Egalitarianism or Feminism?

I don't think only the confrontational people are feminists. I think believing in equal rights regardless of gender is feminism. So I identify as a feminist, and don't let the fact that some feminists are annoying bother me.

I mean, some bisexual people are annoying. Some women are annoying. Some atheists are freaking annoying, but I still identify as all of that.

I don't think it matters so much what you call yourself, MysteriousMadam. What matters is that you sound pretty sure of your beliefs: gender equality, with a focus on women's rights because at the moment they're disadvantaged. The label you put on those beliefs isn't going to change much. I choose to call my beliefs feminism. You can call it egalitarianism or feminism and in both cases you'd be completely justified.

 

You can use whatever label you want, but if you believe in the equality of all genders and people, by definition, you are a feminist. You can use whatever label makes you feel comfortable, but you are also a feminist by definition. Me personally, I consider myself a feminist ally and am proud to own that label.

 

Pretty much what has already been said.There are ignorant extremists in every movement.That doesn't make the ideals any less important.

 

Personally, I think feminism is just about making men and women equal. The reason why it started being called "feminism" is because originally women were oppressed more than men were (think the stone ages and medieval times) and also because femininity is looked down upon more. So feminism even helps men become more comfortable with a more feminine gender roles (as they are hated for doing such).

Radical feminism isn't the only type of feminism either, you can research different types. I realize there are a lot of crazy man-haters out there, but they aren't the whole movement and It's making me really sad to hear feminists being hated in general because of it.

What about all the atheists that hate religion and want to burn churches down? What about Christians who brainwash people and want homosexuals dead? What about gay people who think bisexuals don't exist and should "pick a side"? What about bisexuals who believe all sexuality is fluid and lesbians just haven't met the right man yet? What about PETA in regards to animal rights activists? Are we going to hate all of these identities and groups too just because these people are becoming more loud and commonplace?

Changing the word doesn't stop radicals, because radicals will ALWAYS exist in EVERY group.

 

Feminism. You can't complain about it being called that when the human race is called mankind.

 

I agree with what other people said here. Even though there are extremists in every group, it's really the ideology that matters, and most femisists I've seen on this site are the calm, rational type. The crazy type definitely aren't the majority. If you want to see man-hating feminists, just look at some Buzzfeed articles...

 

I don't choose to use the term "feminist" because the term is specific to women, but my belief in equality is not just about women. Yes, you can say that "feminism" applies to everyone, but then why is it called feminism? This is a semantic issue, and my position on the issue is that I want a term that is neutral and does not carry connotations of only focusing on women's issues, since I care very much about men's issues as well.

I prefer the term "Notanasshole". See, if you're Notanasshole, then you're in favor of equality for everyone, regardless of gender. You're sensitive to all issues. It's really that simple.

That's the problem with choosing a divisive label. As soon as you use it, you associate yourself with a specific set of views, biases, positions, and stereotypes, even if you don't fit them all. If you're going to call yourself a "feminist" and you want to respond to anti-feminists, you're just going to have to clarify your views and make sure they understand that you don't necessarily fit all the negative stereotypes that come with it. But you will judged for the label; that's just how it is. Same if you call yourself "a conservative", "a liberal", "an environmentalist", "a Christian", etc. Those associations necessarily come with the label.

 

I don't label myself as a feminist.

 

Egalitarian. Having debunked most of the myths that modern feminism clings to, I tend stay as far away from feminism as I possibly can as I believe in complete equality.

Happy days

 

100% Agree. I believe Hilary Clinton and Marisa Mayer shared similar opinion on the subject...it doesn't matter how you call it when it's the same thing. It's like debating whether you should call water "water" or "aqua"...useless debate.

 

I find myself to the sidelines... sure, there are some good feminists out there, but most who play a big part in the social movement are more... Anita Sarkeesian. I find a lot of the things these extreme feminists to say to be immature, and while I know there are a lot of nice people who identify as feminist, I feel those who are more minor would be better off just sticking with humanist... because basically that's what a lot of these "feminists" who are actually trying to help are. I think if you want to stand for something, your name should show what you clearly think- feminism does NOT sound like it's for equal rights at all... This is just my opinion of course, but I find most of the movement has done little to nothing that's helpful to society... The major feminists we see who are supposed to help all turn out to be radical and sexist for the most part. I stand by the term humanist.

 

^ This.

I can't blame you for not wanting to use the word "feminist" due the negative stigma associated with it... because I do the same thing. Everyone here knows I'm a feminist, but only one person in the outside world knows I'm one. I only felt comfortable telling her because she mentioned that she was one beforehand, so I knew she wouldn't see me as a radical man-hating Nazi.

She's also a Christian, by the way, which was a pleasant surprise since most of the Christians I know couldn't be any less feminist. There are both awesome people and radicals in both those groups.

Most of the time, I say I'm a humanist (which is also true). The religious-right don't like that word too much, but half the people I know don't even know what the word means, which is good for me, lol.

 

Holy crap, that's one huge typo. I sounded southern for a second!

 

The thing is, you have to follow specific strains of thought. It can be hard actually finding a thinker whose ideas really correspond with your own beliefs.

Okay, I'm a guy. I like the fact that I have a masculine part of my personality, even though I'm also genderqueer. However, I think that all sports other than chess and tennis ought to be outlawed. I'm more of a wolfish, outdoorsy kind of guy. I'd rather be scampering across a roof like a cat, on a building project for Habitat for Humanity, than watch a pointless auto race.

DHT-charged hyper-competitive BS is, in my way of thinking, an insult to masculinity. I see televised sports to be degrading to the male sex. Is that all we're good for? To fight each other like gladiators for people's amusement? To me, it's sick. It's throwing the worst aspects of what men are capable of into sharp relief, to the point of denigrating and ignoring the good things that the male sex is capable of. We can be thinkers. We can be builders. We can be seekers, and we can be people who dream of going to new worlds.

What the media does, by treating a ball game as if it were important news, is make the single worst aspects of the human race seem definitive of masculinity. That's not me trying to be a feminist or a liberal or an egalitarian, but it's me being a man who finds it insulting, from the standpoint of being a man. No wonder there are so many radical feminists who see men as worthless and expendable members of the human race if that's the main thing they ever see.

Other men, including gay men, don't feel that way. Not all men agree with me. As sure as I post those views, some gay guy is going to come along in my wake and tell me that I'm a horrible person for how I think, or I might even hear some reasonable views defending the other side, which I have heard before and a few of which make sense to me.

The thing is, you have to accept Laci Green, for instance, as an individual. She represents herself, not women and not feminists, even if she makes a pretense of representing women or feminists. She is a person, and she has good intentions in what she does. She is really trying to work to make the world a nicer place, and give credit where credit is due: she's really succeeding in raising awareness about a serious set of problems. Even if you disagree with some of her views on how to fix these problems, she is bringing them to light.

The thing is, it is proper for feminists to disagree with each other and to think as individuals. It shows that they think, and isn't that what many feminists are trying to get more men (and women, for that matter) to realize, anyway?

 

Yeah, and I have a female friend who fell victim to "curve-appreciation" gone wrong. She has a high metabolism (skinny as a rail and despises it), she is socially awkward, she is apparently very genderqueer, and she fell in with a group of women whose philosophy was that "real women are curvy" and had a really bad attitude toward anyone who didn't fit that image. She was eaten alive like she'd been dropped into a tank of pirahnas.

That kind of herd-mentality just seems messed-up, in my opinion.