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.

These Hillary people now just ignore all her hypocritical flip flopping, never ending pandering, and bribes from billionaires and corporations and claim she's the 'better candidate'....Delusional morons ignoring fraud, bribes, a complete lack of consistency ("I supported $15 an hour...My plan is to raise minimum wages to $12 an hour...I support $15 an hour"), illegal fundraising collusion with the DNC, and a likely indictment on multiple counts right before the election (improper or not), and add to that the second worst 'likeability' rating ever to the list of things that must be ignored to make her palatable and a total lack of support among independents, and yet they're still assuming that people that support an honest candidate will just support her...that's just plain retarded...we won't.
Clinton as the nominee means Trump as president.

EDIT: If Bernie can really get Warren to run as his VP, he might still take the win outright. I really wish they had gotten together and hashed that out long ago, we could be working on the general election by now.
I also really wish they would both run as independents, not beholding to either party, since neither major party represents the people anymore.

But altruism is how you portray the works of the church, but you're correct, it's absolutely NOT the right word. They do 'good' for rewards, it's the same reason religious people do 'good deeds', just different 'rewards'.
If atheists did 'good deeds' but required conversion to atheism/abandonment of religious beliefs before offering needed assistance, that would be quite wrong. That's usually how the church, and religious charities work....it's NEVER how atheist charities work.

Religions are evil, not just the churches that use them. Yours starts with instructions to murder, torture, commit incest, enslave non believers, and ends with threats of eternal torture if you don't submit mind body and soul. All that from the bible, which is not a church, but is a doctrine.
EDIT: Religion is terrorism. It is a way to control the actions of others through threat of never ending supernatural torture if they don't do as the church/the preacher/your grandmother/your political party/whomever is using religion says.

You don't need any religion to live honorably, sacrificially, or lovingly. In fact all those things are easier without the blind worship and certitude that 'your religion has the right answer' (to the exclusion of all other 'answers') that all religions insists on, and they are nearly impossible with religion. History has recorded that consistently since cuneiform.

Again?
It seems that doing DMT makes EVERYTHING about DMT for you for the remainder of your life, and makes DMT the only topic that interests you. That alone is enough reason to avoid it, forget the myriad of other reasons it's unsafe.
These never ending, repeated, constant 'DMT is great, you should all do it' videos have worn me down to the point that I'm struggling to not downvote them on principle alone, and I no longer watch them.
So much for DMT expanding your mind, from the outside, it seems to have quite effectively narrowed your mind to a single topic.

Happy Happy Birthday MonkeySpank ... and again and again and again! May the fun never end

"Our corporate money worshippers often attend services at churches and synagogues. But they worship during the workweek at the altar of money, and we, the 99 percent, have become their sacrificial lambs. Like a drug addict looking for a fix they spend their lives rigging the system in their never-ending quest for greater and greater wealth- the rest of us be damned."

Source: http://www.theunion.com/opinion/19681951-113/jeff-vogel-the-most-dangerous-religion-of-all

Monkey Island games were always wacky and difficult puzzles simply because it required you to think of objects in such ways as to break the fourth wall of the game itself. Guybrush and his infinite pocket space.

Also note, these are good games despite their frustrating bits. There were far more frustrations prior to the days where you are given dialog choices, when you were required to type in all of the dialog options using key words. Cough, cough, older Tex Murphy games and just about every text adventure from the dawn of home computers.

I loved those games, but many of them turned into puzzles that maybe one person in the family finally figured out after brute force trying thousands of combinations of objects with each other. I did that multiple times in the original Myst. I think there was one passcode that took close to 10,000 attempts. LOL!

Or how about games that had dead ends but didn't alert the player? Cough, cough Maniac Mansion. People could die, but as long as one person was left alive, the game never ended, even though only the bad endings are left. But it's not like modern games, some of the bad endings were themselves puzzles, and some deaths lead to a half good and half bad ending, like winning a lottery and then having a character abandon the plot altogether because he/she is rich and then THE END.

Those were the days. None of this FNAF shit -- which is really what deserves the infamy of terrible, convoluted puzzles...

Before video games became as massively popular as they are today, it wasn't always a requirement to make your game easily solved and you were not always provided with prompts for failure or success until many grueling hours, days, months, sometimes YEARS of random attempts. How many families bought a Rubik's Cube versus how many people solved it without cheating and learning the algorithms from another source?

Go back hundreds or thousands of years and it wasn't common for chess or go or xiangqi (the most popular game in the entire world TODAY) to come with rules at all, so only regions where national ruling boards were created will there be standardized rules; so, the truth, rules, patterns, and solves of games have traditionally been obfuscated and considered lifelong intellectual pursuits; and, it's only a recent, corporatized reimagining of games that has the requirement of providing your functional requirements and/or game rulings so as to maintain the value of its intellectual property. I mean, look at how Risk has evolved since the 1960s -- now there's a card that you can draw called a "Cease Fire" card which ends the game, making games much shorter and not epic at all. Easy to market, but old school players want the long stand offs -- I mean, if you're going to play Risk... TO THE BITTER END!

hmmm..i don't know.
this seems awfully tame.
where is the guy getting in the bouncers face chest thumping and questioning his sexual orientation?
or pleading his case after you caught him throwing up over the railing onto a toyota celica?
or being busted for passing out on the concrete,curled up into a cute little ball and begging "i just need a few minutes".
or the guy that loses his shit for being asked to leave,runs out into the middle of the parking lot,tears off his shirt and declares "i am from new york you fuck,i will bench you!"

for new years eve this is pretty damn tame.
where is the river of vomit?
the never ending male posturing and attempted fights with alcohol levels that would drop a horse?
where are the threats?
name calling?
constant bargaining?
tears?
and where the hell is the paddywagon parked just to the side for easy transportation to the drunk tank?

i think they edited the real juicy stuff out of this video.i feel cheated!

Let me just chime in and tell you that you only came up with 1 retort, said in 8 different ways, and not one of them is an answer, it's all just saying 'what you said doesn't matter, because you don't get it', which I believe is not only wrong
(I think he does 'get it', he just disagrees) it also follows nearly all 8 of your 'fallacies'.
Animals are totally a moral beings, so have no 'moral importance'. I think you mean the immorality of treating animals poorly, but we will NEVER end the suffering of animals without eradicating all animals. Life is suffering.

EDIT: I'll leave you with one final thought...if we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they all made out of meat?

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/will-wave-pools-make-surfing-weird-and-lame

The first steps towards making surfing an Olympic sport...

The idea is to make circular pools, never-ending waves. Too cool.

... so is he claiming that ISIS/ISIL/DAIISH is a all a production? I mean at one point he says that horrible things are happening, but then also that it was just a production? Is he also trying to claim that Jessica Lynch wasn't really a POW? While I agree that the media is overselling the problem to promote a war, which will make the ISIS situation worse, I'm not sold on it being a fancy production.

As to ISIL (or whatever the proper term is now) kill one leader and another takes their place, it'll never end, and as you kill more and more of them and more innocent civilians are killed, human shields or not, you make it easier to radicalize elements of that population. And as more and more people turn against Islam as a whole and not just radical elements, you make it easier and easier to radicalize more people and progressively make the situation worse, which is perhaps what the Republicans want when they and their media arm want... if that is his point, that they are using the situation and making it worse on purpose, then that's one thing, but he seems to be going on fringe territory here and suggesting it is all a production... that whole paragraph is a bit oddly worded, and more ramble than usual, I'll blame being tired...

I'll give it an upvote anyhow, even if I'm not in full agreement with the idea that the whole thing is a production...

My my, it never ends with you people, does it?

You literally bend everything you see or hear to fit whatever convoluted, torturous, labyrinthine, alien viewpoint you've devised through ignoring any semblance of reason or clear thought.

I am a Liberal(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/liberal) for God Sakes, and I can't believe what I am hearing from you...

Forget it, I bloody quit trying, you win, Tralala, enjoy whatever new hell you people can think up for yourselves. Maybe once the people you elect take every ounce of freedom you enjoy, and completely ignore any of your say in the matter, you will see.

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!

You don't think well, and are 100% wrong about both my education and acquaintances, but you, on the other hand, do not seem to have either education or personal acquaintances to draw from on this subject. It seems some militant Feminist (they are not the only brand of Feminist, BTW) left a bad taste in your mouth, so now all feminism, to you, is distasteful. That's like eating a single spoilt sausage and from then on loudly telling people at dinner "meat is all tainted and it all makes you sick...you're just too dumb to know it", and continuing on that vein until they either (from exasperation) either stop eating it in your presence or find a way to ignore you, IMO, because attempting to rationally explain that some improperly handled meat is tainted, but not all, falls on deaf ears.

Dictionaries are where you look up the definitions of words, which is exactly what I did. Because you can't grasp the concept doesn't make it wrong.

Because your mind can't grasp the difference between the name of a movement based loosely on an idea and that idea does not mean there isn't one. Sorry, fail, just like your second paragraph in your last post which included many ANTI-feminist theories along with some overboard militant Feminist theories...I wonder if you can follow that thought since you don't grasp the difference in the words and claim there isn't one.

Equality is not advancement of one group at the expense of the other, it's the discontinuation of that process.

MY dictionary?!? Me thinks you protest too much. What's your issue with the English language (or language in general) that use of one of the main tools of language causes you such consternation and spawns such disrespectful and angry sounding replies? I honestly think you're just angry that I proved your argument's major flaw (that flaw being your inability to distinguish between a loose group's name and an idea...which makes one wonder, do you believe there were roaming gangs of large, dark colored cats protesting and attacking police in the US in the 60's and 70's?), but can't bring yourself to admit your argument had any flaw.

"Cultural fiction of gender"?!? Oh...I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a completely crazy person. If you actually believe gender is a "cultural fiction", there's no point discussing anything with you, because you live in a different reality from the rest of us that actually HAVE a gender, and not just culturally derived gender, and have ancestors that had gender before there was such a thing as "culture". What an insane statement, one that totally missed the point as well.

Spit on me, you'll find yourself in a bad place, and you'll find that many in favor of Women's rights are also in favor of removing ALL involuntary cultural distinctions of gender, a thing that has NOT been done by far, and you wish to stop any advancement towards equality of genders while one side is SO far ahead based solely on their GENDER. (damn, that word again describing a thing that doesn't exist...you must hate that, huh?)

Yes, if you fail to even conceive that, unfairly, there is a gender split in society that 99% of the time favors one gender to the detriment of the other, you by default fall into that opposing force, opposing fairness and equality, and individualism. No question. It's sad to me that you can't see that.

I'll ignore your last 2 paragraphs, I'm not speaking for @bareboards2, she's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but has intelligently decided that further discussion with you on this subject is pointless...and I see she's likely right, you just want to argue about it, as made clear by your never ending arguments spawning from a simple clarification of what 2 words (spelled the same, but one being a proper name, the other an idea) actually mean...according to THE dictionary, and your insistence that the dictionary is wrong because it doesn't support your position that feminism and Feminism are the same thing. BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!! That's too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Enjoy exploring that hypothesis further, but without my further input. My points are made, some repeatedly.

I agree. NZ is like a control group for our failed laws. It's seems fairly clear that the firearms laws do not have the largest effect.

The things I mentioned earlier and definitely the culture of the people at hand are going to be large contributors.

Another large contributor will be as @RedSky mentioned, the availability of firearms. Although I'm going to guess that it is the rampant availability of illegal firearms that are the issue in the USA. The reality is that firearms are readily available to regular citizens in Australia and they almost never end up being used criminally. And as seen in the NZ example, the types of firearms that are available don't make a difference.