I am a feminist.
I am heterosexual.
I occasionally wear dresses.
I usually shave my legs and underarms, unless I'm in a hurry.
I believe in equality for all.
I believe every person has basic rights.
I don't believe a fetus is a person. I believe it's a potential person which should be more valued than say, a dog; but less valued than an existing person.
I don't believe anyone is superior to anyone else.
I don't believe all____ are inherently_____. People are different, there are usually exceptions.

At it's core, I think feminism is about equality. It's not about superiority, it's not about man-hating. What do you think feminism is about? What do you think makes a feminist? Why are you or aren't you a feminist?

Tags: abortion, chauvinism, equality, feminism, misandry, misogyny, rights, sexism

Views: 3940

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Equal pay for equal work,

Women do receive equal pay, the claim that they do not is a fabrication.

Have we had a female president? Do we have 30% of the top jobs/leaders/politicians women? Is the Senate and House of Representatives 50% women?

Women have the ability to seek out all these positions.

Come on, show me one *legal* privilege that I have thanks to my penis.  Oh, you can't?  Then feminists should stop trying to influence politics.

Kenny, do you even have any idea what you are talking about? In three separate classes, Women gender studies, and sociology, I have seen that women DO NOT have equal pay for equal money, equal rights, equal benefits. The job market is NOT a level playing field for women, and I have the books, the articles, the graphs, the studies to prove it. Women do have the opportunities to go for the jobs, but not to be hired. Women are getting the short end of the stick. These are cold, hard numbers. The fact that you can blow me off so easily, that you won't even consider you're wrong, that you won't for a moment open your mind and consider this possibility, is truly frustrating. And sometimes it makes me think I would have a more productive time smashing a plastic spoon up against a brick wall than trying to have a productive conversation with you.

It is the undercurrent, the mind set, the underlying patriarchal belief system we run on that is undermining women and preventing them from accelerating to the same stature of a man in today's society. The fact that you can't see it is playing right into the system. 

Here is an example. Orchestras used to be entirely male, just like basically everything else. Then more women started graduating from music school, more women than men in fact, but still the orchestras were male. Then they started doing blind auditions so being hired was based solely how well someone played. Guess what happened? Immediately women were getting into orchestras. The judge's biased opinion on what an orchestra should be was subconsciously affecting their decisions on who to hire. They weren't purposefully discriminating against women, but they were discriminating against women simply for the reason of gender. 

Brianna, I'm sorry, but I'm with Kenny on this. The government has done all it can. It is now the law that women be paid the same money for the same work. That's the matter done, case closed. It would be unreasonable for the government to force companies to hire a 50% female, 50% male workforce. More qualified men/women would be pushed out. The fact that the percentage of women in the workforce is increasing, and the fact that more women go to university than men, and the fact that women are doing better in education than men, tells me that all of the things you are talking about ARE improving. They are not going to improve immediately, but they are getting better. Expecting it all to magically get fixed is immature and unreasonable.

Yeah I see your point about inequality with women. Its hard to how bad it is exactly but I'm women are still unequal in the eyes of the people.

And I'm happy that feminists want to help out with egalitarianism but that doesn't mean feminism = egalitarianism. People can be a part of two movements, or they can be egalitarians with a focus on feminism or whatever but that doesn't mean the definition for feminism should change. You can try to use it to communicate the idea that you support egalitarianism but people aren't going to hear that and the point of these labels is to try to communicate your position in a simple manner so you don't have to explain that you think women should be equal in order to say that. To change the definition for no real reason is just to fuck with people and make it harder to communicate your real ideas.


It hasn't?  Please point out to me one legal privilege/benefit men receive but women don't in America.

Kenny, it runs deeper than that. Women in the military and seeing combat, as well as reproductive rights are hotly debated topics right now. Women have equal opportunity in the workplace, but are still being paid less. Why is this? I, and plenty of other people, want answers. There may be a fundamental reason for this, but what is it? Is it correctable, and should it be corrected? Feminism is not that simple, and can be about seeking answers to fundamental or specific questions. And remember, Feminism extends beyond the Americas, to countries like Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh.

I think you gentlemen are caught up on the de jure versus de facto aspect. Just because the law claims it's illegal for women to get less pay, for example, doesn't mean they don't. Just as how the law says it's illegal to make housing decisions based on race, it still happens. The fact that it was made illegal for there to be unequal pay in 1963 and there still is means there obviously is something wrong with society. Whether that means the law needs to be strengthened, or there needs to be better education and programs to promote the development of women's status in society, I'm not sure. But I do know it's uneven based on the actual distribution of a lot of positions, powers, and structures, even if the law says on paper that it can't be overtly on purpose.

And there are economic, philosophical, and ethical reasons for why services for the disadvantaged are necessary. The basic principle is people deserve to be on an equal playing field within the market; but if a particular group starts out at a disadvantaged position, they cannot fairly compete. I don't have the exact quote, but Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize winning economist) recognizes how de facto discrimination due to life circumstance, societal position, etc., can lead to situations out of which a person cannot get themselves because of the forces keeping them there outside their control. 

I'm not about to go citing a bunch of crap (I find those shouting CITATION CITATION are the hardest to deal with and the least likely to have actual sources that are peer-reviewed and not either a blog or coming from a think tank), but this is from the OECD's website, comparing different developed countries. It's a legitimate, academic source. And look at all the gaps there are between women and men in all of these countries. It's not because there are laws making it okay, it's because the societies presented here still have barriers to women that aren't having anything to do with what's on the books.

I could go section by section there to tell you how those differences are not good, but that would be pointless. You wouldn't listen, anyway, or argue for why I'm wrong and tell me I'm misunderstanding and blah blah blah.

Bottom line is, the mansplaining is proof that at least part of society is still unable to acknowledge how women are not treated equally; and it doesn't take a genius to see actual data as opposed to laws and recognize that difference. 

Also, the "egalitarian/ what is feminism" discussion is a straw man. 

Its a straw man? Why? Because you're defensive, you automatically assume I'm against feminism because I'm male (I had to say that) or you don't understand what a straw-man argument is?

I know this is a stupid argument and it doesn't matter but we don't always have to talk about the big stuff. Sometimes bickering about the definitions of words is refreshing because of how pointless it is.

If I take it seriously, it's because there hasn't been a joke in a while, so how am I supposed to tell when a person here is being tongue-in-cheek versus 100% jerk? It is the internet, after all, and the latter is more common on forums and the like. Which is why last night was the first time I bothered posting here in ages- I had grown sick of the downward spiral any attempt at reasonable discussion I made took. Internet "discussions" (and I have to use that term loosely) get lost in dissonance between parties because they can't tell when something is a joke or not (along with myriad other reasons that aren't directly related). So if you were trying to be funny, it didn't come across that way. By definition, it's insanely hard to be tongue-in-cheek online because it relies on body language and facial expression. "God you take everything seriously." That's rather disrespectful on the surface, but was that another attempt at being funny? And why make a remark like that (the one about me being defensive or the one about me taking things seriously) unless you thought it to be true, anyway? In a setting such as this, at least, where a debate is going on, every word used matters, as does where it comes from. So I can only assume, even if you were joking, that there is an underlying truth or belief in any joke, about anything, otherwise an accusation at the ridiculousness of the opposition (such as with making overtly facetious arguments, like, say, "Women should stay in the kitchen!" in order to point out how stupid that idea is, to give an example that would fit this here).

As for the first paragraph, what I'm saying is this. Underlying the argument about expanding feminism's definition is an implicit message that because some people may be using the term loosely, it is thereby null and void or pointless to use it at all; and anybody that does so is at least making a poor choice, if not flat-out stupid/ignorant/etc. And as I said before, perhaps that's not what you are TRYING to do. But the word choice and the tone in the writing comes across as such, both for you and anybody else making arguments like yours. So if this is another case of bad delivery due to the nature of the medium of discussion, that's something to attempt to fix. 

And it feels like a distraction because it comes across as tautological and circular. And repetitive.  

Sorry then, I am a very silly person so never take anything I say as serious. I also usually have a difficult time overcoming the shortcomings of any type of communication so you're not the first to misinterpret me.

And thats not really what I was trying to say. The word feminism is a label. If feminism was truly defined as being egalitarianism then that would be fine by me. It's an expanded definition but everyone knows what you mean so its cool. However at the moment some people equate it with man-hating, some people equate it with women's rights, some people equate it with gender, some people equate it with anything revolving around sex and gender and others equate it with egalitarianism, and some people use to term so loosely that at any moment they use it they may be using it in a way that refers to any one of those possible definitions.

So expanding the definition of feminism is fine, even dealing with people giving it drastically different meanings is fine as long as the word needs to mean those things. If we didn't have the word "egalitarianism" expanding the definition of feminism to mean "equality for all" would be fine since we need a word for egalitarianism. However we already have a word for that, so by expanding the definition of feminism you're just ensuring greater confusion over what people really mean when they use it.

And it feels like a distraction because it comes across as tautological and circular. And repetitive. 

It certainly isn't.

Yes, I agree with Gabrielle. Anyways, what I was trying to say before Abreo started having a hissy fit, was exactly was Gabrielle was saying. Just because there is legislation that says equal pay for equal work does not mean that it has actually happened yet.

That is a news article from CNN that says even the women in top-paying jobs are earning 25% less than men who have the exact same job as them.

This is another one from CBS saying women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes.,8599,1983185,00.html

Here's one more from Time Magazine saying women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau. They earn 76-77% of what men make, and that's only counting white women. It's less for women of color.

Also, the "egalitarian/ what is feminism" discussion is a straw man.

It's a red herring, not a strawman. Now move along people, nothing to see here!


Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2015   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service