It will try things that don’t work or push things in bad directions. Also college students and young people will do it in ways that look terrible. But feminist theory is also insightful texts that challenge cultural biases. And in a time where rights such as abortion are under attack and government officials are expressing their opposition to women’s suffrage, the principle of equality and fundamental rights remains even if it looks different now from when our grandmothers and great grandmothers were fighting for the right for a bank account.
