From http://www.tomatonation.com/?p=677
feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests — feminist n or adj — feministic adj
Above, the dictionary definition of feminism — the entire dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not ask for two forms of photo ID. It does not care what you look like. It does not care what color skin you have, or whether that skin is clear, or how much you weigh, or what you do with your hair. You can bite your nails, or you can get them done once a week. You can spend two hours on your makeup, or five minutes, or the time it takes to find a Chapstick without any lint sticking to it. You can rock a cord mini, or khakis, or a sari, and you can layer all three. The definition of feminism does not include a mandatory leg-hair check; wax on, wax off, whatever you want. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not mention a membership fee or a graduated tax or “…unless you got your phone turned off by mistake.” Rockefellers, the homeless, bad credit, no credit, no problem. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not require a diploma or other proof of graduation. It is not reserved for those who teach women’s studies classes, or to those who majored in women’s studies, or to those who graduated from college, or to those who graduated from high school, or to those who graduated from Brownie to Girl Scout. It doesn’t care if you went to Princeton or the school of hard knocks. You can have a PhD, or a GED, or a degree in mixology, or a library card, or all of the above, or none of the above. You don’t have to write a twenty-page paper on Valerie Solanas’s use of satire in The S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and if you do write it, you don’t have to get better than a C-plus on it. You can really believe math is hard, or you can teach math. You don’t have to take a test to get in. You don’t have to speak English. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism is not an insurance policy; it doesn’t exclude anyone based on age. It doesn’t have a “you must be this tall to ride the ride” sign on it anywhere. It doesn’t specify how you get from place to place, so whether you use or a walker or a stroller or a skateboard or a carpool, if you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not tell you how to vote or what to think. You can vote Republican or Libertarian or Socialist or “I like that guy’s hair.” You can bag voting entirely. You can believe whatever you like about child-care subsidies, drafting women, fiscal accountability, Anita Hill, environmental law, property taxes, Ann Coulter, interventionist politics, soft money, gay marriage, tort reform, decriminalization of marijuana, gun control, affirmative action, and why that pothole at the end of the street still isn’t fixed. You can exist wherever on the choice continuum you feel comfortable. You can feel ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. You can like the ERA in theory, but dread getting drafted in practice. The definition does not stipulate any of that. The definition does not stipulate anything at all, except itself. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
The definition of feminism does not judge your lifestyle. You like girls, you like boys, doesn’t matter. You eat meat, you don’t eat meat, you don’t eat meat or dairy, you don’t eat fast food, doesn’t matter. You can get married, and you can change your name or keep the one your parents gave you, doesn’t matter. You can have kids, you can stay home with them or not, you can hate kids, doesn’t matter. You can stay a virgin or you can boink everyone in sight, doesn’t matter. It’s not in the definition. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
Yes. You are. You are a feminist. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Period. It’s more complicated than that — of course it is. And yet…it’s exactly that simple. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference or your sense of humor or your fashion sense or your charitable donations, or what pronouns you use in official correspondence, or whether you think Andrea Dworkin is full of crap, or how often you read Bust or Ms. — or, actually, whether you’ve got a vagina. In the end, it’s not about that. It is about political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, and it is about claiming that definition on its own terms, instead of qualifying it because you don’t want anyone to think that you don’t shave your pits. It is about saying that you are a feminist and just letting the statement sit there, instead of feeling a compulsion to modify it immediately with “but not, you know, that kind of feminist” because you don’t want to come off all Angry Girl. It is about understanding that liking Oprah and Chanel doesn’t make you a “bad” feminist — that only “liking” the wage gap makes you a “bad” feminist, because “bad” does not enter into the definition of feminism. It is about knowing that, if folks can’t grab a dictionary and see for themselves that the entry for “feminism” doesn’t say anything about hating men or chick flicks or any of that crap, it’s their problem.
It is about knowing that a woman is the equal of a man in art, at work, and under the law, whether you say it out loud or not — but for God’s sake start saying it out loud already. You are a feminist.
I am a feminist too. Look it up.
September 30, 2003
~o0o~
Isn’t it strange how feminists consistently feel the need to define and re-define feminism? Isn’t it similarly odd that articles like this repeatedly assert the notion that all women should inherently define themselves as feminists?
Feminism is a social ideology. Women are biological entities. One is not inextricably linked to the other.
This particular article also invites men to become feminists, and repeatedly asserts the idea that a support of feminism is inherently a support of some very worthy causes as the reasoning for this.
Why does this article justify itself?
It’s very easy to read between the lines and see feminists desperately trying to retain feminism’s credibility as a progressive humanitarian and egalitarian movement, despite growing, overwhelming evidence that feminism is mostly preoccupied with more unpalatable concerns.
Feminism is a lie.
Beneath all the talk of ‘equality’ and ‘humanitarianism’, feminism perpetuates myths of victimhood and opression, and uses this to spread anti-male, anti-nuclear family propaganda.
The principle goal of feminism is not ‘equality’ – but creating division and mistrust between the sexes.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 18, 2007 at 12:00 am
Exposing Feminism
..After an online discussion at another website, an anonymous poster commented here. The comment was deleted due to the use of the word ‘assrape’. I make the decision to reprint this word here because it is relevant to the ensuing discussion.
October 18, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Anonymous
I think the movement needs to refrain from this kind of language, and that you have an opportunity to encourage that. The MRM will get further without using incendiary language.
October 18, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Exposing Feminism
Ok, Anonymous, you have a fair point – but most in the MRM are men (understandably) and although this language is coarse, men often speak to each other in this vein. Not just men in the MRM, but in bars and on the street..
Perhaps you are right that we should be more careful when we speak.
October 19, 2007 at 1:25 am
Anonymous
EF, I could curse like a motherfucker if I wanted to; however, if you’re trying to show civil discourse, which I do understand is your attempt, cursing should be discouraged. Cursing that downplays the severity of rape, or makes it into a joke, or pat-on-the-back type thing, should be most discouraged.
October 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm
anotheranon
Anon, – your use of m***f ***r downplays the severity of incest. Maybe you think it’s a joke or a pat-on-the-back type thing.
Or maybe it’s just an expression that indicates absolutely nothing of significance.
Actually, there’s no maybe about it. That’s all it is.
Play your games somewhere else.
October 20, 2007 at 3:53 am
Pete
I’m all for language that downplays the severity of rape, I think its too serious a matter as it is.
I want the rape of women to be treated as humorously as the rape of men.
Let’s all make jokes about not bending to pick up the soap, and not going out alone after dark. By the way, I’m against rape – of both men and women, not just women as feminists would prefer it to be.
October 20, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Anonymous
anotheranon- I only said that as an example of how anyone could curse. You’re just trying to paint me as a hypocrit for previous comments. I believe that cursing in any form should be discouraged. But if you read what I said, you’d know that. If you just want to curse at me on an online forum, go right ahead, it doesn’t change my life any, but you will not appear very civil to anyone reading this.
Pete- I don’t want rape of anybody to be treated humorously; I’m pretty disgusted at the “bar of soap in the shower” jokes, and all the dumb “kick men in the crotch” shots. I prefer a drier, less low-brow type of comedy myself.
October 20, 2007 at 11:22 pm
anotheranon
The fact remains it didn’t need to be said. We need no instruction in what cursing sounds like.
I’m not trying – I succeeded. You castigate someone for loose use of language and attach a spurious significance to it, then do the very same yourself and object to the same accusation being directed at you. You are a hypocrite.
My comment is five sentences. There is no cursing in it. Irony is employed to illustrate the nature of your comments – which I am acquainted with, because I did read what you said.
I have no intention of changing your life – though some instruction will no doubt improve you.
Whether I appear civil to others isn’t my primary concern.
I am more interested in challenging someone who thinks she has a right to lay down standards of behaviour for others, then flouts them herself.
Your continued reluctance to acknowledge this further confirms my initial impression that your purpose is not a constructive one – it is game-playing.
October 21, 2007 at 1:28 am
Anonymous
I don’t understand why you assume I’m a she, anotheranon. You have no clue what my motives are, or why I choose to write what I do, but please, go ahead and try to insult me further, this is such a productive discussion.
I never said “I have a right to lay down the law at Exposing Feminism’s site, and he will delete whatever comments I command”. I don’t know where you get the idea that I think I have the right to lay down standards of behavior, just because I suggest that cursing should be discouraged. How does my saying it should be discouraged prevent you in any way from saying whatever you so choose?
And, anotheranon, to address a point you brought up before, “motherf**ker” does not necessarily imply incest. You have a dirty mind maybe, but your MFer could be your father.
October 22, 2007 at 4:32 pm
pjanus
October 21st, 2007 at 1:28 am
Anonymous;-
Well, besides the utter crap of your posts, there is a glaring clue as to your gender – no I’m not going to tell you what it is.
October 23, 2007 at 10:55 am
Anonymous
pjanus- I don’t see any merit in what you’ve posted, and I don’t particularly care if you think my posts are utter crap. You’re some random person online who’s so bored that they have to try and insult people on a website – congrats. As to my sex, all I’ll say is “yes, please”
October 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm
pjanus
I just thought I would let you know that you are not fooling anyone. Your motives are as plain as your gender.
Bored?
Not at all. I find you highly amusing.
Please continue.
October 23, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Anonymous
Guys- Oh you are so right. Wow, I’ve totally been schooled. OMG even.
Exposing, you were interesting to talk to; however, these people at your site are threatened (or something) by my presence. To preserve the peace around here I’m out. They, I’m sure, will find something else to argue over and I wish you a good life.
October 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
Anonymous
I’ll tell you what feminism isn’t. It isn’t any of these:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Afeminism
That’s just the Trojan Horse that gets them in the door. Once they’re in, they can reveal their true agenda.
Initially, I thought this quote summed up Feminism well:
“You can’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong” — Abe Lincoln
Feminism strengthens women by weakening men.
Pretty good way of putting it, I thought, but it doesn’t go far enough. Weakening men isn’t good enough for Feminists. Then I came across another quote that I thought gave a more accurate description of what the true goal of feminism really is.
“Woman controls government; Government controls man.
As long as these conditions are true, woman will always control man.”
The biggest mistake men ever made was to assume women would use power fairly once they had relinquished it to them.
The point is, though, that men have a sense of fairness. You can reason and argue with them. With real arguments and objective statistics, you can win them over. What men did not realise, in the 60s and 70s, is that they were being used as lemmings. Women, essentially, did not care in the slightest for them, and once they had taken the power away from them, they were not going to use it fairly. They were not going to reciprocate.
Beyond their own gender most women have a poor sense of justice, and cannot be negotiated with. But hey, who were men to know until they actually gave women a choice in the matter?
Cato the Elder knew about this a long time ago. You’d think we would’ve learned?
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” — Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C. quoted in Livy’s ‘History of Rome’.
Most men don’t even know war has been declared on them.
So, IMO, feminism is defined as the utilization of government to control/weaken man in order to strengthen women. Men were deceived into believing (as they still are today) the phony definition of feminism and allowed female participation in government/politics. Men thought they were being fair to women by allowing their participation, and they made the mistake of thinking women would play fair and “reciprocate”. Little did they know …
Ultimately, Feminism is vengeance based on a lie.
October 24, 2007 at 1:35 am
Anonymous
And the Feminists fire another shot in this war that they started:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb559970.htm
October 25, 2007 at 9:49 am
Wobs
Forgive the lack of relevance, but thought you should read this article from NewScientist. As we know, breast cancer is disproportionately funded compared to other cancers (eg. prostate) thanks to feminism. Here is a review of a book about activism connected with such diseases:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19426051.700-icancer-activism-gender-media-and-public-policyi-by-karen-kedrowski-and-marilyn-stine-sarow.html
October 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm
literarycritic
I’m double-posting this here, both because I want to make sure EF sees it and because I want to stand by my words.
EF, though my intention was not to divide MRAs, I have read the comments over at Davout’s blog and I now see what you mean by the term. I have made a post over there detailing how I reached the conclusion that regardless of my intentions, I did act dishonorably on your blog and in the Shakes thread. It does not excuse some of the nastier comments made to me, but neither does my offense excuse some of the nastier comments I’ve made. If Davout puts up the comment, as I hope he does (though he may not), you can see my detailed explanation over there.
I unequivocally apologize to you for putting such nastiness on your blog, and for putting you at the heart of it.
I have been tossing around the idea of getting out from under the shadow of feminism for awhile, and the MRAs I’ve talked to, especially you, have played a big role in my decision to actually start doing that. I will not become an anti-feminist, but my opinions on feminism are evolving. (This happens to me all the time — I really should be more used to it by now.)
Whether you choose to respond to me or not, I hope you are doing well on developing your blog and in your life in general.
– literarycritic
October 29, 2007 at 5:36 pm
literarycritic
UPDATE: Davout has cleared the post. It can be found here:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27778028&postID=2975786148824024566&isPopup=true
November 19, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Bob
One needs to get over a childish reliance on dictionaries as “the truth.” They are written and edited by very fallible and prejudiced people.
The editors of dictionaries ALWAYS color their definitions with their own cultural, religious, and personal prejudices. The usual dictionary definition of “feminism” is not a definition at all, it is the standard feminist propaganda lie. It is impossible for a dictionary editor to publish a truthful definition of “feminism” when she is so very feminist.
The dictionary definition of “feminism” is misandrist hate propaganda, like many of the definitions in the book.