Are you a feminist?

I’m a meist. I do what is right for me.

I wouldn’t say I’m a feminist per se, but I am for equal rights for women and I’m very anti-sexism. People have a lot of misunderstandings about feminism though and assume it’s all about making women seem superior to men and such, but it’s really not. That said, I think that if men are drafted into the military, women should be too. I’m all about equality. Sometimes equality to the max. :)

@DominicX and what, exactly, makes you different from a feminist?

@holden

I don’t know. Maybe I am one. I guess because everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what it means to be a feminist.

@DominicX well it sure sounds like you fit my definition of a feminist. Welcome to the club!

What @DominicX said.

I am a feminist and I have taught my daughters, too. We do not have to run to men to do many things about a household, or some about cars. Equal pay for equal work and equal opportunities for the work.

I am an equal opportunist.

How do you, personally, define being a feminist?

What is your definition of feminism? I do not support preferential treatment towards either sex, and I do not believe in gender roles for either sex. I think the notion of women having a ‘place’ (in the home, with hubby as the breadwinner) to be just as reprehensible as any other stereotype that reinforces false division within our society. I do think it’s classy to open doors and do other basic chivalrous type shit, but I don’t think it’s “the way things should be” by default. Simply classy and more importantly polite and courteous. If a woman told me such behavior made her uncomfortable I would understand and support her 100% without feeling any slight to my ‘manhood’ or whatever. Infact, if a woman expected that sort of behavior on my part I would have no desire to do it. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. The pendulum swang[word]? too far this last time. I think the common courtesies toward anyone anytime should always apply. I’m pleased to hold a door open for someone overloaded and I would expect that courtesy back. I think we women have gone too far with we can do everything! No, we need men’s muscles a lot of the time and not just in the bedroom

I’m not a girl, but I hold a firm belief that girls should not be hindered in any way in things that boys can do freely. I believe that both genders have equal rights, and it is about time after hundreds of years of seeing girls as “helpless damsels” that we start seeing them as individual, dynamic personalities who I find much more interesting than men who treat girls as nothing but sex toys and puppets.

I have an image of feminism (perhaps incorrectly) as wanting special or different treatment, and I am opposed to that.

I am in favor of equality, equal responsibilities and opportunities for both sexes. Including not telling girls they don’t have the aptitude or ability to be race car drivers or computer experts. No discouraging anyone from being anything they want to be.

I never understood why you would want to call it feminism, wouldn’t a more sex neutral word be more appropriate if you strive for equal rights and responsibilities?

I would prefer to call myself a humanist, with values in accordance with many of the previous posters have said (equal opportunities and responsibilities for all humans). Too bad that term was snatched by Sartre and co a couple of years ago. The term femenist incurs negative connotations (struggle, being obstinate, man hater etc) for me.

I think we definetly have a long way to go with providing equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes, but i feel some feminists have gotten it afoot when they argue that all differences between sexes should be eradicated.

I think a healthy view on the topic is to face the harsh reality that men and women are different (biologically and mentally, for whatever reasons) and have different needs and abilities, but that these needs and abilities are probably very similar in general.

Dropping what i see as a popular misbelief (that has been pushed upon me since grade school) that women operate in the exact same ways as men have been one of the greater discoveries of my adult life.

If @DominicX is a feminist based on his answer then I guess I am too. It’s all about equality for me and like @DominicX said about being drafted into the military, if women want equality they should expect the good and the bad not just the good.

I’m a humanist- and that includes women, men and intersexed people. So yes, I am a feminist by proxy I suppose.

Women still make less than men, get asked things of them that we don’t ask men and are more likely to be killed by their spouse. So until these change, I feel we do need a women-focused movement. We just need to do it without demonizing men (which fourth wave feminism doesn’t do much of anymore).

I think, in the US, when people shy from feminism they are shying from second/third wave and not from how feminism has evolved in the past ten years or so.

I am a TA and lecture on sociology of gender. I can spend many days discussing it…however, I usually like to start with the distinction that there is no “one feminism”. Many gender scholars focus on liberal feminism, radical feminism, or socialist (usually called Marxist) feminism. In a nutshell, liberal feminism argues for inclusion. For example, liberal feminists would argue that there should be more women present in government or that women should be included in political/economic/ideological decision making processes. Radical feminists (feminism) supports changing social structure. So, these feminists would argue that including more women in government, for example, is not enough progress. Instead, the actual social structure of government (and/or institutions) should be changed. This would also include changing laws, not just broadening them to include more people (this most frequently is seen today via abortion and same sex marriage rights). Socialist feminists analyze the role of the political economy. Using that above example (same sex marriage…which many feminists have been concerned with), socialist feminists would ask what is it about our political sphere (and economy) that shows preference toward heterosexual marriage? Is there something about our labor structure that benefits from one particular type of marriage (by the way, yes)?
After explaining different types of feminism I usually explain waves of feminism and causes. I then talk about history, law, and current examples. I usually have students pick a topic and apply feminist views to it (in a term paper).

Like @nisse and @gemiwing I am a humanist. Men have a lot of social issues that are pretty detrimental to their entire gender and I think it’s unfair to ignore these issues. However, I also know not believe, KNOW that there are differences in men and woman that are related to physiology. Hormones make a difference. Being able to give birth versus not being able to makes a difference. Physical strength and size make a difference. All of these things need to be taken into account when considering equality.

My stance is pretty much the same as @DominicX.‘s

I do agree with @FutureMemory about certain chivalrous behaviors like opening doors for women, assisting her with her chair so help her “scoot in” more gracefully, or helping her with her coat. It shows caring and respect in a traditional way and I do not find it insulting at all.

Other side of the same coin, I think there are special traditional things a woman can do for a man that do not demean her. I do make a special dinner sometimes, mostly take care of buying his clothes and slap some pomade on his hair for special occasions so his hair isn’t fluffy (it makes him look like a little kid. lol)

But, you know, he also helps clean the house, does most of the laundry, spends tons of time with our daughter doing totally girly things, eats whatever I cook no matter how bad it turns out – and always thanks me. And I clean up the basement when it floods, rake leaves and change the oil in my car.

I understand everyone does not agree with my opinion and I know some of it is a bit antiquated. Maybe some relationships will be reversed, maybe non-male/female couples take some of these things and do them for each other not based on gender. Of course there are other things we can do to make our partners feel special. Whatever works for each relationship is the best thing. I just happen to be a little sentimentally traditional.

I think I am a feminist? Mostly, I am for equal opportunity I guess, and self determination. I don’t think there should be any barriers based on gender. Having said that I think much of the old standard etiquette regarding the sexes should still apply. Holding the door for a woman, especially getting in and out of the car is nice (getting out of my husband sports car in high heals is difficult), and helping to push in my chair if I am all decked out, and when I fly I expect a man next to me to help me get my carry-on luggage up into, or down from the overhead compartment. Men, generally, are simply taller and stronger naturally and I think if they can help out with little effort when I am struggling they should. It is not really a gender thing for me, just the reality of physical stregnth and stature. If I am in the supermarket and someone is too short to reach the top shelf, I help them, same difference.

I’m with @jenandcolin
there are many kinds of feminism – some would consider mine radical because I am not about any specific gender getting whatever upper hand, I am all about all genders being treated equally and that includes those who are transgender, gender non-conformant, etc. I would say I am coasting between 3rd and 4th waves of feminism. However, because society, to me, is not where acceptance of transgender people is the norm or even buying into the idea of more than 2 genders, I am a good old traditional feminist that is anti-sexist institutions when it comes to discussing these issues with the mainstream

I’ve pretty much always (since I starting thinking about such things in Jr. High) felt that men and women shouldn’t be constrained by social conceptions of gender roles. I don’t think they should be equal, because I don’t think it is physically possible for men and women to be equal. Men may be able to breast feed, but we will never give birth.

I believe that people, male or female, should have the support to do whatever they are capable of doing. They should not have to fight prejudice in order to do things they are perfectly capable of doing.

Once again, though, I see a difference between male and female leadership styles. I believe this difference is based, in part, on genetics. In any case, I think that the female leadership style should have a much higher representation in government and business. I believe we would all be better off if this were the case.

I believe we should all have choices to break the gender stereotypes. It disturbs me when both men and women still conform to gender stereotypes in terms of labor. I.e., the woman works at home raising the kids, and the man earns the money. I’m am constantly surprised at how often women say this is what they want.

I’m used to the idea that women should not be seen as sex objects (and by extension—baby caring objects). So when women want to do this, it bothers me. Seeing men as “success” objects is equally annoying to me. I still like the idea that we try to organize society so that each persons talents are employed where they can best be used, and that everyone should be guaranteed a minimum level of support, no matter what they choose to do with it. If this involves differing roles for the genders, I am ok with it, so long as people have choice—real choice, not socially constrained choice.

I consider myself a feminist. I don’t know about marxist or socialist or liberal feminism. I guess I’m stuck on the principle and haven’t really thought about strategy. I’m assuming it will happen over time. It’s really a cultural change, and those don’t happen fast.

@daloon just because there are physical differences doesn’t mean you can’t treat people equally…talking about breastfeeding and labor is just as irrelevant as talking about someone without limbs not being equal to someone with limbs

That’s interesting, @daloon,...then if you don’t regard women as men’s equals and vice versa, how do you regard the relationship between men and women?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I don’t understand. What kind of equality are you talking about? If you treat someone without limbs the same as you treat someone with limbs, then the person without limbs will get the short end of the stick. A kind person would make accommodations for physical differences. A person who wanted to treat everyone equally wouldn’t.

The same is true for many physical differences between the genders. Do we provide the same natal care to men and women? Do we give women testicular exams? You clearly can’t mean equality in physical ways, because that makes an enormous difference. But I’m at a loss to understand what kind of equality makes the real world irrelevant.

@daloon I mean in the kinds of rights you provide them – obvioulsy there are groups that need something specific to their physical attributes but that’s not specific to gender..one should take into consideration, obviously, that female-bodied people won’t need testicular exams but I don’t see how that’s relevant in any other societal field (other than sperm production)

@daloon but do you think in some ways it was easier when each gender had better defined roles? Again, I think everyone has a right to self determination, and I don’t think either gender should be limited to particular jobs or roles for that matter, but when the roles were better defined within a family situation, men made the money, women took care of the children and household, do you think it was better for family and society in general? That it made the family unit more stable? Fewer fights about who would do the laundry, things like that? As I write this I know I would not want women to be limited to taking care of the home and kids, but the point of having a define role, whatever it is seems important, whatever that definition is. And, I often wonder if the movement towards a two income family has had some negative effects causing people to be even more competitive about material things. Meaning the more money families had the more they spent, and then the more it takes to keep up with the neighbors.

I think Americans have not adjusted well to women in the workplace related to marriage and family. If two people are working then I think get a maid if you need one, take some pressures off in the domestic realm. Instead everyone tries to do everything, or many times the women do everything, at best both spouses share the responsibilities. I think it is too much. I don’t directly accuse women in the workplace as leading to stress in the home and divorce, but I do think our inability to adjust to the new circumstance has created some harm.

Still, I would always want women and men to have the option to do and be what they want, without judgement. Moreover, we have seen how being financially dependent on a spouse can be a bad thing.

@JLeslie I agree that society has not yet adjusted to the change in gender roles – women are still expected to take on the primary parental role even though many are now working – this is slowly changing but, for example, finding support out there for stay at home dads like my husband is next to near impossible and he feels marginalized for all the messages around him being only for ‘mom and baby’

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think this is slowly changing, I can see how stay at home dads might feel marginalized as you say. I think with divorce more of this is being addressed ironically, because men frequently have the sole responsibility of their children for all or part of the week. So we now see baby changing facilities for men or family rest rooms, and signs for Parent Parking, instead of Mom’s. Slowly but surely. But of course most of the marketing and advertising for products related to childcare are still targeted at women. I also actually hate when a specific parent is targeted or selected in regards to children by schools. Like I am not fond of daddy/daughter dances at schools, things like that. Yuck.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m sure you’ve heard that phrase, “the personal is political?” Politics, as far as I’m concerned, is the minutia of daily life writ large. Let’s take your person who lost their legs. Climbing the steps is a serious ordeal. Do we have a right to climb steps? Maybe. Maybe not. But assuming we do, does that right mean anything to the para?

However, the loss of a disabled person’s contribution to society is a serious loss. Just as the loss of every woman’s contribution when they are denied a job because they are female is a serious loss. We are all harmed by the loss of talent. How many incredible inventions have we lost because of discrimination against various groups? Maybe we could have eradicated poverty by now.

I’m still not sure what you mean by rights—but I’m guessing you mean “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Or something like that.

Rights are not something that exist naturally. They only exist because a community agrees that we all have such rights. It is not uncommon to see one set of rights for one group in a community, and another set for another group. There is no particular reason why everyone should have the same set of rights. It will only happen if everyone agrees to it.

Of course, in some countries, people have notions of fairness—that somehow society should guarantee everyone a fair shake in certain arenas—particularly those funded by public money. Back to the personal being political. Education, health care for children, road building and a gazillion other things come about because individuals want these things in their personal lives, and they band together to get them for everyone. Groups are organized and voila! Politics.

But nothing comes without a fight. It is irrelevant to talk about rights and fairness. That stuff means nothing. What we should talk about is the real world, and what principles we want to fight for in the real world, because the personal is political.

So if some women want something specific in the real world, they may have to organize and gain the power necessary to get whatever it is they want. They may use the rhetoric of rights to try to persuade others to join them, but when it comes down to it, rhetoric means little. It’s how people behave in the real world that matters, and for rights to mean anything at all, people have to treat others in the way they all agree is the most human and useful way of treating them.

@daloon I mean rights that are considered rights at a given point by a given society and obviously I am aware that rights don’t spring up organically and everyone should agree, imo, that people of all genders should be able to do anything they want whether it be careers or same-sex marriage or anything to do with roles – women, in the past, have organized to gain rights and they are continuing to do so…rallying up numbers requires education and discussion and I don’t believe saying ‘men and women are different, therefore they can not be equal’ is the way to go about it, imo. Also, fyi, if rhetoric means nothing, it goes the same for your rhetoric..and finally, what a sad view of society you have where people have to be useful to others…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Why would anyone care about anyone else if they weren’t useful? It would be nice if everyone treated everyone else as if they were valued just because they were themselves. But that’s just not the way the world is. At best, the people who love you accept you for who you are, but even that doesn’t happen all that often.

In terms of rhetoric, I was referring to political rhetoric, not conversations between friends. Although you are perfectly right that the stuff I write means nothing in any substantive way. It might mean something to one or two people, or maybe a dozen people or even fifty people, but that’s about it. There’s no particular reason why anyone should be interested in what I say, so I don’t expect you should find any particular meaning in what I write. I will say this, though: I do pay attention when you have written something, fwiw.

I think that the idea of equal rights has to be nuanced because it does have to take into account differences between people. We have to negotiate what “equal” rights means all the time. I do think, as I said above, that all people should be allowed to attempt to do anything they want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. But I’m not going to guarantee a job climbing telephone poles to a person with no legs, because everyone should have a right to earn a living.

@daloon well the thing there are people out there who care about other groups that have nothing to do with their own lives and want to help them get rights – that is how my world is and I am sorry you’ve never come across an activist who did something just because it was important, philosophically…in terms of love and acceptance, I expect it from those I’ve chosen to live my life with, no more no less…and finally, if we do take into account differences between people, let them be differences between any two individuals and not automatically between genders…again specific things that have to change in terms of sexism has little to do with women wanting to do things they physically can not do like produce sperm

@Simone_De_Beauvoir There is no one out there who has nothing to do with my life. No one! We are all linked and interdependent. That’s how my world is.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by philosophical importance. I’ve whiled away many an hour on philosophy, and that was nice, but it never accomplished anything. Organizing is the only way to get power. Discussions about what we want, and how we want to get it are the important discussions. We have to be connected to the real world, I think. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about speculative stuff, but only real work in the real world ever got anything done, and I don’t see very much of a connection between the philosophizing and the attainment of a more just society.

@daloon there have been many movements organized without a solid philosophical foundation and they have failed…it is not enough to just get angry people together…one must understand history and learn from it and once must understand our current situation and adapt…to me, the discussions I have on fluther are discussions I have all the time with people…I do activist work obviously but it’s all connected because for many people learning something begins their own journey where they can do ‘real things in the real world’

Yes! I define it as believing that women and men are equal.

Why yes I am. And I’m also a white southern male. That tends to blow people’s minds in itself.

Yes I would say I am.No explanation needed.

Of course I am. Feminism isn’t female supremacy, it’s equal rights for everyone of all genders. Why is it so hard for people to understand that?