i consider myself a feminist. a lot of people on this thread remind me of when i didn't want to call myself an athiest because they were all annoying and obnoxious, it didn't matter because i still was one, i believe in equal rights therefore i am a feminist
-
Guest, can you feel the love in the air? Valentine's Week at The Bell Tree has begun with a new mini-event featuring four activities to enjoy -- new and returning collectibles are up for grabs! Dive in to the love here.
do you consider yourself a feminist?
- Thread starter nintendoanna
- Start date
- Status
Brooke_the_Phoenix
she/her, time-zone AEDT
No, I'm not. The main reason is that I don't like labels, specifically labels relating to an ideaology (though I do still hesitate to call myself an atheist sometimes, even though it isn't an ideology). Also, I do tend to disagree with a lot of things that many feminists say. I am all for equality of the sexes (and by that I mean equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome), but I honestly believe that, for the most part, we've reached that goal in the west. Legally, men and women are equal in the west (and yes, it is illegal to pay women less simply for being women, and the pay gap is actually because of personal job choice, not discrimination). Also, a lot of things feminists bring up aren't gendered issues. As a female, I have never, in my life, been discriminated against because of my gender, or at all really. I know anecdotal evidence isn't really worth that much, but I thought I should still point it out.
I don't call myself an anti-feminist or an MRA either though. I don't have a problem with feminism as a whole, or even feminists. I've got friends who are feminists who are really nice, and I've been trying lately not to lump all feminists together. Like people on this thread have already said, not all feminists are man-haters or radicals, and I do agree with feminism in its simplest form. I just have problems with a lot of things that most feminists bring up, and I don't feel comfortable being associated with the movement.
I don't call myself an anti-feminist or an MRA either though. I don't have a problem with feminism as a whole, or even feminists. I've got friends who are feminists who are really nice, and I've been trying lately not to lump all feminists together. Like people on this thread have already said, not all feminists are man-haters or radicals, and I do agree with feminism in its simplest form. I just have problems with a lot of things that most feminists bring up, and I don't feel comfortable being associated with the movement.
Last edited:
I believe everyone should be treated equally and be given equal rights and equal opportunity and not be discriminated against. That being said I do not consider myself a feminist. I don't see like labeling myself based on whatever beliefs I may have, nor do I see a point in doing so.
Celestefey
どうでもいい
Exactly. I peacefully respect the fact that not everyone may agree with feminism or may not believe in it, and they're entitled to that opinion, but likewise, it can be frustrating to see people on here saying things like "Feminists just want to be superior to males", when that is largely not the case at all, and they therefore disagree with feminism because of reasons like this. Perhaps there are a few amount of feminists who do genuinely feel that way, but at the same time, you are basing your opinion on the actions of a very small group of people who do not represent the majority of feminists. So when people do that their argument is flawed because it's essentially based on complete misconceptions.
earthquake
maybe fate had us meet
lmao what does this mean? feminism isnt a campaign or a person that can have followers. its literally a civil rights movement.
if you want equality, youre a feminist.
- - - Post Merge - - -
may i ask what you define as the difference between supporting feminism and being a feminist? im genuinely curious, and interested in learning something new.
All I mean by saying I support it is that I agree with it.
I consider a feminist as someone who is actively for feminism and involved in it, promotes it, and doesn't engage in activities that would be seen as hypocritical for a feminist.
earthquake
maybe fate had us meet
i suppose that sort of makes sense, but you can be a feminist without being a "man hater" or wearing feminist tee shirts and screaming about how bad the patriarchy is 24/7.
ik a lot of people think if ur feminist, you cant dress up or wear a lot of makeup or care what guys think, but feminism is quite literally just believing that women deserve the same rights as men have.
theres no one way to be a feminist!
Don't get me wrong, I know all of that. Which is why I say I agree with feminism. But I also know I definitely don't make the cut to be a feminist for other reasons that are a little more complicated and that I won't go into here.
i literally live in ireland and its very much a thing here but ok lmao
Evidence? I live here too BTW.
lostineverfreeforest
Senior Member
Prefer not to associate with the feminist movement due to fanatics hijacking it but agree with what it stands for in its basic, traditional sense. Don't believe it serves much of a purpose in the West these days however. That's all I'm gonna say about it.
Last edited:
what's with ppl saying 'oh it's not relevant over here' lmao, if u do a tiny bit of research you'll realise it's still so relevant over here (oh and the wage gap is real, it's called the glass ceiling soz), not to mention the ways in which men are disadvantaged in society too. furthermore u realise u can be a feminist in promoting WORLD equality. until women all over the world are equal to men i will continue to call myself a feminist, just cause it's not as relevant here as it is in other countries doesn't mean i should drop the meaning behind calling myself a feminist
Ghost Soda
(he him or they them)
Absolutely, all this "i'm an egalitarian!" stuff is crap. All movements have their loud extremists, but it doesn't change what the movement is about.
That Zephyr Guy
crouton.net
The whole "I'm an egalitarian" stuff is more redundant than anything. It only serves to create a chain of events that slows overall progress:
>Feminism is a thing
>People begin to associate it with radicals
>"I'm not going to associate with THAT word anymore. I'm going to use THIS word."
>People spend more time arguing over semantics than doing anything useful
>People begin to gradually use the new word.
>Radicals latch onto the new word too.
>"I'm not going to associate with THAT OTHER word anymore. I'm going to..."
>Repeat
Just stick to the original term and exclude radicals like we do with literally everything else.
We didn't rename Christianity because of Westboro.
Last edited:
blossum
ღ🍨🌸∵あま&#
I think people can be free to say that they are "egalitarian", since it technically exists too.. but their values are.. literally shared with feminism, and they only prefer it simply because of the radical undertones. I remember seeing a thread about it and it enlightened me:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/35pu2o
And
Not saying that all of you people who said you like the idea of egalitarianism are trying to ignore active movement, but while people can view feminists as angry... by that retrospect you could view egalitarians as lazy/an 'easier' way out. There ARE many egalitarians who absolutely believe everyone should be equal, obviously, but imo it can often.. put yourself above feminism and dismisses their efforts and actual, you know, oppression.
I do believe feminism comes under a branch of egalitarianism, but I believe they have the same goals and it shouldn't be a matter of "yikes these feminazi's are whack, I don't want to associate myself with that". Which is wild, because the people who made radical feminists the stereotype of feminists were not feminists?
TL;DR I respect egalitarians but refusing to associate yourself with feminism while you have the same aim dismisses the movement, chosen to do so because they're avoiding extreme radical feminism connotations. And once again, like you respect not ALL feminists are crazy, not ALL egalitarians do this. I just wanted to point it out.
I put a lot of cans and coulds so people don't go for my throat lol, my purpose wasn't to assume/attack anyway
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/35pu2o
"Egalitarianism is a toothless philosophy when it comes to exacting any real change.
It sounds really good to say you want equal rights for everyone. I mean, who doesn't? But you have to be more specific. How is inequality manifested in our society? What are the sources of that inequality? What, specifically, can we do to change those things? How are we going to accomplish that?
It's all well and good to say you want everyone to be equal, but until you isolate specific problems and address them, you're not going to get much accomplished. Feminists have isolated the specific problem of female oppression under a patriarchal society, and they believe working to end that oppression will lead to equality of the sexes. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's what feminism is.
I mean, by "egalitarian" logic, we shouldn't have any movements that aim to help one specific social group. No black rights movements, no LGBT movements, no advocates for children or the elderly. After all, we ALL have problems. Shouldn't we be working to help EVERYONE?"
It sounds really good to say you want equal rights for everyone. I mean, who doesn't? But you have to be more specific. How is inequality manifested in our society? What are the sources of that inequality? What, specifically, can we do to change those things? How are we going to accomplish that?
It's all well and good to say you want everyone to be equal, but until you isolate specific problems and address them, you're not going to get much accomplished. Feminists have isolated the specific problem of female oppression under a patriarchal society, and they believe working to end that oppression will lead to equality of the sexes. You may agree or disagree with that, but that's what feminism is.
I mean, by "egalitarian" logic, we shouldn't have any movements that aim to help one specific social group. No black rights movements, no LGBT movements, no advocates for children or the elderly. After all, we ALL have problems. Shouldn't we be working to help EVERYONE?"
And
"The term "egalitarian" in the context of gender relations has largely been co-opted by people who want to carry the banner of gender equality without actually acknowledging that women are an oppressed class. Instead, they want to pretend that men and women are oppressed totally equally, which just isn't true. Yes, there are ways in which traditional gender roles are damaging to men, but they are not systematically denied access to social, economic, and political power as a result."
Not saying that all of you people who said you like the idea of egalitarianism are trying to ignore active movement, but while people can view feminists as angry... by that retrospect you could view egalitarians as lazy/an 'easier' way out. There ARE many egalitarians who absolutely believe everyone should be equal, obviously, but imo it can often.. put yourself above feminism and dismisses their efforts and actual, you know, oppression.
I do believe feminism comes under a branch of egalitarianism, but I believe they have the same goals and it shouldn't be a matter of "yikes these feminazi's are whack, I don't want to associate myself with that". Which is wild, because the people who made radical feminists the stereotype of feminists were not feminists?
TL;DR I respect egalitarians but refusing to associate yourself with feminism while you have the same aim dismisses the movement, chosen to do so because they're avoiding extreme radical feminism connotations. And once again, like you respect not ALL feminists are crazy, not ALL egalitarians do this. I just wanted to point it out.
I put a lot of cans and coulds so people don't go for my throat lol, my purpose wasn't to assume/attack anyway
If people are actually doing things to further a cause, I don't see how it would slow down the progress of something just because some people choose to label themselves as something else, especially in this day and age where it's so much easier for everybody to have a voice. When changes are made it's not because people thought "wow, feminists are such cool cats! I know what I want to be when I grow up!", it's because of the logic and reasoning presented to make people thing differently, or in the case of government or other large entities, they saw that a lot of people viewed a topic a certain way and adjusted accordingly.
They could call themselves a Tyranasarian for all the difference it makes, if they're doing something about an issue, it's going to have more impact than the people just complaining online about whether or not somebody is a feminist.
Seems a lot of people are more concerned with being able to say "look at what this movement I'm part of did!" rather than "look at these changes!".
Crap comparison. Religion can't be compared to a social movement.
Last edited:
LinkToTheWorld
The past is obdurate
Can't see anything wrong with what they said. They're giving an example. There's radicals and extremists in every walk of life, every religion/movement/minority group/political party. People don't stop associatiating themselves with something just because of the few extremists
lostineverfreeforest
Senior Member
I'll eat my words and bite. Long-winded rant below, and not for the feint of heart. 
Feminism used to be about equal rights; it USED TO. Now that western women enjoy the same freedoms of men, the idea and name of feminism has been co-opted by a bunch of vitriolic harpies with chips on their shoulders who cowardly hide behind words such as "equality," while in reality, striving for revenge against a shadowy Patriarchy, their actions aimed more or less at men in general. This is the essence of 3rd wave feminism.
Feminism ceased to be about equality the moment women could do everything that men could. Feminism was about equality when women couldn't vote, hold positions in major companies higher than secretary, were barred from occupations based on their martial status, etc. - in other words, institutional sexism. Third-wave feminists have inferiority complexes and are constantly seeking to compensate by playing the part of the victim, using the political correctness du jour as an outlet for their insecurities. Most people wouldn't publicly bat an eye over a woman accusing a man of being sexist because society has gotten used to the pervasiveness of sexism.
If sexism was such an issue, why is it that a woman can make false accusations about sexual harassment or rape, and society will, for the most part, accept her story without checking the evidence, and even when evidence comes forward which contradicts the story, people still choose to believe the lie, shouting down detractors with accusations of sexism? What country rife with institutional sexism would allow this kind of behavior? No, the United States (where I live) has swung from utter dismissal of woman's issues to a pathological obsession with them, and when one is obsessed with seeing something in a certain way, perception will follow suit.
Yes, sexism still exists. There are men who hate women. There are bosses who will want to pay women less. This cannot be helped because it falls upon the individual biases of individuals. That cannot be prevented 100%. All of the sensitivity training from the cradle to the grave cannot reach everyone nor should it because that would be mind control. What can and currently is done amounts to creating an institution that recognizes the biases of individuals and making sure that those biases do not become institutional practices. That is being done. The lawyers who handle these suits are legion. In a sexist society, this area of the law would be middling and ineffective.
Now for the vast majority of you here on TBT who call themselves feminists but don't ascribe to the views of 3rd wavers, I can only say that you have mislabeled yourself. If one wants equality for all, then he or she has more in common with secular humanism. The original feminists won; women have equal rights under the law. To call one's self a feminist today would be like calling one's self an abolitionist calling for the emancipation of American slaves. It's already been accomplished and is an obsoletethem term.
Just my two cents.
Feminism ceased to be about equality the moment women could do everything that men could. Feminism was about equality when women couldn't vote, hold positions in major companies higher than secretary, were barred from occupations based on their martial status, etc. - in other words, institutional sexism. Third-wave feminists have inferiority complexes and are constantly seeking to compensate by playing the part of the victim, using the political correctness du jour as an outlet for their insecurities. Most people wouldn't publicly bat an eye over a woman accusing a man of being sexist because society has gotten used to the pervasiveness of sexism.
If sexism was such an issue, why is it that a woman can make false accusations about sexual harassment or rape, and society will, for the most part, accept her story without checking the evidence, and even when evidence comes forward which contradicts the story, people still choose to believe the lie, shouting down detractors with accusations of sexism? What country rife with institutional sexism would allow this kind of behavior? No, the United States (where I live) has swung from utter dismissal of woman's issues to a pathological obsession with them, and when one is obsessed with seeing something in a certain way, perception will follow suit.
Yes, sexism still exists. There are men who hate women. There are bosses who will want to pay women less. This cannot be helped because it falls upon the individual biases of individuals. That cannot be prevented 100%. All of the sensitivity training from the cradle to the grave cannot reach everyone nor should it because that would be mind control. What can and currently is done amounts to creating an institution that recognizes the biases of individuals and making sure that those biases do not become institutional practices. That is being done. The lawyers who handle these suits are legion. In a sexist society, this area of the law would be middling and ineffective.
Now for the vast majority of you here on TBT who call themselves feminists but don't ascribe to the views of 3rd wavers, I can only say that you have mislabeled yourself. If one wants equality for all, then he or she has more in common with secular humanism. The original feminists won; women have equal rights under the law. To call one's self a feminist today would be like calling one's self an abolitionist calling for the emancipation of American slaves. It's already been accomplished and is an obsolete
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
- Status
