Some feminists believe there are innate differences in mental aptitudes between the sexes; some don't. Some think all women should compete with men for well-paying jobs; some think women should stay home if that's what makes them happy. Some voted Hillary; some voted Barack. Some believe chastity is strength; some believe promiscuity is freedom. The list can go on ... I'd even be willing to bet there are some (self-described) pro-life feminists out there.

I'm a guy and I think I'm a feminist, but I'm not sure anymore. I was talking to Benjamin25 a few posts down and the question came up "what is a feminist"? I think there may be as many definitions as there are feminists.

The best I could come up with was something I saw on a bumper sticker: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Remove the word "radical" and it almost works for me. The problem is that it's extraordinarily vague and non-specific, venturing perilously close to the brink of tautology.

Here's the wikipedia entry:

<link>

But that's a description and not a definition. I'd like to know what you think - especially if you've been a feminist for a while. Thank you.

Feminism is the notion that women are people and therefore should be treated with the same amount of respect afforded to men. That women should not be considered inferior or judged on a different scale because of their sex.

selena, i dont know anybody who thinks or acts differently...and i beleive im in the majority...

Feminism at least in America, is about a bunch of militant white & jewish women running around burning bras and blaming white males for the country's / world's problems. They blame them for the supression of women and dominating the workforce. They blame them for sexism. They blame them for slavery. They blame them for every negative thing which affects humanity.

Its kinda funny how these "rebels with a cause" are some of the most rich and affluent (or from it) in society. Yeah; they have "suffered for the cause".

I just want to add that for the purposes of this thread, no definition is too broad, too vague, too specific, too inclusive, too exclusive, too offensive, too radical, too well-behaved or too anything else. My hope is that people will just feel free to put their definitions without fear of criticism or argument.

I can guarantee that I won't criticize or argue over anyone's definition, but I can't speak for anyone else. I just think there are a lot of different definitions floating around out there and I suspect that a lot of poeple will have interesting things to say.

Its a bit disturbing to want to comment on feminist dogma, when you really arent sure what the term actually means, or entails. I would hope that journalists would tend to be more 'feminist', because that is the way things are going. If you were to ask that same bunch of journalists (can I say 'newsmen'?) about the death penalty, I dont think the numbers would be much diferent. The death penalty is a bad idea, its expensive, it doesnt deter, the level of certainty and uniformity required to make it fair are pretty much impossible with this system and probably not any other, either.

Having said that, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice and dont see that as any way contradictory. I can completely reconcile both of those ideas into a moral framework that completely respects the idea that women are legally equal to any other citizen. I am also pro-execution and anti-death penalty. There should be the sentence of death permitted for certain crimes, but to pass such a sentence, the criminal must plead guilty to a capital offense, waive right to a jury trial, ask for and convince a judge that his case merits execution. He then goes through an automatic appeals process, has his case affirmed, declines clemency and gets executed. He should have full choice of method, etc. Sure, the initial numbers of cases like that will potentially be huge (like pent up demand for gay marriage, initially strong and tapering off), but after a short while it will be low and manageable. But the society has no business in killing its own people.

I want to believe that people in journalism are so smart and educated (and get paid for thinking) that their beliefs make sense and can be transmitted rationally. Child care for working parents isnt a women's issue, it should be an American issue. Healthcare shouldnt be a family issue, again its American. Reproductive health and awareness are human rights issues, not women's issues. I fully endorse any pharmacist to not have to issue any birth control devices, drugs or products, as well as anything else they dont approve of. I also believe that any company that employs such pharmacists should be allowed to fire them at no penalty. If a pharmacist doesnt want to prescribe birth control, he will have to open up his own pharmacy to do it. Or, work for a pharmacy that permits such behavior. Rights are rights regarless of who has them, feminism is a recognition that expression of the XIST transcript doesnt change that.

First of all, I have always been bothered by the idea that "feminist" is positive, but if someone said they were a "masculinist" it would immediately give the impression of some misogynistic cretin. Just saying.

I would define my variety of feminism--scratch that--gender equality as the idea that people should only be judged by their genitalia if their genitalia is actually involved in what they are doing.

I can throw a baseball overhand just fine. I do it with my arm and hand. I am not aware of anyone who throws a baseball with their penis.

I guess it would come down to grammar. Women MAY do anything, if they CAN. So, they should be allowed to be, say, Navy Seals, if they can pass the stringent physical requirements. They should be able to play in the NBA if they can keep up with the rest of the players.

I am actually a big fan of the anonymous grading idea. Have resumes and college applications be nameless until after acceptance. That would eliminate the worry of gender discrimination one way or another (also, help with racial discrimination).

I am not a fan of women's requirements being lower than men's for things like Police Officer or Fire(wo)man. If someone is unable to carry another person from a burning building, they should not have that responsibility, period.

Equality means equal opportunity to me. To some women, it seems to mean preferential treatment.

Freki

I always thought feminism was about choice, and not just in reference to reproductive rights. It encompassed more than that. It was about choosing to be whatever we wanted to be and not being judged for it or crammed into some ideal of what a woman should be.

In that way the bumper sticker is correct - women are human beings and should be seen as equal before the law and equal in society - no more than and no less than a man.

This means that women can marry, not marry, have kids, not have kids, go after whatever career she wants to go after, or not have a career and stay at home with the kids.

The important part about all that is that it is SHE that is making the choice. She is independent and can do for herself.

However, that definition has also been hijacked by political groups to mean other things as well. Some feminists want equal results and not just equal opportunity. To that end, they give feminism a bad name by requiring that women have to perform less in physical competitions for jobs that involve physical labor and they still get to have the job - police, firefighters, military (minus the combat thing since they are not even allowed to compete).

My thought is that at some point women are going to have to admit that there actually may be jobs out there that most women can't do because of the fact that men do have one up on us in the PHYSICAL department.

But does that really matter? Honestly? I don't care. Mostly because I don't want to be a firefighter or a cop or hump boxes or whatever else men can do better and more easily than we can because of the PHYSICAL differences. I mean, men can pee standing up, which is definitely an advantage (especially out camping. Boy Howdy!). Should we make laws that forbid men to do that so we're all sitting and therefore "equal"?

If a woman can do all the things that are necessary for a firefighter or a cop to do physically, without being overly macho about it, or too sissy about it, then the woman can have the job. Why does she get to do less push ups, less sit ups, run slower, etc? Isn't that admitting that we are "inferior" in some way?

That never made sense to me. My feelings are the same on combat (and my husband is an officer in the Army Reserve and I have asked him about what's necessary in combat. Also, he pretty much agrees with me on women in combat) - if she can carry the load required and can otherwise do whatever needs to be done physically for combat, than she should be allowed to do it. Most of the other arguments against it are the last remaining vestiges of sexism in this country where apparently we still believe all men are 12 year olds and can't control themselves and constantly get woodies everytime a woman is around. I mean, really. Sheesh.

Anyway, that's my definition.

Cheers.

For the most part white men ARE responsible for all those things (and other good things too). It was/is (mostly) white men that suppress(ed) women in the work force etc. You're trying to prove some point, but I'm not seeing it.

I think the above general definitions are correct, that feminism is that concept that men and women should be treated as equals in all aspects of life and afforded equal opportunities in all realms. Feminism in practice has largely been reduced to activism in specific key areas where women are still not equal, such as equal pay for equal work, or in ability to rise up the corporate ladder for various reasons such as unequal child-rearing responsibilities etc.

I also think that while it's not impossible to be a pro-life feminist, it IS impossible to be a feminist that is in favor of restricting/revoking a women's right to choice. Now if only we could work on reducing/eliminating people that insist on trying to restrict other people's rights with respect to choice, sexual preference etc.

I would consider myself a feminist but I think its too restrictive. I guess I'm a humanist in that I think ALL people should have equal protection and opportunity in ALL facets of life. That includes not screwing the poor, discriminating against gays & minorities in all forms etc. I like to believe that this view shouldn't require a label, as it should be what we ALL believe, but alas, if that were the case we wouldn't have so many people being oppressed...

So true Freki!

Theres nothing worse than a feminist who is shouting from the roof tops about Equality and Respect but yet expect the opposite sex to be a sugar daddy who wines & dines them like a trophy catch aboard his 50 ft. yacht.

You said it. I'm hoping that someday NOW can change its name and mission to NOGE!

Yes, it is understandable that when a movement starts it focus in very narrow and targeted. NOW was necessary since 'gender equality' was 99% about ensuring women are being treated as equals.

But once many of the primary goals have been meet a movement should morph into a more generic goal that includes all people.

What should a women that has little to no skills or education and where the father to be also fits into category do; Just have the baby and expect society to provide for the child?

To me the responsible and MORAL thing to do is to have an abortion and to NOT burden others. Of course IF family members are willing and ABLE to provide for the child than that is another thing.

With regards to adoption, my view is that most adoption talk is folly. In other words IF even 10% of the women that had abortions last year had the child instead and gave it up for adoptions there would be way too many un-adopted babies. This doesn't even factor in the racial issues associated with adoptions.

redleopard wrote the following post at 07/01/2008 5:39 PM:

So true Freki!

"Theres nothing worse than a feminist who is shouting from the roof tops about Equality and Respect but yet expect the opposite sex to be a sugar daddy who wines & dines them like a trophy catch aboard his 50 ft. yacht."

I dunno...speaking as a chick, I would rather have a sugar daddy* than bring my years of experience and stellar references into a body shop to apply as a painter and be told "honey, don't you think you would be better suited to a customer service position?"

It's not the sexism that I hate so much, or even not getting the job. It is the "honey...."

Grrr.

Freki

*I have been putting my husband through school by working 55 hours a week for a few years now, so frankly I am looking forward to some wining and dining now that he has graduated, dammit.

You see, this is exactly the problem with feminism.

"For the most part white men ARE responsible for all those things (and other good things too). It was/is (mostly) white men that suppress(ed) women in the work force etc. You're trying to prove some point, but I'm not seeing it." - DoctorJ

"White men" havn't done anything to women that every other race of men on the planet hasn't already done... except maybe fight for women rights. If you want to see women with the greatest freedoms and privileges human societies have to offer, a quick short-cut is to go where ever lots of white men live. Try to keep your racial bias in check - the sexism is ugly enough on its own.

Of course, this all presupposes that women have been unusually "suppressed" at all (gender roles have taken victims and doled out privilege across the spectrum). While women were barred from universities and inheritance, they were also barred from debtor's prison and battlefields. And certainly, this gender division was supported by women as much as men, so really, why a special blame for men? Why indeed.

That brings us to modern-day North America where males are the only gender that suffers discrimination before the law - and frequently so. Men fill prisons and soup kitchens in numbers so much greater than woman that it makes the divide between whites and blacks look inconsequential.

"Feminism" means that one favours political policy that holds women over men as much as it demands one presupposes (though errantly concludes might be more appropriate) that injustice along lines of gender only affects women, has only ever affected women, and isn't it really women that matter anyway?

Let's just call it the sexism of the left. As the hatred of white people is the racism of the left.

Just wanted to weigh in on this. Malarkey and I were discussing this issue elsewhere, and the reason why I posed this question was because the majority of "feminists" that are published at Slate seem to infer that one CANNOT be a feminist and at the same time put any stock in these studies. In fact, I get the impression that most Slate contributors in this arena are opposed to studies focused on trying to delineate aptitude differences between the sexes. There seems to be a paranoia among these "feminists" that such studies could be used to justify sexism.

It seems silly to me, but that is the implication. If you define feminism in the sense of thinking of men and women as "equals" (another term I'm not quite sure about), then I don't see how you reach the conclusion of these Slate authors...but I guess these authors do.