What is Feminism?

[Ruthanne]

With all of this being said, feminism is not a movement to receive better rights for one gender but for all genders equally. The word “feminism” should not be used to describe this movement anymore because it has caused confusion and anger between the two groups that consider themselves feminists. I ask that all devoted feminists truly ask themselves what they stand for. It is time that we call the feminist movement by what it truly is — a movement of egalitarianism. As feminists, we are no longer furthering our initiative by hiding behind a mislabeled movement. Egalitarianism is what we stand for now and is what we should label our movement as. The progress of our movement as a whole depends on it. The true definition of the feminism movement is not the word “feminism” any longer because of what it has come to mean. It is a gender-biased word and should be replaced by its better, more accurate word — egalitarianism.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Egalitarianism:

egalitarian

An egalitarian is a person who believes in the equality of all people, and an egalitarian society gives everyone equal rights.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/egalitarian





This is a word that means something close to equality and has to do with fairness. If you believe that everyone deserves a chance to vote, go to school, get good jobs, and participate in society, then you are an egalitarian.

Feminists are not man haters but want equality for everyone and even animals, too.

 

[James]

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Egalitarianism:



Feminists are not man haters but want equality for everyone and even animals, too.

I agree that true feminism is the equality of both sexes without limitations or restrictions. However that message is lost with the radicalized movement of today. Their messaging has been confusing and at times hypocritical to say the least.

 

[Ruthanne]

I agree that true feminism is the equality of both sexes without limitations or restrictions. However that message is lost with the radicalized movement of today. Their messaging has been confusing and at times hypocritical to say the least.

I don't think so. True feminists are for equality of women, men, all colors and all creeds and this is what feminism is not:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/192315-7-things-feminism-does-not-mean

 

[Warrigal]

To me feminism is about liberation of women and girls. For this to happen we must be able to determine our own destiny by having access to education, work and financial autonomy. Barriers to these goals need to be cleared away and women need to find their voices.

Some of the above goals also benefit men who no longer have to shoulder all financial responsibility for their families and society benefits from the contributions working women make to the economy.

I don't want to be the same as a man. I just want to be free to realise my potential as a human being according to my lights.
Freedom is never handed to you on a plate. You have to demand it, even fight for it.

 

[James]

Yes I agree that's what feminism "was" and to many women, including my wife who was the first female Police Officer {you wouldn't believe what she went through} in her office, still is.

However the radicalized and extreme version of 21st Century Feminism has veered from this messaging and is more about exerting dominance, superiority and discrimination with a dusting of yesterdays "feminism" so that it won't be challenged.

As my wife said, "It's no longer about equality. Its about making men feel the inequality that women once felt".

 

[Traveler]

In my opinion, the entire feminist movement is, and has always been, about power, in the most hypocritical sense. I, personally, have never met any feminist who was willing to admit that she already has special rights and privileges. Feminism, has always been about gaining every right and privilege of a man AND keeping every right and privilege of a woman.

Moreover, the entire movement has been, from the very beginning, at war with men. Their favorite manta has always been Male Chauvinist Pig. That is not exactly a term likely to endear very many men to the needs of women.

Furthermore, feminists have routinely excluded men from their privileged ranks. A few years back, there was a breast cancer awareness 5 km run in Portland, Oregon. On the day of the run, women were registered prior to the run. A man, who was currently battling breast cancer, attempted to register and was told, in no uncertain terms, that he was not welcome to participate. Women only. Men not welcome !

There was a time when I supported women's rights. I supported a woman's right to have freedom of "choice" (abortion rights). I saw no valid reason why women could not, or should not, compete on an equal footing for any occupation. That all changed after I began to take notice of totally uncalled for sarcastic remarks directed toward men in general and me in particular.

I vividly recall arriving at a department store doorway at the same time as a young woman. I opened the door for her and stepped out of her way so she might enter first. Did she say thanks, or even nod at me? No ! She proceeded to give me a venomous chewing out for being such, "A Male Chauvinist". That was, by no means, the only nasty uncalled for remark directed at me.

Eventually I started treating women exactly as a would any man. If I'm walking down the street and I notice a woman with a flat tire ? Oh, too bad. Fix it yourself. Stuck in the snow ? Oh, too bad. Call a woman.

No more room in my life for angry, militant, man-hating, feminists.

 

[Ruthanne]

Yes I agree that's what feminism "was" and to many women, including my wife who was the first female Police Officer {you wouldn't believe what she went through} in her office, still is.

However the radicalized and extreme version of 21st Century Feminism has veered from this messaging and is more about exerting dominance, superiority and discrimination with a dusting of yesterdays "feminism" so that it won't be challenged.

As my wife said, "It's no longer about equality. Its about making men feel the inequality that women once felt".

I believe you are wrong. Read the link I posted and you will see what it's all about.

 

[Ruthanne]

In my opinion, the entire feminist movement is, and has always been, about power, in the most hypocritical sense. I, personally, have never met any feminist who was willing to admit that she already has special rights and privileges. Feminism, has always been about gaining every right and privilege of a man AND keeping every right and privilege of a woman.

Moreover, the entire movement has been, from the very beginning, at war with men. Their favorite manta has always been Male Chauvinist Pig. That is not exactly a term likely to endear very many men to the needs of women.

Furthermore, feminists have routinely excluded men from their privileged ranks. A few years back, there was a breast cancer awareness 5 km run in Portland, Oregon. On the day of the run, women were registered prior to the run. A man, who was currently battling breast cancer, attempted to register and was told, in no uncertain terms, that he was not welcome to participate. Women only. Men not welcome !

There was a time when I supported women's rights. I supported a woman's right to have freedom of "choice" (abortion rights). I saw no valid reason why women could not, or should not, compete on an equal footing for any occupation. That all changed after I began to take notice of totally uncalled for sarcastic remarks directed toward men in general and me in particular.

I vividly recall arriving at a department store doorway at the same time as a young woman. I opened the door for her and stepped out of her way so she might enter first. Did she say thanks, or even nod at me? No ! She proceeded to give me a venomous chewing out for being such, "A Male Chauvinist". That was, by no means, the only nasty uncalled for remark directed at me.

Eventually I started treating women exactly as a would any man. If I'm walking down the street and I notice a woman with a flat tire ? Oh, too bad. Fix it yourself. Stuck in the snow ? Oh, too bad. Call a woman.

No more room in my life for angry, militant, man-hating, feminists.

You let a few women dictate how you would treat all others after that. It's a shame. if we as women would take a few men personally we would feel like you but we don't and are for equal rights for men and women and everyone.

 

[James]

I believe you are wrong. Read the link I posted and you will see what it's all about.

I read it and as I said I agree with that. What I don't agree with as I said previously is the radicalized version of today.

 

[Traveler]

Attempting to change the name of feminism to egalitarianism is nothing more than a RE-BRANDING. You can call a man-eating tiger a kitty cat, but it is STILL a man-eating tiger.

There are some who call illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants", in an attempt to confuse people, but they are STILL illegal aliens.

A feminist is STILL a feminist, no matter what she is called.

There is/was a group of men who called themselves, "The Promise Keepers". They pledged to become better men, to always support their families, to never, under any circumstances, hit a woman or child. Sounds pretty good, right ? Not according to feminists ! Feminists showed up at every gathering of these men and picketed, shouted and called these men misogynists and other less civilized names. Friends of man ? Not bloody likely.

 

[Smiling Jane]

I read it and as I said I agree with that. What I don't agree with as I said previously is the radicalized version of today.

You're looking at a group of people who are new to this and still in the early angry stages, and you're judging the rest of us based on their attitudes and opinions. That's not who most of us are. We aren't a single cohesive mass but many people with our own voices, histories and concerns.

 

[Traveler]

You let a few women dictate how you would treat all others after that. It's a shame. if we as women would take a few men personally we would feel like you but we don't and are for equal rights for men and women and everyone.

Sorry, Ruthanne but it is far, far more than a few. When I see 200,000 women marching on Washington DEMANDING to be registered for the draft, the same as every 18 year old man is REQUIRED by law to do, when I see evidence of equality in the child custody courts, then and only then will I even consider changing my mind.

Many people may not know this BUT a divorced husband is REQUIRED to pay child support even if he demonstrates, via DNA testing, that the child could NOT POSSIBLY be his. In other words, the wife cheated on him, became pregnant by her illicit lover, and STILL the husband is stuck with the financial responsibility. How about a little fairness for that poor bas***d ?

 

[James]

You're looking at a group of people who are new to this and still in the early angry stages, and you're judging the rest of us based on their attitudes and opinions. That's not who most of us are. We aren't a single cohesive mass but many people with our own voices, histories and concerns.

Nope not judging anyone. I totally agree with the link and that definition, and totally disagree (along with my feminist wife) with the radical movement....the two groups are at odds with one another.

 

[Smiling Jane]

Nope not judging anyone. I totally agree with the link and that definition, and totally disagree (along with my feminist wife) with the radical movement....the two groups are at odds with one another.

I'm laughing because I remember when a friend took a college course in feminism where she was raked over the coals because she didn't share some of the group opinions. She said it was hive mentality and more than a little scary.

No clue how we got from wanting equal pay and equal access to credit and financial transactions to not being real feminists if we're not lesbians, but there it is.

 

[Traveler]

Nope not judging anyone. I totally agree with the link and that definition, and totally disagree (along with my feminist wife) with the radical movement....the two groups are at odds with one another.

I totally agree. I have known more than a few stay at home moms who have been belittled by feminists . Those stay at home moms were treated like some kind of "traitors to the holy cause".

 

[Smiling Jane]

I totally agree. I have known more than a few stay at home moms who have been belittled by feminists . Those stay at home moms were treated like some kind of "traitors to the holy cause".

There are some truly obnoxious SAHMs who look down their entitled little surgically-enhanced noses at any woman who goes outside of her home to work. Excuse me if I don't share your sympathy toward the group. Of course not all of them are like that, but many of them are.

 

[Traveler]

There are some truly obnoxious SAHMs who look down their entitled little surgically-enhanced noses at any woman who goes outside of her home to work . Excuse me if I don't share your sympathy toward the group. Of course not all of them are like that, but many of them are.

That, Smiling Jane, is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You proved my point when you said " ... who look down their entitled little surgically enhanced noses at any woman who goes outside her home to work". That statement clearly represents the feminist hostility toward any woman who does not support the "holy, feminist crusade".

In any event, I seriously doubt that any stay at home mom looks down her nose at a working woman. It is much more likely that the stay at home mom does not agree with a woman who is not around to raise and supervise her own children and instead places a much higher value on her own needs, ie career. Hence the phrase arises, "latch-key-kids", for there is no-one at home when the children come home from school.

 

[Warrigal]

I totally agree. I have known more than a few stay at home moms who have been belittled by feminists . Those stay at home moms were treated like some kind of "traitors to the holy cause".

Aah.. The Mommy Wars between the working mothers and the stay at homes. Ditto the breast feeders and the bottle feeders. And then there are the breeders and the child free. I don't see any of these lifestyle wars as having anything to do with feminism. They are distractions.

 

[Warrigal]

That, Smiling Jane, is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You proved my point when you said " ... who look down their entitled little surgically enhanced noses at any woman who goes outside her home to work". That statement clearly represents the feminist hostility toward any woman who does not support the "holy, feminist crusade".

In any event, I seriously doubt that any stay at home mom looks down her nose at a working woman. It is much more likely that the stay at home mom does not agree with a woman who is not around to raise and supervise her own children and instead places a much higher value on her own needs, ie career. Hence the phrase arises, "latch-key-kids", for there is no-one at home when the children come home from school.

Not judging either lifestyle but when a child was sick or injured at the school where I worked it was the working mothers who could always be contacted immediately. The stay at home mothers were seldom at home because they had social lives. Of course that was in the days before mobile phones. I am sure things are different today.

 

[Traveler]

Aah.. The Mommy Wars between the working mothers and the stay at homes. Ditto the breast feeders and the bottle feeders. And then there are the breeders and the child free. I don't see any of these lifestyle wars as having anything to do with feminism. They are distractions.

I beg to differ. These "lifestyle wars, as you put it, are entirely about feminist philosophy. If there was no radical, militant, feminist agenda, there would be no "lifestyle wars". It is exactly the same thing as one African American man calling another African American man an Oreo Cookie, black on the outside and white on the inside. In both cases, there is an agenda which must be protected at all costs, even if it means calling an otherwise ally names. In other words, follow the agenda, or you WILL be thrown under the bus.

 

[Warrigal]

I beg to differ. These "lifestyle wars, as you put it, are entirely about feminist philosophy. If there was no radical, militant, feminist agenda, there would be no "lifestyle wars". It is exactly the same thing as one African American man calling another African American man an Oreo Cookie, black on the outside and white on the inside. In both cases, there is an agenda which must be protected at all costs, even if it means calling an otherwise ally names. In other words, follow the agenda, or you WILL be thrown under the bus.

And I beg to differ also. Women have a lot of themselves invested in their roles. No matter what choices we make we are bound to be criticised. Our critics are chiefly but not only, other women, starting with our own mothers and then other family and acquaintances. Defense often turns to offence and so the wars begin. Like any war, there is a certain amount of propaganda around, often delivered by various gurus/experts and so the war hots up.


Such wars are the antithesis of feminism.

 

[Traveler]

[QUOTE=Warrigal;786272]And I beg to differ also. Women have a lot of themselves invested in their roles. No matter what choices we make we are bound to be criticised. Our critics are chiefly but not only, other women, starting with our own mothers and then other family and acquaintances. Defense often turns to offence and so the wars begin. Like any war, there is a certain amount of propaganda around, often delivered by various gurus/experts and so the war hots up.
=========================================================================================


I would point out that men, also, have a lot of themselves invested in their roles. We, also, have been criticized by our fathers, our teachers and often our own peer group. Moreover men are often criticized no matter what choices we make. Yet despite this, I feel no urge, or need, to go to war with my fellow man simply because he disagrees with me.

To a certain extent many women and men can lay claim to victimhood. But, in doing so, we give power to the ones who victimize us. Playing the victim role is counter-productive, as well as being a huge waste of time.

Polonius, in Hamlet, said, "To thine own self, be true". My advise to victims, both male and female, is to "go all in" and bet everything on your dreams.

 

[Warrigal]

My comments in blue.

[QUOTE=Warrigal;786272]And I beg to differ also. Women have a lot of themselves invested in their roles. No matter what choices we make we are bound to be criticised. Our critics are chiefly but not only, other women, starting with our own mothers and then other family and acquaintances. Defense often turns to offence and so the wars begin. Like any war, there is a certain amount of propaganda around, often delivered by various gurus/experts and so the war hots up.
=========================================================================================


I would point out that men, also, have a lot of themselves invested in their roles. We, also, have been criticized by our fathers, our teachers and often our own peer group. Moreover men are often criticized no matter what choices we make. Yet despite this, I feel no urge, or need, to go to war with my fellow man simply because he disagrees with me.
I feel no urge, or need, to go to war with my sisters because we have chosen different roles, at least not any longer. However, I did have to justify my decision to be a working wife and mother against men and women in my social circle. I had to stand up to my husband who was influenced by a mate who claimed that "he would not let his wife wear suede knee high boots." I had to defend, to my own mother, my decision to resume university studies when my children had grown up. Defense is not the same as going to war. It is insisting on making your own decisions in spite of criticism.

To a certain extent many women and men can lay claim to victimhood. But, in doing so, we give power to the ones who victimize us. Playing the victim role is counter-productive, as well as being a huge waste of time.

Polonius, in Hamlet, said, "To thine own self, be true". My advise to victims, both male and female, is to "go all in" and bet everything on your dreams.
Couldn't agree more, although some of my girlhood dreams were essentially incompatible with my life as a married woman. However, that does not mean that I was in any way a victim. It was just that I had to consider the needs of others close to me.

 

[Traveler]

Men are constantly having to do, or not do, something the wife/GF wants. But in the age of feminism when a man wants something from his wife/GF it becomes an issue of "her rights, her needs, her feelings" etc

Example: I was once married to a woman who was delighted that I loved to cook. 6 nights out of 7 I would cook dinner. On the 7th night I would take her out to dinner. Well. after a few years of this, I asked her to occasionally cook for me. Her answer shocked me. She said, angrily, "I am a feminist. Feminists don't cook for men".

Yeah, she stood up for herself, and in the process, crushed me.

 

[James]

I'm laughing because I remember when a friend took a college course in feminism where she was raked over the coals because she didn't share some of the group opinions. She said it was hive mentality and more than a little scary.

No clue how we got from wanting equal pay and equal access to credit and financial transactions to not being real feminists if we're not lesbians, but there it is.

My wife is a feminist and the last time we checked she wasn't a lesbian..so?? What she isn't however is a radicalized female with a superiority complex.