What does being a feminist mean to you?

This may sound like a strange question, but I've read many, often contradictory definitions and arguments about who is/isn't a feminist and I've realized I don't actually have a very clear idea of what being a feminist means.

You know the drill: 'atheist' is someone who doesn't believe in any deity, 'supremacist' is someone who believes in the superiority of something etc. Yet no such simplified definiton comes to my mind about 'feminist'. Most often I read that it means a belief in gender equality, but wouldn't the term for that be 'egalitarian'?

Well, obviously we can't have a one perfect definition for everything, so instead of that I'd like to ask what being a feminist means to *YOU* personally.

For me it means believing in equal rights for both genders. I realize technically that is a "egalitarian" as you say, but i think because of the women's right movement the two became interchangeable for most people

For me, in most cases, it means antifeminism.

There is not only one kind of "feminism" as it might seem, so it gets confusing. There are different opinions, often the opposite of each other, and both call themselves feminists, so I like to divide them into feminists and antifeminists, in my own definition of what I consider feminism (being feminist is being feminine, not trying to be like a man).

If they truly wanted gender equality, they would be fighting for human rights, not "woman rights".

...What exactly does being "feminine" entail?

Not trying to attack you, but i personally both femininity and masculinity are merely constructs of society.

It's a very broad spectrum and term.

The goals of femin-ISM itself have changed over time to fit the times and the followers' interests as they pertain to culture/law/trend/etc. There are multiple subgroups and a wide spectrum of feminists, though most are rather in the middle (and not as radical as the popular media would like you to beleive).

To me, at its core, I would say feminism is "the radical belief that women are people", ones who deserve the same treatment, rights, payment for work, recognition, and respect as other humans, namely male, receive.

Actually this was partly why I made this thread. The 'radical' feminists as you say do indeed get a lot of exposure in the media, but precisely because of that exposure I can easily see what they are 'about' - hating men etc. Now obviously they are only a very vocal part of feminism so instead I wanted to hear what the 'non-crazy' feminist stands for, what it means and what it says about a person.



I like your answer and I believe that this is indeed the original goal of feminism. But nowadays, wouldn't this make pretty much every sensible human being a feminist?

Let me elaborate. To me, saying 'women are people' today is like saying 'I think murder should be punished' or 'I think child labor is wrong'. It just doesn't seem to reveal much about the person saying that. There was indeed a time when saying 'women are people' or 'blacks are people' was a damn big deal, but now we have laws in place that guarantee human rights regardless of race/sex, as well as laws against discrimination based on that, and anyone who argues against those statements is met with public backlash.

What I'm trying to say (I hope I succeeded..) is that, to me, saying 'I'm a feminist' in a country where women don't even have basic human rights is a pretty courageous statement that reveals a lot about the person, but in a 'civilised' country with proper laws in place a statement like that just doesn't seem to hold much meaning. Well, so I made this thread so I could get a better grip on what 'feminist' means.

Thanks for the answers folks, keep it up~

The bold is mostly the feminists I have encountered, in class and in videos. Some of them have gotten to the point where they are literally calling the US the country that REPRESSES and is HOLDING THEM HOSTAGE. Yet, they don't realize that in Latin America and Middle Eastern countries, women are treated far worse than the US and Japan. Too many clueless feminists nowadays who bash civil countries like the United States and European countries and fail to realize that they are living in luxury, compared to a more than half of the world.

That's my problem with “feminism”. It started with just a simple movement trying to achieve equality of freedom to women in general as people, then it suddenly moved to a movement of denial and suppression of reality, and in turn, womanhood itself.

To say that the concepts of femininity and masculinity have cultural values imbued into it is one thing, to say that the concept of femininity and masculinity are themselves culturally arbitrary is completely different, its a fallacy. The movement fell on the later. Based on a childish perception of justice, it raised the premise of equality above everything else, to the point that they started to treat a woman and a man as if they were the same thing, and any woman who doesn't agree with them, even as most scientific and impartial her reasons might be, will be treated as a brainwashed traitor working for “the evil men”, a poor creature who “fell in love with her own oppression”. Really, its not a movement about the understanding of women, it is just a premise being followed with a blind faith. This is no science at all.

Let's just look at this argument for example, that the concepts of femininity and masculinity are culturally arbitrary and culturally imposed. By saying that these two concepts are culturally arbitrary they imply these concepts have no real standing behind them and that in truth women and men are the same thing, like if women and a men were both equal sandboxes in which society constructs its own mirrored images on it.

Just to begin with, society infusing its own cultural values on the mind of the individual is indeed something that happens, not just on gender perception, but class, religious and political perceptions as well. It's just the way the human brain works. So, trying to fight that on only one field while ignoring the essence of the system in play already starts to be questionable. While dealing with a problem one can obviously choose to focus on a particular point, but one should never astray from the essence of the problem, which is general and affects all the elements, not just one in particular. And that is exactly what happens in modern mainstream feminism, by losing contact with the true nature of the issue it raises feminism in a dramatic level that completely numbs the sense of proportion. Feminism starts to be the center of the issue with its patriarchy criticism and inverts the line of thinking, feminists don’t study culture to understand why and how it works, they study culture to find fuel for patriarchy criticism as patriarchy itself now is seen as the center of the issue. Its just completely nuts and naive to epistemological ways of science, it grades feminism above the true nature of the issue. That's why it looks like more a political movement than a scientific one.

And second, the acknowledgment of this issue is not new. Since the classical times philosophers have not only acknowledged the issue but came up with a solution for it, which most of the times remains unheard by the mainstream feminists which are generally mentored in existentialism and nihilistic thinkers. From that it gets kind of obvious how they get to the conclusion that a woman and a man are the same thing. If everything don’t really exist, then it gets easy to conclude that a man and a woman are a bunch of nothingness in which society creates the illusion of being something distinct, but are in essence nothing and therefore the same. And that's really the problem of this argument.

Humans are not simple objects. Our physical differences which makes us distinct are not just physical trivialities. Its not like two walls painted with different colors. Our physical differences point out to a whole underlying system of mechanisms to create these differences that affect not only the physical appearance but collaterally the human behavior and capacities as well, its a structural difference. Not in a limiting way but, as in any genetic order, a tending way. This natural tendency is what makes us distinct cognitively and what I identify as “feminine” or “masculine”.

The point to highlight here is “tendency”. Tendency does not imply in a exclusion rule, but only a working force which creates a norm but doesn't dictates the norm. No psychological behavior genetically induced is imperative, every one of them can be denied and transformed, the natural mechanism will only create a tendency path.

And its over this tendency that society infuses its own concepts on the feminine or masculine, not totally creates the concept of feminine or masculine out of nowhere like the mainstream feminists affirm. That's why all societies, even though have differences on their perceptions of both concepts, still remain all similar on their core, for they only change the symbolism, but the core concept in which the symbolism was constructed remains the same for all societies. If the women for all societies have an affinity for rounder and cuter symbolisms and man for violent and aggressive symbolisms, it would be ridiculous to assume that all cultures, created separately from each other and many times with no contact at all, coincidentally decided to construct the same illusion of gender. Its exactly in the majority, in the norm, that you can identify a natural tendency.

A true feminist movement acknowledges this nature and so only calls for a woman's freedom to do their own choice for themselves, like any other human being and that's about it, not to rally them to fight men. If its their choice to follow this natural tendency then let it be so, if its their choice to go the opposite way, than let it be so too, but don’t politically and sociologically impose to do one of the choices, as if women were an homogeneous class. Mainstream feminism doesn’t have the right to say it represent our wishes.

Mainstream feminists completely ignore this tendency and think that equality of freedom its the same as equality of rights. Rights are not created out of thin air, they are based on the principle of possession. You cannot have rights over something you don't control, you don't own. As men and women have different bodies they'll have different rights over it, because they behave differently. Look for example the millenarian chinese martial arts. In the philosophy of Wushu it is stated that any human being have the right to fight on their own, to learn to fight on their own, being a man or a woman. That's the freedom to choose to fight. But does a woman have to fight equally as a man? Of course not. Any Wushu master that is worth their weight knows that as men and women has different bodies different fighting styles apply to them. Some styles work well for both of them, some work better for men some work better for women. One can certainly choose to learn to fight in a style that its more suitable for the opposite gender but will certainly not achieve the same efficiency as easily as the other gender. Women have more agile and flexible legs than most men, as well a more developed hip and back muscle developed to carry front weight more easily, our gravitational centers are different and so styles that focus on leg work and spin are more suitable for us than men, which have stronger bust and arms with more weight on the shoulders, that's why many styles suitable for men work with momentum. If a woman focuses her abilities on a fighting style more suitable for men, she will easily end up looking more like a man, as she will be denying her natural tendency and following a man tendency, and vice-versa.

Ng Mui, a female master from the ancient china and one of the five elders, created the Wing Chun style specifically because on its extremes the female body can hardly compete with the momentum generated by an extreme man, so that’s why she created a style that focuses on manipulating the momentum of the enemy with little movement of yourself, as long as they are fast and brief. Wu Mei Pai style focuses on leg work and balance to coordinate the spin generated by the leg work. It is believed that when she was helping to create the five pattern hung ken she was the one who created the graceful styles while the other male masters focused on the forceful styles.

A mainstream feminist would argue that all of that is demeaning for a woman, that a woman should not fight differently than a man, that they both should be taught the same fighting style, that it is biased to say a style more suitable for one or another. And that is because, again, they cannot recognize what is truthfully feminine or masculine, they just want all rights to be equal, when they can't even understand what a right is. If it was left to them, the Olympic sports would not have gender separation, its demeaning to separate women' soccer and men' soccer, it should be all mixed up. In truth, it is the political emasculation of men and masculinity of women. It completely disregards the nature of both genders.

These conclusions seems simple and obvious in these situations, but just change the focus to political situations and see how this turns out. One of the first demands of the feminist movement was equality of wages in the industrial revolution era. The argument was that as women were perceived as inferior beings they were paid lesser wages than men in the workplace, as man and woman should have equal rights, they have to be paid the same amount no matter what.

Wage, in a free-market, is usually set in an agreement between the employer and employee over the value of the employee's workforce. If his production output surpasses the average it will usually result in a higher wage as the employee's workforce is more valuable (a raise) and if there is special circumstances impending his production value it will usually go down to adapt to the employee's workforce. As proved by Böhm-Bawerk researches, most of the industrial revolution scenarios were created by the extensive work necessary for production at the time given the technological status quo of the era, not the “evil” minds of the businessman as Karl Marx would like to point out. As most of the production was based on physical proficiency to achieve a higher production, individuals with sturdy physical attributes to endure the difficulties of the work place would usually gain a higher wage as their efficiency was expected to be higher, which were mostly men, and women, having a natural weaker body by their natural tendencies would gain less as their production was expected to be lower than a more sturdy man in these fatiguing work places. These facts have been raised as a flag by mainstream feminists to prove that women are mistreated and tortured by society, usually raising this issue and not revealing its cause, so it creates a false sense that the lower wages where completely culturally arbitrary and bad intentioned. And because they usually study culture and history with the purpose of blaming patriarchal society they also do not show that even despite women lower wage for physical works at the time, women had a much higher wage in administrative positions and were preferred over men, which most of the time had lower ages in such positions, as for example secretaries and managers. Such positions require high multitasking skills, organization, and a nurturing behavior towards other human beings, all attributes in which a woman naturally excels over our natural tendencies and usually the choice of most women when searching for a job. I have yet to see women complaining about the bias of men between the construction workers. For mainstream feminists, none of these matters, what matters is that men and women should be paid the same no matter what. Now if I want to work for a lesser wage as to increase my competitiveness on the market I cannot do so, even though its my own free-will decision, because man and woman should be paid the same no matter what. In truth, while trying to protect the so called women' rights in our society, feminism is now bringing more harm than good to our freedom.

It is the mainstream feminism that completely denies women sexual nature by condemning pornography as demeaning for women and want to place an outright ban on it. That pornography is equal to sexual abuse acts. To them, all the men in this site are rapers, and the girls here are suffering from a Stockholm syndrome, that we're mentally ill. Many of the main thinkers of the feminist movement like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon helped creating anti-porn legislation.

Of course, even the feminism movement is not homogeneous, there are many feminists who oppose these ideas like Wendy McElroy and Sallie Tisdale, but again, they are a minor force in the movement, the pantheon of feminist thinkers are still women completely averse of women sexuality. What the mainstream feminism criticizes is definitely there, but they don’t truly understand the reasons to why. The mainstream feminism its still very stupid. That's why I said I separated them in feminists and anti-feminists. Those that are moved by a political and emotional agenda, and those that just want to understand what is a woman and what is feminine and assure a woman’s right of freedom.

I hate to bring this out, as it pisses people off, but that's a classic check on the demeaning of feminism's need chart.... put lightly here as bingo.




While I agree that yes, first world women have MANY rights and privileges afforded them that those in countless other countries do not, there is still a dire need for feminism.

Right now, for example, in the USA, basic women's rights of access to healthcare are being considered "privileges" that somehow citizen females do not have any say in preserving. Remember how, recently, the woman who spoke the biological term "vagina" was forced to leave a major hearing on women's healthcare? Sen. Akin's remarks this week about qualifying rape? The list goes on...
Women's wages (and thus, overall life earnings and retirement abilities) are still 70 cents to every dollar a male in the same position/years-on-the-job/experience earns. Women are profiled and blamed for acts of violence and sexual assault committed against them by courts and officers of the law, though law supposedly forbids this.

In other first world countries such France, religious women are not allowed to wear head-coverings that they consider part of their everyday dress and religious duty, to some. More countries, too, have female healthcare standards that are based on the decisions of "morally focused" male courts.

Yes, feminism has solved many societal problems and conquered a lot of obstacles for women. However, new problems continue to rear their ugly heads.

To compare struggles of one population of women to another is faulty: yes, those in underdeveloped places may suffer, but world over there is STILL suffering, even with some issues resolved. Feminism changes and evolves to try to meet a population's dilemmas that pertain to women. It is still very much needed, everywhere.

Ha, really? A minus rep for stating the facts?
That might be the most telling sign of a need for feminism yet.

To me, feminism is women trying to shove equal rights down mens throats. Calling everything sexist, being hypocritical, idiotic, etc.
Generally, I don't like associating with feminists... They annoy the fuck out of me.
Sorry for the lack of explanation, I'm kinda tired, so I can't think of any examples >.>

Feminist - in my country - is a group of high class ladies who don't know what the poor women need , so they keep protesting about the usual stupid stuff , claiming that men is robbing these women rights .
they insist on showing the bad side of some men , claiming that these men represent the men in our region , also , Most of these groups didn't do anything helpfull in this area to women , they made it worse for them in many different ways .
Some of these groups are demanding of banning some of the traditions and religious acts because they think it's stealing women rights , although a lot of women do these with their own freewill , which make banning these activities affect these women own freedom
equality between men and women in some cases is impossible and may harm women rather than achieving any good for them
that's my point of view on some of these groups

For those saying that feminism is "done", needs to stop, or has already accomplished all its goals, I suggest the following user-submitted-content sites. I know for many people who think "sexism is over; they just hate men", they may not have had someone in their life affected by sexism.

One recent example:
http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/
yes, I realize it is "tumblr hurr durr" but the blog has been cited by a few sources discussing the question. It is worth a look.
Some images from the site, for a sample:


And another, with simple text submissions coming mostly from the UK (a first world country, no less). It only just opened, but has over 100 pages of personal accounts from both BOTH sexes regarding their experiences of sexism around them.
http://www.everydaysexism.com/

Here are some sample stories (trigger warning to those who choose to open):
(each story is in quotes, I omitted names and ages; though rare, I will indicate if comment was made by a male)


Sometimes, it is hard to see the struggles of a group. I fully understand that. However, I think that seeing such volumes upon volumes of personal accounts really drive home the point that everyday sexism STILL occurs in high numbers to a shocking amount of people.

First, the feminists proclaim that men do not treat them equally, so now I will treat Lisa Brown equally in the context of politics:

This is the video in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SghMijpkrbs&feature=youtu.be

1)Lisa, your first mistake was invoking your religion in a political forum. I thought this country was founded on the separation of church and state, this includes policy debate(foreign and national policy debate) and while you tried to place the qualifer: "I'm not asking you to adopt my religious beliefs", in stating such beliefs as the reason for your denying the bill in a public forum, you pretty much are asking them to adopt your beliefs.

2)Yes, your use of the term "vagina" is inappropriate, again, it is a political forum. Especially in the context of the very defamatory way you stated it "I'm glad you're all so interested in my vagina." No, Ms. Lisa, I doubt the men of Michigan are interested in your vagina, or the men in this country for that matter.

But rather, the debate about abortion is a debate regarding the fact that as "Jewish law" supposedly states, the life of a female is superior to that of the life of the fetus. As an American, I believe the life of both mother and child, nay, the life of all beings are equal and wherever possible, we should work to preserve both lives. If a medical abortion cannot be avoided, I've already voiced my support for that. But let us define a medical abortion, since these women touched on it.

A medical abortion can only be clearly defined, as a situation where the life of the mother is in grave, mortal danger, and I'll put this disclaimer as well: And where the cons of bringing the baby into the world, outweigh the pros(IE:Life). Like say, if a baby is born with Downs Syndrome and only has like 5 years to live, I can see sparing the baby from being a statistic(infant mortality).

However, when you speak of "health of the baby", if you mean that there's a chance of developing a mental disorder, or some other kind of challenge and in your demi-god status you want the "perfect child", uh, no, thanks. I'm not allowing that politically. While, in the thirties prior to the war America was a supporter of eugenics, we are a much different, more civilized nation now.

I do not support eugenics, I believe if we want a healthy baby, we should take care of ourselves as adults. Of course, you can do all of those things and still end up with "flaws", but so what?

I was born with Cerebral Palsy, and supposedly(though I deny it), Autism, etc. I overcame those challenges to become the college intellectual you see today. Am I still flawed? Life is not perfect, at any stage including birth.

Neither the male, nor the female has the right to control it. We've no right over the sanctity of life. Period.

Secondly, Gizgal is clearly referring to the Toronto issue when he says "Women are profiled and blamed", women were not being profiled or blamed for anything. But rather, that if you carry yourself in a proper manner(IE:Wear clothing appropriate for the situation you may be in), stay with the correct crowds, etc. There's less of a chance(of being forcibly raped)

Is it perfect? No. Of course, there are scumbags who will abuse women simply for the power it gives them. And it's up to decent minded males to outnumber these scumbags and treat women with respect.

Should the police officer have said what he said? To his daughter or wife, perhaps, but in a public forum he's expected to make politically correct statements such as "Hear the victim out, leave nothing to chance, etc." The Police force has been politicized sadly by public pressure and this same politicization actually makes the police force ineffective at it's job.

If we treated the police in the same manner that we treated the CIA or FBI, I wonder if that rape sentencing statistic would improve?

Before I post my long wall of text of feminist history, my thoughts on today's long list of different feminist and my inevitable scorn of feminist theory and "Women's Suffrage" I want to ask you something about this image.

How would you go about teaching "Don't Rape"?

Make it clear to children of both sexes during sex education what consent is and is not.
Emphasize this point.
Remind that all rape is rape, and the victim is not at fault.

Teach both genders self defense, not what "not to do/wear/drink".
Roleplay situations where a young person might be confused about the status of consent to make sure they get it.
Encourage open and clear communication from all parties.
Discourage the making light of rape and sexual assault.

There are a lot of things that could be done. Sadly, they're not focused on but rather afterthoughts to a crime scene. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. Why not improve FORESIGHT instead?

Well, personally, I have some serious problems with the premisses of these accounts, but ignoring that, this seems again off the mark in regard to mainstream feminism. This is a problem mostly about bias on sexism, which while has been historically pointed out by feminism it doesn’t focus on the true issue underlying the sexism. Mainstream feminism talks mainly about sexism on, obviously, the female gender, while criticizing the aspects of it and holds very little care for both sexes. It took years for mainstream feminists accept that a men' image can also be objectified and all of them still hold true to the standing that her ideas had not hurt the standing of men (some radicals even argue that if it really did hurt, “it was well deserved”). There are many other sexual victims which mainstream feminism as it is cannot protect, as for example lesbian rape and discrimination between the women themselves (which mainstream feminism are partially to blame), and that is because again, feminism in itself have lost contact with the true nature of the issue. That's why even after a century of effort, it hasn't really solved the problem, and while trying to “solve it” mainstream feminism end up doing more harm than good to protect these sufferers on these accounts, it is simply pushing the suffering out of one group to another, or do I need to link thousands of accounts of men who have lost everything out of stupid legislation meant to protect women?

Mainstream feminism, if it had any righteousness in the past it has been long lost since the academy feminism, which now holds the true action power of the movement, got corrupted over wrong assumptions.

I find it very strange to put feminism, a movement about the female in regard to the male, as the shield of sex victims in general.

I fully agree: feminism (for a long time, and to a great extent today) began with mostly a population of mid/upper-class, white, cis, heterosexual women. It NEEDS to expand to include the issues of all. Infighting between women has sadly become common as well (not to say it never existed prior, but still).

However, there ARE feminists who are interested in changing the mainstream. Inclusiveness of "othered" groups isn't enough: intersectionality is NEEDED. Thankfully, a lot of younger feminists are making this a goal.

I honestly think the word "victim" is one of the worst words we've created in human history. It certainly is not right for the rapist to engage in his actions, but let's not act like you can't take preventative action from putting yourself in that situation.

If you're a woman and you're going out late at night, go out with your friends. Nothing sexist about that suggestion, is there? And I don't think there's anything suggestive about wearing appropriate clothing for the right situation. Sure, at a club go out and party, but when in a car, try to do what you can to put yourself back in decency for a public setting.

I believe, like you, in sex education. Sadly, sex education is mostly in JR. High/High School, and that setting I believe is a god awful one for such an important discussion(I shouldn't have to explain, why, should I? Both male and female teenagers feel 'giddy' about the topic, want to explore it and make light of it at times.)

Pres.Obama once supported something 'radical' that I approve of: Sex Education should be had at the lower levels(Middle school/younger), hell, parents should be actively involved in Sex Education. If we made Sex education more of a parental issue and less of a State/Public School issue, I find that'll be true social reform.

I don't think "roleplaying" a case of rape is going to help reform, you cannot proclaim rapists to be "beasts who want power over a woman", and at the same time purpose a solution that identifies a lack of sexual knowledge as the problem. And I'd hate to make sexual behavior more open than it actually is. Roleplaying would encourage that it's okay for sexual intercourse on an open platform.

In my mind, it's the open sexuality that has led to perverse behaviors, making it even more open and less sanctified would lead to more violations of women, not less.

By roleplay, I meant sort of have students enact situations where they may not know what a partner's consensual status is, not simulate/perform sex upon each other. THAT would be very ill-advised...

As to victim, I can see your objection. However, for a time, many people DO undergo victim situations. Some call themselves "survivors", as it is more empowering. I am fine with either term.
Though, to qualify victimhood is pretty messed up, about on par to qualifying rape. It's saying "oh, the crime committed against you wasn't as bad as [so-and-so]'s experience, your feelings and upset are invalid".

"When in a car" dress appropriately?! Ok, I see what you're trying to say, I do. But someone should be able to be safe no matter what they wear. And in a car? That, in most practice and theory, is one of the most safe personal places to be. What one wears while driving isn't going to impact much.

For those who don't have the safety of personal transportation to and/or from an occasion where they wish to dress as they like, they should be able to walk the streets without fear of mistreatment.

This is actually taught in "how to avoid" orientations.

They also put emphasis on community efforts to make it easier to stop it.



I can understand the wear one.
But I think teaching people stay and travel in large groups, especially when out at night is a good prevention measure. And asking someone not to drink isn't illogical(I think it's about 45%-50% where both the victim and perpetrator are drunk/drinking, male usually always held responsible), although it's better to ask them to be responsible, and to keep a constant eye on your drink.