"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.

Seconded. You can subscribe to feminism and individualism, or feminism and collectivism, or any other combination of these different schools of thought - one is not 'better' than the others in the sense that a hammer isn't 'better' than a saw or a drill.

The way that the internet is turning actual schools of thought and study into 'teams' to be on is the same mechanism that drives a lot of amateur identity politics. "I don't want to be on team feminist because that team is rude on twitter, so I'll be on team humanist" is a sentiment that works great in vlogs, but which kicks all the actual thought and theory behind humanism and feminism, respectively, to the curb in favor of team politics. This is not to say that we shouldn't have 'teams,' just that we can make up those teams without discarding years of high quality thinking and actual crisp definitions.

@newtboy

I just realized something. The internet doesn't come with a tone of voice. So the "tone" I gave you in this exchange is one that I have heard for 40 years on this topic.

I have no idea if your tone, if I heard your actual voice, matches what I have heard for 40 years.

So I apologize if I am burdening you with others' actions.

Bottom line doesn't change, though, regardless of tone.

I'm a feminist who cares about women's place in society. It is fruitless to try to talk me out of my proud self-label.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

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.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

Please re-read. I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood.
I'm not "scolding" anyone (well, maybe slightly scolding the She Woman Man Haters Club, but they deserve it). 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).
For those reasons, I suggest that those who support equality between the sexes should no longer call themselves "feminist", as that term was never properly descriptive of their goals, and is now terrible having been successfully co-opted by the militant, man hating, minority, female first contingent we wish to separate ourselves from.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

From Mod Squad to that....my how the powerful sets have fallen!

I think "feminist" has turned out to be a terrible name for a movement that wants equality, "humanist" or "individualist" are MUCH better names for them IMO, while "feminist" is much more descriptive of the 'she-woman, man haters club' faction that's really based in an 'us VS them' mentality rather than an 'we/together' mentality.

Because radical feminists feel that finding a woman attractive reduces her to merely being a sexual object. They feel that you should ignore a woman's appearance or you demean her. Telling a women she is attractive or beautiful is right out, you might as well have raped them on the sidewalk.

Now, please note I said radical feminists, not your normal woman who believes in feminism for equality and rights. Many feminists just want to be treated with respect and equality. Very few, I feel, are rabidly anti-male but they are the loudest voice in most cases.

Sorry, but the US womens soccer team in no way deserves to be paid the same as the mens soccer team. That's just ridiculous.

They deserve to be paid MORE.

I constantly hear people defending a wage gap between men and women (especially in sports) saying that the men bring in more revenue (even Ronda Rousey said that *related=http://videosift.com/video/Ronda-Rousey-Demolishes-Feminist-Reporters-Pay-Gap-Question).

Ok, boot's on the other foot now. I'm sure all those same people will be clamouring for the women to be paid in line with the revenue they generate.

Ronda Rousey Demolishes Feminist Reporters Pay Gap Question has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

How did harassment go from lewd sexual comments and possible unwanted touching, to a lone male in a public space looking at a woman from a distance?

This newer social justice warrior feminist movement I keep seeing stories about appears to be saying that any unsolicited male attention, no matter how benign, is harassment and proof we live in a "rape culture". So looking is violence now?

Let's not pretend that there was a single moment of actual harassment recorded in this video.

"I was admiring the pretty girls!" - OH MY GOD!! HARASSMENT!!! (and this was the best case of "harassment" they managed to capture in this video!)

Good idea, poorly executed by morons feminist-wannabes who wanted to show off their "amazing" idea.

What you're missing is that people are pushing back to the point of destroying other peoples livelyhood.
It's not worth telling an edgy joke at a university if a group of individuals, who cannot control their own emotions, go ballistic and start telling everyone that will listen about what a terrible person you are. Before you know it people are protesting your next gig and you are being featured all over TV for being horrible.
It's not the fact that people get offended that is the problem, it's the fact that they get so offended at any perceived slight could have you wind up in a lawsuit.
A certain story about feminists in Canada comes to mind.

As a Canadian I would just like to say this is a bunch of bullshit. We have a lot of fucked up laws up here that they don't have down in the states. You can be sued for defamation and slander for mocking public figures here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law

One of our Crown prosecutors tried to prosecute a man for disagreeing with some feminists on Twitter and northern Alberta has been turned into a toxic waste dump.

Our new Prime Minister is a sock puppets with a SJW's hand up his ass.

So if you see one of my smug countrymen telling you how much better it is up here you have my permission to kick him in the balls.

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.