“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.”
–Rebecca West
As mentioned in the past, according to dictionary definition, I am a feminist. I support equality between the sexes in all realms of life. I make no apologies for disagreeing with those who are opposed to equality for women, including those who don’t realize their views are in opposition to this notion. I may not agree with all feminists or feminist theories, but to me, feminism as a general principle is a no-brainer — why would I not support uplifting change and improvement in the lives of women?
However, it seems that in disagreement, the words “feminism” and “feminist” are used to dismiss or belittle opposing views. Don’t understand someone’s opinion or don’t like it? If they happen to agree with a woman or mention anything favorable about women, you don’t have to. Just call them a feminist. At this point anything they have said or will say is rendered irrelevant nonsense. They are a feminist, how could anyone take them seriously?
This may come as a surprise to those who routinely use the “feminist” dismissal: but sometimes it’s just not about feminism. While a person may agree with feminist principles and even identify as a feminist, feminism does not have to be at the core of every opinion they may have. Feminism is merely one influence on their mindset which is created from the entirety of their life’s experiences and personal biases.
Sometimes It’s About Fairness
While feminism is concerned about equal rights and fairness towards women in particular, sometimes people oppose or align themselves with an issue in the name of fairness in general. Such people are in favor of people being treated justly and respectfully, regardless of their gender. If the people in question happen to be women, it’s simply a coincidence — if the situation involved men, their sentiments would not change. Thus feminism has nothing to do with it.
Sometimes It’s About the Person
All people have their likes and dislikes, and those could include other people. So people may agree (or disagree) with an issue because of the person espousing it, and at times that person may be a woman. This has nothing to do with one’s feminist leanings, but one’s personal leanings.
So, a woman supported Hillary Clinton for the United States presidential nomination? Does it have to be because she is a feminist? Could it be that she is in favor of Hillary’s views, or even Hillary herself?
Sometimes It’s About Widening Discussion
Great discussion occurs when all sides and views are presented and debated. An opposing viewpoint may be presented for the simple reason of increasing the depth and breadth of discussion. Whether or not this view agrees with feminism or the person presenting it as a feminist is irrelevant. It just has nothing to do with feminism.
What do you think — what does your feminism (or lack of) have to do with your views?
See also:
aloftyexistence 
I support feminism as an idea, but I see plenty of problems in the way it’s used in practice, as well as some of its theory and methodology. Basically, the idea that men and women are – or should be – equal goes without saying for me, so in this sense I’m a feminist.
But I don’t like many of the ways feminism is implemented as a theoretical discipline or practical cause. First of all, many feminists are privileged westerners who’d never admit their privileged position and who might not truly understand the needs of women who don’t belong to their race, culture or part of the world. Second of all, many feminists plainly hate men. No need to deny it. They don’t want the equality: they believe one gender has to rule and they want women to be it instead of men. They also blame men for everything bad that has happened to women during history, completely ignoring the complexity or historical and cultural circumstances. (In short, being a man wasn’t as fun as fun as they seem to believe, and maybe still isn’t).
As someone who doesn’t see women as better or worse than men, I fail to see these things as signs of fighting for equality.
But I don’t have problems with feminists, even the hard core ones. Ok, I usually don’t. I did receive some backlash when I married at the age of 24,5 and when I decided to take my husband’s last name, but I just told them to fook of. The thing is, many self-proclaimed feminsits are just barking and not doing anything. Which means they aren’t actively doing anything for the equality.
I’m not going to get into this or people are going to disagree harshly.
Mira,
“I don’t like many of the ways feminism is implemented as a theoretical discipline or practical cause. First of all, many feminists are privileged westerners who’d never admit their privileged position and who might not truly understand the needs of women who don’t belong to their race, culture or part of the world.”
Some do, yes, and these are quite annoying. They think that all discrimination pales in comparison to sexism and miss the point any way it comes at them. However, some feminists bend over backwards to understand other forms of discrimination as they know what it feels like to be discriminated against.
“Second of all, many feminists plainly hate men. No need to deny it.”
I don’t meet a lot who do. Maybe radical feminists, like the ones who were in my Women’s Studies courses, but they are not the majority.
“They don’t want the equality: they believe one gender has to rule and they want women to be it instead of men.”
This is a stereotype, but how true is it? I feel very strongly feminist, but I don’t want women to rule. I just don’t want them to be treated and thought of the way they currently are in the world.
“The thing is, many self-proclaimed feminists are just barking and not doing anything. Which means they aren’t actively doing anything for the equality.”
I think the definition of a feminist should include some sort of activism. Even if you’re just a keyboard warrior. 🙂
Nkosazana,
“I’m not going to get into this or people are going to disagree harshly.”
Oh no, please do share. 🙂
Whenever I hear young women (under say 30) talking about how feminism has ruined things it really makes me laugh. So many things young women take for granted are a direct result of feminism…
Sherry,
I agree. While feminism does have some negatives, the positives of it outweigh the negatives. I really doubt the feminism downers would have liked to be a 19th or early 20th century woman. They might want to Google “A Day Without Feminism”.
I’m not against feminism. I just don’t think the general idea of it , at least today, has much with the way it’s practiced.
Alee there’s something I’ve been wondering, you as a woman of color identify as feminist (I do as well) but do you ever feel you have to identify as a womanist (I also identify as such 🙂 ) because it’s more suited for black women and women of color? Since I’ve taken on the label, mainstream feminism (especially second wave feminism) has ignored the needs and concerns of low income and women of color, because after all it is movement that largely focused on the needs of white middle class women. Though I do think third wave feminism is trying to change that.
Just something I’m curious about.
The thing is, many self-proclaimed feminsits are just barking and not doing anything. Which means they aren’t actively doing anything for the equality.
I disagree, many feminists are involved in many forms of activism, these days feminists have also taken on other forms of oppression as well, such as being getting involved in LGBT issues and trying to address the needs of women of color and women all over the world, because feminists need to realize that sometimes women deal with other forms of oppression, such as racial, class, etc. I know it’s very easy to say that they’re not fighting for equality, but it’s much more complicated nowadays.
I don’t meet a lot who do. Maybe radical feminists, like the ones who were in my Women’s Studies courses, but they are not the majority.
That’s usually stereotype as well. Then I realized a lot of people don’t know the difference between a liberal and a radical feminists. Liberal feminists are all about equality, the ERA and all that. Radical feminists OTOH don’t like the ERA and don’t like the idea being viewed as the same as men. I also discovered that many radical feminists are most likely to be separatists,
I know this because I had the chance to meet a small group of radical feminists. They were vegans and they lived in their vans and I guess they just drove around the country. They don’t deal with men unless they feel there’s a need to. Also the New York Times did an article on an all women commune and this was a community of radical feminists and they weren’t angry nor scary. But they had some really strong views about letting heterosexual women and men into their communes.
What do you think — what does your feminism (or lack of) have to do with your views?
Well feminism has made me realize that I don’t have to fit into one specific definition of what it means to be a woman. As far as my beliefs go, like many feminists these days we all believe in choice. Like if you’re woman who chooses to be SAHM, then there’s nothing wrong with doing that, just like if you’re woman who wants to pursue a career, by all means do so. Now if you’re a woman who wants to “have it all” well I’m also not knocking that, but there are some issues I have with it. Of course, I also believe in equality. 🙂
Hey RenKiss,
I don’t identify as a feminist or womanist (though at various points in time, I identified as one or both). I do agree with feminist and womanist principles, and according to dictionary definitions of each, I would be considered such. But I don’t go around saying “As a feminist/womanist…” or branding myself as such.
The reason why I don’t is because I do not want anyone assuming my actions and thoughts should be one way or another because I identify as a feminist or womanist. I also don’t like restrictions placed on me via labels.
“I realized a lot of people don’t know the difference between a liberal and a radical feminists. Liberal feminists are all about equality, the ERA and all that. Radical feminists OTOH don’t like the ERA and don’t like the idea being viewed as the same as men.”
As much as I may disagree with some radical feminists (and they with me), I must say I admire their passion and find them completely funny; I do. I find their complete outrage and disgust with anything related to maleness to be so hilarious. And I’m also probably too feminist-leaning too ever dislike or dismiss someone that is feminist.
‘Now if you’re a woman who wants to “have it all” well I’m also not knocking that, but there are some issues I have with it.’
What’s wrong with wanting to have it all? 🙂
What’s wrong with wanting to have it all?
Oh there’s nothing wrong with it. 🙂 But these days it doesn’t really seem like women actually “have it all,” what I mean by that is having a full time career and being a wife and mother. I feel this where the feminist movement dropped the ball, it became about women being able to do it all, raise a family and have a full time career. But it seems a lot of women are more stressed out these days, because they’re doing everything. I can’t remember exactly where, but I remember seeing studies that indicate women still do the majority of the house work even when they work full time. (Good news is, it’s slowly changing) I’m pretty sure that’s not what the feminist movement supposed to accomplish. IMO I feel it was about making gender roles a lot more flexible.
Especially for women of color, now we’re no strangers of juggling a full time job and raising families. Women of color and low income women have been doing those things long before it became socially acceptable. What had it done for us? Make us tired, worn out, defeminized, etc.
Thus, I really feel in order for women to really be able to “have it all” IMHO is if we have some support (i.e. spouses who are willing to house hold chores and be apart of child rearing and all that) then life will be a little bit easier. 😀
RenKiss,
“…these days it doesn’t really seem like women actually “have it all,” what I mean by that is having a full time career and being a wife and mother…it seems a lot of women are more stressed out these days, because they’re doing everything. I can’t remember exactly where, but I remember seeing studies that indicate women still do the majority of the house work even when they work full time. “
This is true. Great point… I’ve definitely observed that women who work full-time still do most of the household chores and take care of the children. It can be too much.
“Thus, I really feel in order for women to really be able to “have it all” IMHO is if we have some support (i.e. spouses who are willing to house hold chores and be apart of child rearing and all that) then life will be a little bit easier. 😀 “
Oh yes, definitely! 🙂
I’ve always felt that whoever I marry should be willing and able to have an equal partnership and divide chores with me. I couldn’t do a really traditional guy who expects a woman to do all the household chores. I don’t mind doing some things, but I will not be doing it all in the house.
This is true. Great point… I’ve definitely observed that women who work full-time still do most of the household chores and take care of the children.
That was seen as a normal thing in my mother’s generation, and it’s still is, to a lesser extend. All of the women worked; there were practically no stay at home moms. The salaries were equal for men and women. Female doctors and engineers weren’t seen as anything unusual; it was 50/50 male/female ration in these occupations.
But after all the work at their job, they had to go back home and do the household work.
It’s changing these days, though, and paradoxically, mainly because women have become more spoiled, not because men have become more understanding. Which is a shame, because it’s truly not about that: it’s about sharing chores and responsibilities equally.
Uh…the F word. At it’s core, I am a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work, the right to choose and vote, the right to not have to stay married to Celie’s husband. However, it’s the fanaticism that always, ALWAYS ruins everything. I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna cuss out a dude who wants to open the door for me. And they can go on and take those bullets in Afghanistan, thankyouverymuch. I also really, REALLY like staying home with my kids and not having to work 50 kabillion hours a week in some cubicle. So what’s the takeaway? Take what’s good, leave the rest.
The thing is, you can’t just take what is good. If society is to be transformed – and it has to be – then it can’t be transformed only to allow a few good stuff, such as voting rights or divorce rights. The lack of these rights isn’t the core problem; the way societies are built is. So you have to reform all of this.
So, for example, by giving women more freedom in all areas of life, you simultaneously have to give them more responsibilities. You (general you) can’t accept to be fully responsible for your destiny (within reason), without liberating men from their duty to support you. If men and women are equal, no man should be responsible to support a woman; women should do that themselves. That’s where most of the freed om comes from: when you have your financial security, you don’t have to be with a man who’s abusing you or who’s forbidding you to wear short skirts if you don’t want to – you have options.
Basically, the old system was along the lines: men have to support you your whole life. That makes you into some kind of a toddler – you don’t have to worry about survival or about proving yourself as the most successful in your group. Others will take care of you. But it also means you had no say because you were, like a toddler, seen as incapable of deciding on anything, including your own life. They did feed you and provide for you, but that made them masters of your destiny.
But if you don’t have to depend on them, if you can survive without them providing for you, they can’t govern you anymore the way they did. So the much earned freedom comes with a responsibility, namely, that men didn’t have a duty to support or protect women anymore.
Yeah Sherry I agree some of these young college girls now smirk at feminism but don’t realize that some woman a long time ago had to do some real work so that these girls can go to what school they want to and if they want to work afterwards they can in any field they want to. These young girls today seem ungrateful and condescending about the whole movement. I am a feminist who happens to be black and I know that some bw do not agree with it either but it’s up to every woman to decide just don’t pretend that everything has always been ok with men throughout the ages because it has not. Women have at some points been virtual slaves to men. I like not having that option thank you very much.
On the points about women these days being ungrateful, I wonder if it’s because these women feel that feminism destroyed things like chivalry? Coupled with the fact that there are still a lot of misconceptions surrounding what feminism is?
Also Mira I do agree with your points about reforming the system. The thing about feminism is not only is it supposed to seek equality, but challenge the entire system. It’s good we’re at a point where the majority of people believe women should have equal rights, but society still has strong notions about how men and women should be. Even though gender roles are breaking down (a lot of which has to do with the fact that roles break down in developed societies) society still wants to hold onto these notions.
Mira,
How have women (in your country?) become more spoiled?
“So the much earned freedom comes with a responsibility, namely, that men didn’t have a duty to support or protect women anymore.”
Yeah, this is kind of a downside. I do like to feel protected, at least by my partner. I don’t want to do everything alone and by myself.
—
Hi Christelyn,
“At it’s core, I am a feminist.”
You could have fooled me! Lol.
Seriously, you seem to hold more essential ideas about the sexes.
“However, it’s the fanaticism that always, ALWAYS ruins everything. I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna cuss out a dude who wants to open the door for me.”
Lol, I don’t know if the average feminist would either. The average feminist probably isn’t a fanatic. But it’s always the extreme positions that get the most attention. However, it says a lot that feminism has taken a lot of flak for it’s extremists when every other movement and group also has their extremists.
“I also really, REALLY like staying home with my kids and not having to work 50 kabillion hours a week in some cubicle.”
I imagine it is awesome! You sure have more time for blogging than I do. Blogging was created for stay-at-home moms. 🙂
But feminism isn’t saying you can’t be a stay-at-home mom. It’s just saying that if you ever chose not to, you don’t have to always and only be a stay-at-home mom.
Hey Bellydancer *waves* Nice to see you here. 🙂
I think it’s because they don’t see what feminism is changing nowadays. A lot of work has already been laid down, and while they thank feminists for that (in a half-hearted kind of way…) they think feminists are just now pushing for things that don’t really matter. And feminists are “making trouble” where they don’t see a problem.
Let us also note women of pre-feminism also didn’t see what the problem was with the way things were…
—
RenKiss,
“On the points about women these days being ungrateful, I wonder if it’s because these women feel that feminism destroyed things like chivalry?”
This too, definitely. I personally didn’t want chivalry to go away, but I don’t think it has completely just that less men practice and those that do, do it to a lesser extent.
How have women (in your country?) become more spoiled?
By their parents. Fathers have special connections with their daughters for all their life – whatever problem you might have, even if you’re 35, you call your daddy and he’ll take care of it. (Like, he’ll find you a job or give you money). They learn to depend on their parents (especially fathers) – they are encouraged to try stuff on their own, but they always know that if anything goes wrong, daddy will be there to save the day with his connections.
Men are the same, though many are momma’s boys. Serbian mothers are traditionally overprotective towards their sons, but in the past few decades they’ve become overprotective towards daughters. So, a girl (or a boy) are not encouraged to do anything (when it comes to household chores) – mom will take care of that. You don’t need to learn how to cook, etc. Mom will do the laundry and what not even if you’re 25. (Since you can’t afford to get your place – people rarely can because it’s difficult to find a job).
Not all the people, of course; there are still those in rural areas who expect their daughters to do all household chores (and boys are not expected to do any). However, in big cities such as Belgrade, boys and girls are equally encouraged to depend on their parents on everything.
So at the end, you get more and more young women who know nothing about doing house work (such as cooking), and they don’t intend to learn just because of their boyfriends or husbands. On one hand, I’m ok with this – a bf or a husband should know how to cook as well and chores need to be shared. However, this apparent emancipation isn’t real, because it’s not as much about men becoming more pro-equality as much as it’s about women becoming less interested in house chores because they know others will take care of it (such as their mother or a mother in law).
On the other hand, this forced emancipation seems to be working. Less and less mothers raise the boys to believe a woman should work for them and cook for them, so when they marry a woman who doesn’t have a clue about house chores (just like he doesn’t have a clue), they can both start from scratch. And while there are still young men who are into traditional male/female roles, more and more see as normal to share house chores. Many Serbian men are devoted fathers so they understand that it involves changing the diapers.
Like my sister in law did when my niece woke up one night – she just pushed my brother out of bed and told him to change the baby’s diapers. And then she went back to sleep without feeling any guilt. I think this is the main change – my mother would never allow my father to do it because she would feel so guilty for “abandoning her child”. Young women don’t have that sort of attitude anymore, so they basically make the guys follow.
Which is a good thing for female liberation, but I am not sure if that’s true emancipation, because it doesn’t come from true understanding of the issues and goals that need to be achieved – it comes from being comfortable, because you know somebody (your parents) will always take care of you. It’s also about the pride: Serbs are incredibly proud and they would do anything to avoid being “tricked” by another person, even if that person is a spouse. So more and more young women go: “he will not trick me into cooking for him; he can go to his mother if he wants it”, which is a point I understand, but the mechanism behind it is not true emancipation the way it should be.
The problem with Feminism is it doesn’t often mean what people say it does.
But, then again, that’s been the problem with everything from Christianity to The Princess Bride.
Just my two cents. Spend it how you will!
What’s wrong with Princess Bride?
Being a feminist is fine, so long as it doesn’t become radical. As a woman, I of course feel we should be entitled to equal rights, equal pay, equal jobs etc. However, I have personally spoken with the radicals who want nothing more than for men to be ground into the dirt under their heels. They don’t want EQUALITY, they want MORE.
Example: The radical feminists get all indignant about a girl not being allowed on a high school football team, but where are they when a boy isn’t allowed on a field hockey team?
Example: Radicals say that every woman should be able to get any job she wants, which is fine for doctors, nurses, CEOs, cashiers, flight attendants, etc. But then we have people legislating for changing the rules for the more physical jobs. If a job requires that you MUST be able to carry 100 lbs. to do what is required, then don’t say it’s a “sexist” rule and make it 50 lbs. for women who want that job! Not only is this catering to a minority who want that job, but it is creating an unsafe/unproductive work setting. This may not be such a big deal for warehouse jobs, but what about fire-fighting?
Example: Many feminists get VERY upset at men, simply for being alive and doing things that women can do. (I realize not all of them are like that) Some of it is incredibly ridiculous stuff. I remember reading about a worker at a CVS Pharmacy who called Child Protective Services on a man who had dropped off pictures to be developed. What was so wrong with the pictures? Well, in addition to showing his wife and kids at a birthday party, carnival, and wedding, he also had *gasp* 2 pictures of his kids during bathtime making funny faces and having soap-mohawks! The (clearly unintelligent) CVS woman thought these pics were so close to being “child pornography” that she called the police on this guy! (She later said that if a woman had dropped off the pictures, she wouldn’t have done anything.)
There wasn’t much more to the article, as I recall, other than a follow-up article written by a feminist group that basically said men should “be careful of filming their children” or some other bull*&%# like that. So a woman can take pictures of her kids playing in the tub, but a man can’t? Stupidity at it’s finest, apparently.
Example: One of my coworkers is a Special Education teacher for his part-time job. Not that it’s a lot of his job, but if one of his female pupils needs to use the restroom, he’s not allowed to help them, and has to get a female teacher to help. However, his female teacher co-workers are allowed to help BOTH male and female pupils use the restroom! Where, exactly, is the fairness in that?
Now, I’ve taken only 2 Women’s Studies courses, and 1 Human Sexuality course. This by no means makes me an expert on feminism, anti-feminism, women’s rights, men’s rights, etc. However, I would just like to remind people that (while we truly should show the utmost respect for actual feminists, who want equality) we really need to watch out for the radicals who want to take away men’s rights!
Mira,
“By their parents. Fathers have special connections with their daughters for all their life”
Oh, I see.
“On the other hand, this forced emancipation seems to be working. Less and less mothers raise the boys to believe a woman should work for them and cook for them, so when they marry a woman who doesn’t have a clue about house chores (just like he doesn’t have a clue), they can both start from scratch.”
That sounds like a plan! Maybe we should start doing that over here, except the messy houses and fast food bills would add up quickly…
“Like my sister in law did when my niece woke up one night – she just pushed my brother out of bed and told him to change the baby’s diapers. And then she went back to sleep without feeling any guilt.”
LMAO.
For some reason, this was so hilarious to me; imagining that in my head.
Hi Zek!
“The problem with Feminism is it doesn’t often mean what people say it does.”
Do you mean that when people say they are a feminist or they practice feminism, what they really are and what they believe in isn’t gender equality?
That sounds like a plan! Maybe we should start doing that over here, except the messy houses and fast food bills would add up quickly…
You can’t do that in the US because most people don’t live with their parents when they’re adults. Somebody needs to cook and do house chores, and those are usually the mothers.
The US is just an economically stronger country, sorry.
You can always have them come over to do the cooking/cleaning. I know plenty of people whose mothers would come and do everything when they had a new baby, so why not for the long-term?
…Just kidding. 😉
Alee,
Do you mean that when people say they are a feminist or they practice feminism, what they really are and what they believe in isn’t gender equality?
Approximately, yes. I think back to, for example, that Jezebel article about the boys Jerry Sandusky raped, and the author decided it’d be worse if they victims had been girls. Because, y’know little boys being raped isn’t bad enough, right? /Snark.
Or another example from The Good Men Project where a writer revealed that his mom was a radical Feminist, yet constantly abused physically and emotionally him BECAUSE he was male.
That said, Feminism is always marketed as gender equality, but really it’s about women. I’m fine with that. I just don’t get why the misdirection… Nor can I really support a movement that refuses to be criticized, demonizes men, and often further victimizes people.
Actually, I read a great article on the subject from this new blog I’ve been following: http://www.genderratic.com/?p=933
Mira,
Nothing’s wrong with The Princess Bride! It’s my favorite movie of all time. BUT, it does reveal that problem people have with saying something that doesn’t mean what they think it means ; )
Zek,
I guess what I don’t understand about that position –yours and Anastasia’s– is why people are basing their view of feminism on what radical feminists do and say. Radical feminists are hardly the only type of feminist and most feminists are not radical feminists.
Few other groups are defined by their radicals/extremists. People don’t look at Nat Turner to define black abolitionists, they look at Harriet Tubman. People don’t look at Michael Moore to define liberals, they look at Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
But when it comes to women’s rights groups, all of a sudden, a few (albeit very vocal) factions are held up as a reason to dismiss the whole movement. This always seems to happen with women’s rights groups, from feminism to BWE.
I may just be cynical but I really think a lot of why people do this is because, deep down, they don’t really value the rights and worth of women and/or overvalue the rights and worth of men.
Alee,
But see, Michael Moore is used to define liberals as much as Bill Clinton or Obama are. Feminism is as responsible for the radical elements in their movement as is OWS, the Tea-Party, and others. Is that fair? I don’t know, but that’s reality.
And I find it extremely suspect that the rad-fems you say I’m generalizing from (and what’s funny is that I’m actually not — case in point, Manboobz, Hugo Schwyzer, Amanda Marcotte, and Jaclyn Friedman) as soon as some Feminist does something wrong, suddenly every Feminist and their momma is saying they’re NOT a Feminist. They throw people under the bus faster than Herman Cain throws Black people under the bus in a Republican debate. (I’m thinking specifically of Lorena Bobbitt, Sharon Osbourne, and Naomi Wolf.)
Yet I am not actually against Feminism at all! It’s ironic though that I so often criticize it despite deeply believing in the core mission it used to stand for. But like the woman in the article I linked, I can’t completely endorse a movement that acts immune to criticism, particularly when it’s done to prevent further victimization.
Zek,
Yet I am not actually against Feminism at all! It’s ironic though that I so often criticize it despite deeply believing in the core mission it used to stand for.
But isn’t that the point? To criticize something you actually believe in. If there’s something I completely dislike or disagree with, I might not waste my energy on criticizing it at all. It’s the stuff I feel close to that I criticize, and nothing is perfect so it deserves to be criticized.
Criticize doesn’t equal hate, or even a complete disagreement.
I don’t know. I’m one of those people who criticize their friends more than their “enemies’.
As for the Princess Bride, I haven’t seen that film, so I was intrigued to know what’s about it that makes it different than what it’s supposed to be.
Zek,
“But see, Michael Moore is used to define liberals as much as Bill Clinton or Obama are.”
Yes, in the sense that he’s a crazy loony liberal, but not in the sense that he is indicative of most liberals. If that were the case, the words Democrat/liberal would be as stigmatized as the words feminism/feminist are.
“Feminism is as responsible for the radical elements in their movement”
I believe people are responsible for their own actions; no one can control another person. I can’t and won’t answer for something someone else has done. Feminist can’t control or answer for what every person who self-identifies as a feminist has done, or will do.
“…as soon as some Feminist does something wrong, suddenly every Feminist and their momma is saying they’re NOT a Feminist.”
I’m not saying they’re not feminists. Just that they’re one type of feminist who don’t speak for all feminists.
But if every feminist is saying someone is not a feminist, then maybe that should be listened to…
Re: criticism
People do not like to be criticized; this is true of the vast majority of humans. This is not anything special to feminists and the same, if not more, can be seen in the Men’s Rights Advocates I come across.
But there is a way to criticize feminism/feminists (or anyone) and be heard. Saying essentially that feminism kind of sucks is not the way to do it.
Alee,
Yes, in the sense that he’s a crazy loony liberal, but not in the sense that he is indicative of most liberals.
I disagree. He is used as a stereotype of most liberals, very frequently in fact. And moreover, liberals continue to claim him.
In much the same way, Feminists still claim Hugo Schwyzer and Erin Gloria Ryan, even despite their actions. So I don’t understand your confusion as to how Feminism in many cases condones misandry, when there’s ample proof to that effect.
It becomes even more suspect when you consider how quickly Feminists will disown other, previously beloved Feminists, when they embarass or hurt the movement, and then just as quickly take them back into the fold after-the-fact.
Again, I use Hugo Schwyzer as an example. Not only has he admitted to being a rapist, attempting murder, and stated that all men are rapists, but he still is a significant prescence in the Feminist movement as a leader.
Saying they don’t speak for Feminists is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst when considering the influence people like Schwyzer (or Futrelle, Marcotte, and others) have on the movement as a whole.
You can’t have it both ways where people are Feminists except when they say something misandric.
Notice I’m not saying “Feminism sucks!”. I’m talking about serious, and rarely talked about issues with the movement/ideology and attempting to engage in a serious discussion about it.
But sadly, most of the time Feminists — seeing an attack on Feminism as an attack on women — will become extremely defensive, engaging in everything from insults to victim-blaming. And that itself is also an issue which isn’t discussed enough by Feminists =/
Alright, Zek, I know how it is to go back-and-forth with you, and I just won’t do it on this topic since your mind is made up. We’ll agree to disagree. 😉
Michael Moore is a loony?
Ha! The way he sees America is how an average person in my part of the world feels about their country. It sure seems like an ordinary attitude to me.
Alee,
Fair enough =)