I'm a feminist because....

I quit my job because we had trouble with child care. I was home with our kids for 2 and a 1/2 years. I've been back at work a little under a year. Now my husband is going to quit his job. He's going to do some schooling and take care of our children. People are....well they're not nice about it. No one questioned me, not once, when I quit my job. You would think my husband is trying to kill us all with the responses I've gotten about him quitting his.

I'm a feminist because my husband should be allowed to be a stay at home parent without people freaking out.

1) I am working while my husband finishes up this certification or degree......
2) I am working because both me and my husband are semi-retired but being coop up at the house is driving me crazy.

3) I am working while my husband watches soap opera, drink wine, gossip with his 'peers' and supposedly do 'fake/woman work' like make pizza for dinner. (the work that stay at home moms do is discredited by women and men)

4) Husband and wife are horrible people who are trying to indoctrinate my puritan family by putting a sexy apron and heels on the man and sending the woman to work to hang with the boys and drink afterwork flirting with bar-keep. How immoral.

Leading with the 1st 2 helps, otherwise people seems to imagine 3 and 4.

I'm a feminist because I don't want to live in a terrible society...we ARE getting there but still have a long way to go!

The word "feminist" sounds a bit like "push women up and push men down."   What would be a word that is like "feminist" but means something more like "push women up and push men up and sort out the improper gender based issues"?

paul wheaton wrote:The word "feminist" sounds a bit like "push women up and push men down."   What would be a word that is like "feminist" but means something more like "push women up and push men up and sort out the improper gender based issues"?

Brainstorming....decentist, non-sub-humanist....hmm, I'm not good at this....I'm in the wrong frame of mind.  More thought required.

Greg Martin wrote:Brainstorming....decentist, non-sub-humanist....hmm, I'm not good at this.  More thought required.

People-ist?

I like "decentist" - although it doesn't say "solving gender based wonkiness".  And neither does "people-ist".

So, yeah, not a good solution here.

paul wheaton wrote:The word "feminist" sounds a bit like "push women up and push men down."   What would be a word that is like "feminist" but means something more like "push women up and push men up and sort out the improper gender based issues"?

"Humanist"?

The word logically ought to be humanist. But that is not what that word means at all, at this point in time.

In practice I suspect most people looking for that word, are using feminist. But maybe some say gender equality?

And some other people who mean something more like the first description, are also using feminist. I think there are a lot less of them, but they, and their detractors, can be very visible.

This strikes me as unfortunate, but less important at this point in time than dealing with the underlying bullshit and treating people as people.

In fact, this post is a perfect example of a need for feminism/gender equality that would most directly benefit a man... something that a lot of... people... seem unwilling to believe exists.


Because if you take a bunch of attributes and say, 'women should be this, and this is all women should be'... Guess what, you've effectively defined male attributes just as proscriptively.

….egalitarian, equalitarian, "solving gender based wonkinessist"....still working on it.

Dillon Nichols wrote:The word logically ought to be humanist. But that is not what that word means at all, at this point in time.

"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
– The Humanist Magazine"

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

What does the word "humanist" mean?

There's a lot of lovely stuff under the banner "feminism" and ...  wow, there are some people that are fully signed up for "all men are pigs" and call that feminism.  When I started college, I was cool with the name, but now ...   I think I would like something that clearly doesn't have a single spec of the "all men are pigs" baggage.  

So I like the subject line "I'm a feminist because ..."  --- only I want a sporty label for myself.  

Pro-genderist?

paul wheaton wrote:there are some people that are fully signed up for "all men are pigs" and call that feminism.

What becomes of the men who consider themselves feminists?  Probably don't consider themselves pigs....

I think you might be talking about the "She-woman Man-haters Club"!  :P

As that definition shows, there is quite a lot of philosophical baggage beyond 'treat people as people' tacked on. It is a secular movement, and other definitions I've seen are more explicitly anti-religion, among other things.

I'm not saying I disagree with it personally; I am saying that it leaves a lot of people out, and in my opinion obfuscates the much simpler issue at hand.

Dillon Nichols wrote:other definitions I've seen are more explicitly anti-religion.

I think you're right about that being the more common definition.

As a guy I'm a feminist because I've had enough experiences where I realize that I need women to help me understand the things guys do and don't realize.  Examples....mansplaining and dominating conversations.  Understanding these things are happening makes you see them more easily and allows you to appreciate the harm being done.  When I mention these things back to ANY woman they all see it.  Scary how blind we guys can sometimes be until the eye scales drop.  Nice how much better my relationships have gotten with my female friends....much better sharing/depth. Maybe others don't need the help....I do tend towards social obliviousness.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

paul wheaton wrote:there are some people that are fully signed up for "all men are pigs" and call that feminism.

What becomes of the men who consider themselves feminists?  Probably don't consider themselves pigs....

I think that most of those fellas are probably thinking that there are many flavors of feminism, and they are not subscribed to the man-hating stuff.

And then there might be a few guys that hate themselves and all men and are cool with the man hating stuff.

I'd say the problem is that instead of discussing the public shaming my husband is getting for wanting to be a father we are discussing whether the word is correct or if it means man hating.

I'd also like to say that it is easy to hate that which you fear and women have extremely valid reasons for fearing men. Acknowledging that may go a long way to understanding the hate.

Right on topic last night at dinner my son(8) told us that kids are saying ______is his girlfriend. She is his best friend at school and it's being sexualized by other 8 year olds. So weird. I told him to tell them that she is a girl that is his friend and calling her his girlfriend is really not accurate or age appropriate.

Greg Martin wrote:As a guy I'm a feminist because I've had enough experiences where I realize that I need women to help me understand the things guys do and don't realize.  Examples....mansplaining and dominating conversations.  Understanding these things are happening makes you see them more easily and allows you to appreciate the harm being done.  When I mention these things back to ANY woman they all see it.  Scary how blind we guys can sometimes be until the eye scales drop.  Nice how much better my relationships have gotten with my female friends....much better sharing/depth. Maybe others don't need the help....I do tend towards social obliviousness.

So somewhat funny story, my husband and I were walking downtown on our lunch break. While crossing the street we hear a whistle. I, of course, do not acknowledge I've heard it. Women learn early not to as it is seen as encouragement. My husband busts out laughing saying every guy in the area turned to look and I'm the only one who didn't.

I'm not a feminist because that brand of thinking, in my opinion, suggests a zero-sum game.

It should be humanist, but humanism shouldn't seek to actively exclude the entire segment of human experience that is encompassed by spiritualism and religion. A thing doesn't cease to exist because you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears. And as so much monumental art and culture is tied to worship, it's doing humanism a disservice to not respond constructively to it, rather than faith-shaming.

I think individualist might be most appropriate. After all, women aren't a single monolithic force any more than men are. We are each individuals with our own perspectives, and each deserves equal rights, and as much assistance from society as is required such that all individuals stand at the same height, as it were.

As with racism, I am uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance of stressing our differences to underline how much they shouldn't matter. Should we, perhaps, be focusing on that which we hold in common?

-CK

I'm a feminist because I would like to be able to use a word like 'feminist' or 'feminism' without being told it is the 'wrong' word.

To be clear, I didn't intend to suggest it was the wrong word for anyone else, nor do I think that could be reasonably inferred from what has been written.

Would it have been a different matter if my name were Christine rather than Christopher?

-CK

I despise the word feminist for the reasons Paul mentioned.  It immediately brings to mind pictures of vile, screaming, male-despising women with their faces twisted in hatred, waving signs and screaming.  The feminist movement in my mind has turned from wanting to be supportive of women to hating men and all they stand for.  

Chris Kott wrote:To be clear, I didn't intend to suggest it was the wrong word for anyone else, nor do I think that could be reasonably inferred from what has been written.

Would it have been a different matter if my name were Christine rather than Christopher?

-CK

Chris, I think I was posting while you were...haven't read what you wrote.  I was speaking to the previous discussion above about words to replace feminism.

Chris Kott wrote:To be clear, I didn't intend to suggest it was the wrong word for anyone else, nor do I think that could be reasonably inferred from what has been written.

Would it have been a different matter if my name were Christine rather than Christopher?

-CK

So this. This exactly. You are assuming because you are a male and we proclaim to be feminists that your opinion is despised purely on your possession of male parts.

Also, I do think it could be reasonably inferred. You did argue for the use of different words, after all.

Trace Oswald wrote:I despise the word feminist for the reasons Paul mentioned.  It immediately brings to mind pictures of vile, screaming, male-despising women with their faces twisted in hatred, waving signs and screaming.  The feminist movement in my mind has turned from wanting to be supportive of women to hating men and all they stand for.  

When you see the word Christian do you immediately picture people screaming, spit coming out of their mouths at funerals of dead soldiers?

When you see the word Mormon do you immediately picture a man raping girls?

When you see the word Muslim do you immediately picture bombs strapped onto chests?



No? Then why are you unable to look past the negative aspects of a few feminists to see the rest of us, standing, wanting women AND men to be judged by their character and not their possession of certain body parts?

I use the word feminist freely with no baggage...and the word liberal,  For me they have very positive connotations.
I identify with the word hippie also...and farmer and grandma...all have some negative elements for others maybe?

I was around when the late sixties, early seventies wave of feminism was happening...how else were we to pull ourselves up? it wasn't happening with passivity and no effort.  That effort certainly wasn't at the expense of men in the long run although that is the myth that some still try to promote.  

I think there are 'man haters' and there are 'misogynists' in any group.  Maybe even here at permies. I don't think 'angry man haters' define the feminist movement.

I was interested to read some history of the movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

It's surprising that we are stuck on the meaning of the word and it's perceived baggage when really Elle's example in the first post was one where a man is being stereotyped for his choices. Where is his support?  Seems like he is deserving of gender equality and consideration?

Second-wave feminism, 1960s to 1980s, focusing on reducing inequalities in sex, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. Third-wave feminism, 1990s to 2008, focusing on embracing individualism and diversity.  
Fourth-wave feminism is a wave of feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the belief that all humans are equal. It heavily focuses on intersectionality, pushing for greater empowerment of traditionally marginalized groups in society, including women and girls.

I like the idea of more equality and equity but I am not going to be hypocritical and pretend that I am not:
Ageist
I will give a group of 18yrs old doing stupid stuff more "forgiveness/slack" than I would "forgive" a group of 45 yr old.
I would also be more likely to giving a helping had to a 75yr old than a 35yr old, all things being equal.

Sexist
I would be more open hiring a female babysitter who is 30yr old than a male who is 30yr old.
Similarly I would be more likely to give a female paid maternity/new parent leave than a male/father.

Religion-ist (Yes I made up the word)
While I am not super religious and wouldn't care much if someone is hindi/jew/muslim. If someone said that they are going to sacrifice a lamb or worship a satan. I am probably going to look at them sideways and put them in a certain negative group.

Racist
I know I am a horrible person and I am working on it, but I would probably be more likely to open my door if i saw 2 young white females knocking on the door trying to get me to sign up for Solar Electric at 5pm sunset, Than I would open my door for 2 black men in their 30's.

Elitist
I would feel better hiring a lawyer/accountant who went to Harvard vs my local state college all else being equal

Localist
If someone said that they supporting our rival state (sport team). I will not judge them too harshly but I am going to put them in a negative group and possible make fun of them.

All that said, I thing that I am more progressive than my parents and I recognize my shortcoming and I do try to deal with my "horrible" biases.

Trace Oswald wrote:I despise the word feminist for the reasons Paul mentioned.  It immediately brings to mind pictures of vile, screaming, male-despising women with their faces twisted in hatred, waving signs and screaming.  The feminist movement in my mind has turned from wanting to be supportive of women to hating men and all they stand for.  

I'm sorry that that has been your experience.  

Have you been to many marches?

Judith Browning wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:I despise the word feminist for the reasons Paul mentioned.  It immediately brings to mind pictures of vile, screaming, male-despising women with their faces twisted in hatred, waving signs and screaming.  The feminist movement in my mind has turned from wanting to be supportive of women to hating men and all they stand for.  

I'm sorry that that has been your experience.  

Have you been to many marches?

No, I haven't.  I've been to two in Seattle and that was my experience at those.  Those were back in the early 90's.  I won't be going to another one.

elle sagenev wrote:wanting women AND men to be judged by their character and not their possession of certain body parts?

I call that being a decent human being.

It is very unfortunate to hear all the bad experiences people have had with feminism/feminist. While I have interacted with individuals that were unsavory and seemed motivated by anger and retribution than anything else, my general experience has been that feminists want an aknowledgement of the preeminence of patriarchy in our society and the predictable harms that have ensued. They also seem to be seeking institutional changes that will protect women from predictable harm and encourage the expansion of female representation into the various systems of power in our society.

If I am a feminist it is because my observations lead me to believe that broad societal patriarchy is near the source of many of our modern ails and that many of the most promising solutions I perceive would be encouraged by a stronger role of the feminine archetype in global society. If nothing else it seems like an experiment we could certainly afford to run. One of the most concerning trends I see in our modern society is the disgendering of everything. I perceive the existence of, and imbalance between, the archetypal genders as central to human life and our current calamitous position. To me, feminism means encouraging an increase of 'femininity' at a macro level and an encouragement of a balancing of the genders interpersonally (more connection to the feminine with men, more connection to the masculine with women).

Always interesting for me to see how language can silmutaneously be our most potent tool of collaboration and the largest stumbling block in cooperation.

Also funny to me that I identify the gender dichotomy as crucial to human culture but acknowledge the asexual universe of soil microbeasties as the foundation block of all life. Paradoxical creatures we are.

I spent my teenage years and early adulthood thinking feminism wasn't needed anymore.  I grew up in an awesome little bubble of the world where, despite having huge boobs, the only looks at my chest I got from men were clumsy, trying but failing to be discreet looks from drunk guys.  I grew up in a house where my mum preferred to fix the plumbing and my dad had absolutely no interest in that but would love to cook dinner, and no one thought much of it.  At parties, men and women mingled and talked about music, politics, life plans, whatever.  Children ran around and played and got plopped on a bed or a pile of coats (by father OR mother) to sleep when it got late.

Later, I moved in with my now husband, only a few hours away from where I grew up and experienced massive culture shock.  Walking down the street in summer, wearing modest-length shorts and a non-revealing tanktop I got leers.  And not just a few -from almost every guy I passed.  I had never experienced anything like this in my life.  I felt embarassed and threatened.  When my husband and I were looking at motorhomes to buy, I was generally ignored, even if I asked a question, and the male salespeople talked only to my husband...until the subject of the kitchen came up.  Then I was all his.  The parties I went to were weird.  The guys stood outside and talked about dirtbikes and trucks.  The women stood in the kitchen and talked about other people they all knew, weddings, and their kids (who were always left at home).  At my sister-in-law's wedding, my husband put together a gorgeous flower arrangement.  Everyone kept thanking me for doing it.

I'm now a feminist.

People keep talking about the baggage of the word feminism.  Judith and I, and I bet lots of other people, don't have any baggage attached to the word.  Does that mean we're wrong?  Maybe it means that baggage is a personal problem and there's nothing wrong with the actual word.

I took the names out of these quotes because I want to address the ideas, not the people saying them.

So this. This exactly. You are assuming because you are a male and we proclaim to be feminists that your opinion is despised purely on your possession of male parts. It shows a lack of understanding of what feminism actually is.

The word "feminist" sounds a bit like "push women up and push men down."   What would be a word that is like "feminist" but means something more like "push women up and push men up and sort out the improper gender based issues"?

When I first started learning about feminism, I found this website really helpful.  They’ve already worded things well, so I’ll just quote them.

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/faq-why-do-you-feminists-hate-men/

Feminists hate misogyny, not men. Kinda like that “hate the sin, not the sinner” thing, sometimes it’s easy to separate the behaviour from the enactor and sometimes it’s not.
But we know that not all men are pits of misogyny, so if you aren’t acting out misogyny, then it’s not about you. We also know that men who sometimes fall into minor unthinking habits of misogyny are not comparable to men who are violent and irredeemable misogynists. It’s understandable how sometimes criticisms of misogynists come across as generalisations about all men, when read by someone who isn’t used to the jargon shorthand and feminist perspectives. Time to lurk and learn.

Ilyka’s post: Occasionally conversations with my man are instructive is instructive here.

“A lot of the guys written about on feminist blogs do things I would never do.””Then don’t identify with them. It’s not about you! You stand to pee, they stand to pee, beyond that, what’s the commonality?”

Of course, the man-hating accusation is not always made by bewildered men of general goodwill. It is frequently made by men who simply don’t want to hear any criticism of their privileged status-quo.

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/faq-arent-feminists-just-sexists-towards-men/

One of the reasons why feminists are said to be sexist towards men is because we focus on, and privilege, the female point of view. The problem with this assertion is twofold:
1. It assumes that focusing on women’s issues means not looking at men’s issues at all
[Read More: Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?]
2. It assumes a level playing field, one which doesn’t actually exist yet
[Read More: What is male privilege?]

No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. But, the thing is, men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues.

Consider this:

Women get so few chances in which to share our stories with each other, to find out that we aren’t alone in our experiences, and to have venues in which to publicly tell our stories. The fact that women are beginning to organize and bring these things to their communities is nothing short of amazing.

If women can do this in the face of all the pressure from institutionalized sexism, then what’s stopping men from doing the same? Why is it women’s responsibility to make sure that men feel included by a presentation that, by its very name, is supposed to be about women reaching out to women?

[tekanji (Official Shrub.com Blog): Who’s responsible for facilitating discussion on men’s issues?]

I think many people learn about feminism from sources that already have a lot of baggage and just pass that on.  That's the kind of information I mostly see online, anyway.  I'm also a feminist because I don't think enough of the people who have this baggage are open to ever putting it down.

The word "feminism" is rooted in "feminine".  For women.  And I have witnessed some pretty serious anti-male stuff under the feminism banner.   So apparently, there are some people that think that feminism is about anti-male stuff.   In a way, that is sort of built into the name:  advancing one gender over the other.   At the same time, I think there are gender issues where it is tough for guys - like the first post in this thread.  And the draft.  And the thing about 80% of suicides are guys.  

So I wish ...   and it is okay for me to wish for things ...   I wish for a word that would say "support women, support men, and figure out how to solve gender based ickiness."   Just because I wish for something for myself does not suggest that I wish this for others.  Let alone require it for others.  

Sure, there will be websites that emphasize the upsides of feminism and make it clear that it is for supporting women without degrading men.  That's lovely.  Yay!

And as long as there is anti-male stuff happening in the name of "feminism", a name that seems to say "women over men", I can no longer call myself a feminist.  At the same time, I wish to see improvement in a lot of gender stuff, but I seem to be without a "team" or a "label" or a word to stand by.  Bummer.

I am in favor of 99% of feminist goals, but I think it would benefit from a rebranding and renaming. A lot like “environmentalism”, which I wholly support but think is burdened by the baggage of mistakes made by mostly well intentioned past environmentalists and smear campaigns by its opponents. Of course everyone should love the earth that supports us just like we should all love our mothers and sisters, but any term can be polluted in our culture.

Also, until people can say “mankind” without being considered a horrible mysogenist, I can’t accept the inherent hypocrisy of the term feminism alongside its tenet of neutering language. It is also counterproductive from a purely strategic standpoint. I want women to have at least equal power and respect, but I have to say that feminists very often act in ways that makes it impossible to see a way to help as a white guy at best, and I can see how they would seem antagonistic to someone who hasn’t read much on the philosophy.

“Feminism” is alienating for men for the same reason that “mankind”is for women. How absurd would it be to talk about being a “masculinist”? I would even say that having the masculine being the generic in “‘mankind” etc, is not entirely flattering to me as a man. I am fine with whatever people want to say or claim to be their beliefs, I see that as part of respecting different cultures, but it is going to baffle and frustrate me to work with that information if it is not internally consistent.

Moreover, many prominent espoused feminists will explicitly state that they essentially associate anything bad (I.e violence) with “masculinity”. I know that is just demonstrating a very simplistic (mis)understanding of feminism, but I would likewise also like to not be associated with macho dudes who do stupid, hurtful shit just because I also have a penis.

Ultimately, while many of the people I respect most are avowed feminists and they can articulate  an internally consistent philosophy, I vastly prefer the philosophical framework and practical applicability of deep ecology to feminism. However both express respect all living things of any gender, while valuing the need for a rebalancing of every aspect of our relationship with each other and nature.

Jan White wrote:People keep talking about the baggage of the word feminism.  Judith and I, and I bet lots of other people, don't have any baggage attached to the word.  Does that mean we're wrong?  Maybe it means that baggage is a personal problem and there's nothing wrong with the actual word.

I think many people learn about feminism from sources that already have a lot of baggage and just pass that on.  That's the kind of information I mostly see online, anyway.  I'm also a feminist because I don't think enough of the people who have this baggage are open to ever putting it down.

Amen!

To share another example: Years ago I decided I didn't want to have children and I labeled myself as childfree.  I wasn't childless - wishing I could have them and unable to do so.  I made a conscious decision not to have them.  It was (pardon the pun) very freeing to have a word that rejected all of the judgment often heaped on people who choose not to have kids - selfish, immature, etc.  My sister found the word borderline offensive and felt that it painted children in a negative way as if they were something everyone should be free of in an ideal world.  I don't feel that way about kids, I just don't want my own (and she actually thinks I'm an awesome aunt) and she has come to some peace with the term because my love for her kids is so very frequently and clearly expressed.  I adore them (and my other nieces and nephews) but I still consider myself happily childfree.  I'm okay with other people not liking the word and calling themselves childless instead but that's not my word.

For me, the word baggage thing is secondary. I am unwilling to let myself be ruled by my insecurities.

As with other "isms," the energy we're putting into arguing over how we're to be slotted into other people's categories of thinking only serves to distance and segregate us from one another further.

I personally believe that the way to empower developing countries, including those least-developed, is by the empowerment and higher education of women in those countries. I don't see this as feminist thinking any more than the idea that women should be included in the workforce, or be allowed to vote, for that matter. Why would we leave half of our productivity untrained, underutilised, undervalued and underappreciated?

Personally, I aspire to being a stay-at-farm Dad, setting up and operating intensive market garden operations designed to let me do it wearing a papoose or with toddlers in tow, perhaps literally on a shaded wagon in good weather, while my much better half brings in outside income assisting her former teacher in glassblowing, or making, showing, and selling her work.

But even the label I suggested in my earlier post suffers from the failing of all such labels; it can short-circuit thinking and discussion about what we are actually meaning with the words we use.

I think if the analogy is that life is a game, then everyone should be allowed to play, and that game should be tailored, not with handicaps, but with assistance to individuals as needed so that everyone can play and have fun.

-CK

In regard to your game analogy, I want feminists to have their way and equality to prevail, if for no other reason than so that if I “win” at life, I don’t have to feel like it was because my great grandfathers kneecapped everyone I competed with like I do now.

I'm not much of a feminist when living in North America where most issues have already been settled to my satisfaction.

But when visiting Kenya and the Philippines, I was exposed to just what happens when women are completely disempowered. Both countries are rife with extremely poor behavior being displayed by a large percentage of the men.

Substance abuse and Family Violence, mixed with a major amount of philandering are what many Kenyan women have come to expect in a man. Because of this, many of them have become the more angry type of feminist that we see on TV.

In the Philippines, many men drink too much but don't necessarily beat their women. They do keep their families in perpetual poverty. I met many nice women, who you would never guess would accept a ridiculous drunk as a husband, but they do.

I see these negative behaviors being perpetrated mostly by males, but for me it's still a dislike of drunks and druggies, no matter which sex.

So I am probably an anti-rotten behavioralist, and I don't care if they are men or women.