http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/what-does-a-lifetime-of-leers-do-to-us.html?emc=edit_th_20160605&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923&_r=
0

This is a GREAT article. Includes loads of people calling themselves Feminist, too!

@enoch I agree with what you said (mostly) and agree with @Asmo even more.

The one thing not included in your pretty good analysis, enoch, is my main cri de coeur -- since the very beginning, feminists have been told not to call themselves feminists. From the very beginning. Using a lot of the same arguments that newtboy put forth, but way before there were third wave feminists.

It is a very touchy and real subject to those of us who have identified for decades as feminists despite an onslaught of reasons why that is a wrong thing to do.

I'm sorry that happened to you -- I hope I wasn't one who took you on. It is entirely possible I was -- turbocharged as a lot of us are about that "word." It doesn't take much to set some of us off -- it isn't pretty, it can feel terrible, and it is out of proportion due to the long history of having the very same conversation over and over and over again.

Because I hope I am now clear -- it isn't just a "word." The word has always been a battlefield -- the right to call ourselves that without being lectured, the right to define it for ourselves as women, the right to prioritize working for rights for a particular group and be clear about the subject.

Other than that, yeah, you are correct -- newtboy and I have the right to call ourselves what we will, for our own valid reasons.

so i am sitting here drinking my coffee reading this thread and i have to say...

depressing.

so many wonderful people that i admire and respect getting twisted about?

words.

not the intent,nor over-all context..but words.

i can see where @newtboy is coming from,and what he is laying down is pretty non-controversial.i also see what @bareboards2 is laying down,and is not really in opposition to what newt is talking about.

both ideologies can reside in the same context and not be in conflict.in fact they compliment each other and ....and maybe i am reading their positions wrong..they actually agree on the fundamentals.

@bareboards2 actually addressed this by pointing out that "tone" can be misinterpreted.(good for you BB) and really the exchange between newt and BB was about their own self-identification.

yet this entire thread is almost exclusively focusing on words,and the gravitas and weight given to those words by the individual,which is subjective.

i feel newts pain.
i had a run where i was posting videos exposing hyper-militant third wave feminists and how they were using the justice system to punish those who disagreed with them,and every self-identified feminist came out of the wood work to declare their disappointment in me and defend the very thing they identified with.

what confused me was why people would even attempt to defend that absolute cluster fuck of abuse as somehow even being remotely to do with actual feminism.until i realized that many hadn't even watched the video or read the articles .so they were not defending those third wave feminists that had abused a justice system but rather defending a term that they self-identified as.

after long (and i mean long ..@Payback is still in therapy) back and forths between myself and fellow sifters.when i FINALLY got them to address the specific situation,not one...not ONE sifter..felt morally obligated to defend those feminists actions.

why?
because taken on its singular merits,those feminists were fucking wrong.

then why all the defensive posturing?
why the passive aggressive swipes at me?
and the exhaustive back and forths just to get self-identified feminists to at least admit that those particular feminists had abused their position to punish a man for simply disagreeing.

because they were defending feminism in general.
because they self-identified as feminists and failed to see the situation as it was and jumped to defend a WORD that they happened to identify with.

as a whole we can,as a society hold onto philosophies that are not mutually exclusive.
so you can be a feminist and a humanist.
or a humanist and an MRA advocate.

@bareboards2 may be a feminist but i know that if she witnessed me being harassed and discriminated against she would jump to my defense,as would @newtboy.

there are people who identify as something and yet can still be major dickweeds.so what they self-identify as does not automatically give them a pass.

so dont get so caught up in identity politics my friends.
they are just words after all.
just listen to the person talking,they will reveal if they are a total tool soon enough.how they self-identify is irrelevant.

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

in response to the TYT comments: i really appreciate what TYT are trying to do but they need to get their shit on lock. they're too experienced to be operating like a high school news channel/early morning radio comedy show.

same with the real news but their stories are way, way better. and why can't they title their videos in any kind of coherent way?

and i feel similarly about bill maher. about 10-20% of the time he has something worth saying. he does, however, put together some awesomely bizarre groups of people, which i appreciate so long as they're allowed to speak in complete sentences.

anything from the amazing atheist or thunderf00t is just pure cringe these days. they lost the plot years ago and now just their voices sound like crying toddlers to me.

any MRA/ideologically anti-feminist stuff is also pure cringe. i'm all about critiquing ideas and i have my own critiques for parts of feminism but pretty much everything i've seen devolves to "look at this stupid fat girl" pretty quickly.

i also second what newtboy said.

anything political that bobknight posts is just a clusterfuck of wrong/partially wrong/intentionally misleading and adds nothing of substance to any discussion.



what i miss rachael maddow articles. she always seems to research and cover the facts of her stories really well.

@newtboy

Look, man, I've been watching you dig your grave deeper with every post. I'm not really sure what you're not getting, given the patient explanations everyone has provided. No one is saying you can't want equality for all, but to get equality for all you have to start by helping groups that are clearly NOT equal in society achieve some level of equality.

Ergo, Feminists focus on helping women achieve equality. And let's be clear, when we say equality we're talking about achieving equality with white males, because they are the ones who historically and currently hold the privledged position in Western society.

So, your whole, "But what about men?" schtick is insulting to feminists precisely because men are already better off than women in most areas. Feminists have no obligation to make men's lives--particularly white men's lives--better than they already are. This is not to say white men have no problems or that in some areas (child custody comes to mind) they aren't at a disadvantage. And there are activist groups working towards improvement in these areas. But demanding that feminists work for men's issues shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is all about.

This reminds me of the whole recent Kit Harington flap, where Kit claimed Hollywood is "sexist" towards men and displayed a similar fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism is. His point was that male actors can be sexually objectified (he refered to being asked to take his shirt off on a photo shoot). But being occasionally objectified is no where near the same thing as the well documented actual sexism that goes on in Hollywood--vastly different paychecks for lead actressess compared to actors, the number and types of nude scenes actressess are asked to do compared to male actors, etc. No one is saying objectification (of either sex) isn't a problem but there's a much bigger problem for women (as usual) than there is for men and that's why there needs to be a group (feminists) advocating for women to tackle these larger problems before getting to the problem of Kit Harington's discomfort at disrobing for the camera.

No one ever suggested it should. I only ever suggested that it's not right for ME, even though I've been supporting it for decades. EDIT: The misplaced angry responses I've received for simply expressing my opinion has done nothing but reinforce the idea that I absolutely don't belong with 'feminists'.

Thanks to Babymech, I have found that school of thought, egalitarianism, equality for ALL, the only kind of equality that's equal.

Clearly 'feminism' is only about gender equality FOR WOMEN....and I think you don't find equality by ignoring unfairness that happens to the other 1/2 of the population (that's the reason I've identified as 'feminist' before now, I care about being fair to others, even if they aren't like me)....that's what you're upset about, inequalities to women being ignored and minimized, why on earth would you do it back to men? That's not gender equality, that's gender based vengeance.
EDIT: If you wish to argue that point, I insist you start with an example of 'feminism' working against women to secure equal rights for men or I'll discount your argument at the outset.
Otherwise, I'm out.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

No, if you believe in and work for gender equality FOR WOMEN, you're a feminist.
Those who believe in gender equality for all are called egalitarians.

Why 'feminism' is historically 'feminism' is because it works to secure the rights of women. Period. The feminist movement has never, as far as I know, worked against unequal rights for women when the inequality benefits women...or said another way, worked for equality FOR men.

It was not ONLY women at the start, only mostly women, and you disrespect and dismiss the contributions of all those men who worked against their own self interests to secure equal rights for you. How rude and ungrateful....I bet you would be upset if women's contributions to men's issues were dismissed like that.
No, men have not done the bulk of the work, but they have been invaluable in getting action many, many times. Calling it feminism and acting like it's only by women totally 'disacknowledges' all those self sacrificing men....which is why I have a problem. If we and our votes, money, and efforts don't count and are completely unapreciated, then buh-bye.
Again, no one is even suggesting renaming the entire movement, I suggested that people WHO THINK LIKE ME might start or join another that's more inclusive from the start. If you don't think like me, it's not about you, and even if you do, it's not a command, it's barely a suggestion.

If you focus solely on those with the MOST disadvantages, you only swing the pendulum of unfairness the other direction in a never ending struggle back and forth. Only by focusing on equality for all can you come to the right solutions to inequalities.

(Expletive deleted)! Men and whites ABSOLUTELY need equal rights. Yes, in MOST cases men and whites have advantages, not all by far like you said, still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father...that is not the ONLY case where women are given advantages men aren't....another off the top of my head, domestic violence, men will ALWAYS be the one thought to be the aggressor without clear evidence to the contrary, but that's simply false, and leaves many abused men victimized twice. Same for sexual abuse/rape. Men get zero support if they've been raped, only ridicule and disbelief. Take each situation individually, or you'll continue to make that insulting, repulsive, self serving mistake that perpetuates inequality and pits men against women.

Equal child custody rights....yes, good example....how has the feminist movement worked to secure that....for men? If the imbalance is in their favor, that's FINE with feminists. I disagree strongly, and I won't be considering myself one anymore.

Don't overreact. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist.

As has been pointed out, and as you acknowledge, you were not there at the start of feminism. Why feminism is feminism is because the fight for gender equality was not initiated by men, nor has the bulk of the work been done by men. Calling it anything but feminism disacknowledges that women are the prime movers here. The fight for gender equality is the fight, spearheaded by women, to bring women's rights up to meet men's existing privilege level. It's feminism. You get credit for being part of the movement, but that's not enough reason to rename that movement, and I can't understand that argument.

Equality for all is the goal, yes. But to do this, women and non-whites are the ones who need the "boost". So that's why the movements are called "feminism", and "Black Lives Matter". Men and whites don't need "equal rights"; they already have more rights than non-white and women, aside from a few issues such as equal child custody rights, which will equalise when gender rights reach balance.

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

Not true if I was part of starting it. I suppose '75 doesn't really count as the 'start', but certainly was in it's early stages, and I was at many rallies and functions for 'feminism' as far back as then. ;-) It turns out that it's not a group I belong in, as I don't want to intentionally discriminate on the basis of gender....I think that's the problem, not the solution.

Individualism and humanism, as was pointed out above, are already different schools of thought, but are the types of words that are more descriptive of an equality movement was my point, but egalitarian is much closer to the school of thought I subscribe to and what I meant (thanks again Babymech). I was only a "feminist" because I believe in equality for all and see that women are not on equal footing to fight for their own equal rights and needed all the help they could get in securing them, not because I think women have a monopoly on getting unequal treatment or in needing help. So I have been out of place standing with the 'feminist' movement, I suppose. My mistake.

@Babymech , that is one brilliant analogy.

Black lives matter.

NO NO NO, all lives matter!

What? Who was saying that all lives don't matter??!!!!

I'm going to use that in the future,

Because that is it. Right there.

To restate it in a way that @newtboy might approve:

Women's lives matter.

Men's lives matter.

Feminist = women's lives matter.

Men's Right Movement = men's lives matter.

The Constitution = all lives matter. (In a perfect world.)

PS There are separatist, angry nutters in the Men's Rights Movement. Doesn't mean that their goal is wrong in concept. An example of that is parental rights. What a pendulum swing that topic has gone through over the decades. First men own the children and women have no rights. Then it was women were blindly seen as the "best" to take care of the kids and men had no rights. And after legal pushback, there are plenty of joint custody agreements out there.

Women's lives matter. Yep.