Poll: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

[Colour Scientist]

It marginalises men by implication, if you're a woman and you're earning less it's because The Man is keeping you from the money you deserve. There's no consideration that men may be more likely to fill vacancies that play to our strengths or may actually be filling positions that society views as important enough to pay more for.

The problem I have with a lot of feminist thought is that it's very keen to trump up the female sex's strengths but it downplays men's at the same time. The view seems to be that women function exactly the same as men and then some. Basically I believe in equality of opportunity for the sexes but feminism, at least in the UK, seems to be more concerned with fighting reflexively than for a good reason.

I don't really go by all those little divides of feminism. "Gender feminism, sunday feminism, I-can't-believe-it's-not-feminism" mean jack shit to me, I basically go by 'feminists fighting for real equality' and 'feminists fighting for disingenuous reasons' and I consider that second group to be a problem for all feminists. They're an undesirable element in the movement and I refuse to count myself as a feminist until either feminism takes care of it's public image or until they abandon the name.

A lot of feminists, including myself, don't believe that it's men who are keeping women down. It's not a matter of men keeping women from the money but women not getting paid the same amount for the same job.
If a specific man is more qualified and able for a specific job then fine, great, he should get what he deserves. It's the hesitancy of employers to put women in high paid, managerial positions that's the issue with the workplace.

You know, I've never actually met a feminist who believes women are better than men.

The divides in feminism are important, the beliefs of specific groups vary hugely. It's like saying all Irish people support the IRA or all African-Americans supported Martin Luther King. The main problem is that people see feminism as an umbrella term and, as you said, are unwilling to distinguish between the different groups apart from what is acknowledge by society as a whole.

 

[AlphaLackey]

This is why feminism, as a movement that is not at all unique to women, is still very necessary.


Watch it and be appalled by the stats that are given.

I'm appalled by how poorly sourced and devoid of context those stats are, if that's what you meant. I'm appalled at how our society would require a firm citation for something as banal as a toothpaste advertisement, where one couldn't make a claim that their product "makes your teeth whiter than other brands" without showing a citation to a peer-reviewed study, but one can make sweeping claims about half the population without even needing to provide context.

Other observations about this video:

A) notice how "..even when doing the same job" did not include ".. with the same qualifications, with the same experience, with the same education,.." etc. Nor does it address explicit pro-woman sexist institutions in our society. And not just affirmative action, but things such as athletics -- the best female tennis player couldn't beat the 200th best male tennis player in a match, yet due to the sexist institution of "separate but equal" sports leagues, she will make millions more than she would make if she had to compete openly, fairly and equally against all tennis players. Same with golf, basketball, and pretty much any sport where body strength is a key element -- and even in those that don't, where women compete as biological equals, women are pushing for segregation anyways. Is there any logical reason why women chess players should have their own (lower) title requirements, their own tournaments and their own championship?

B) "1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence" means nothing unless you define domestic violence and compare it to what proportion of men are victims of domestic violence by that same standard. When it comes time to cite how many women are victims of domestic violence, even "yelling" and other non-violent behavior gets categorized as violence, but when it comes time to show how it only affects women, the bar gets raised as it takes. This statistic is completely worthless without context, which naturally is not provided.

C) Like all media created to portray half a truth, there is a huge part of the story missing here. Where is the mention of how women commit the same crime under the same circumstances, but get off with far lighter sentences? Or how a woman spends the same dollar into a pension fund but gets more out of it than a man would due to a longer life span? Or how she pays the same deduction for health care plans but, again, gets more out of it? Or the massive pro-woman sexism in family courts? And so on.

.. and ultimately, there's my point. Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is about elevating the status of women, under the assumption that women and only women are ever at a disadvantage in society. This assumption was pretty well valid up until very recently in Western society. It is valid in pretty much all of the developing world today (which is why this video so freely intermingles the latter with claims about the former). But in Western society, in the here and now, it is not a valid assumption. And until feminism fights as vigorously for women to get "equal time for equal crime" as they do for "equal pay for equal work" (including the demanding of legislation for affirmative action to redress past sexism and discrimination), it can never claim to be about equality.

Rather, they fight to maintain such pro-woman sexism. The NOW is vigorously fighting legislation that would bring equality to child custody decisions, where if both parents were fit and both parents wanted to be in the children's life, that joint custody would be the mandated starting point. When Andrea Yates drowned her children in a bathtub, the NOW held candlelight vigils for her and claimed she was the real victim and it was her husband who was to blame. Just recently in the UK, despite women already getting a strong advantage in sentencing for the same crime under the same circumstances, the published judicial guidelines actually called for MORE leniency for women in sentencing. Equality, indeed.

Of course, I will be painted as a baseless misogynist and a male supremacist by those who want to redefine equality as "either equality or preferential treatment, whichever pays better." No matter. I know how I live my life. I treat women as equals, for better for worse. I have worked with them as equals, I have competed against them as equals, I have socialized with them as equals in a non-sexualized manner, and I have never, EVER lowered my assumptions about what a woman can do nor have I patronized their achievements because of their gender. If that's the earmark of misogyny by today's standards, so be it; I'm content with being decades ahead of my time in that regard. In a generation, I know who will be seen as the visionary and who will be seen as the dinosaur.

 

[duchaked]

I support equality, but never to the point where there's a certain quota. Also, women are better at some things, and vice versa. This subject should be studied more, but unfortunately in modern days it's considered as sexist, with all the political correctness gone mad: a well respected scientist who had done breakthrough research for over 20 years, decided to research this subject, and after the results got out; he got sacked and the results weren't released in the normal manner, because feminism was an extremely hot subject at the time.

Both sexes should have equal rights. Feminist acts often go towards just increasing female rights, not to equalize. I know that's not what feminism means, but that's how it often works. If men would be asking the same thing on professions/industries/areas where they aren't equal, they'd be thought as being chauvinist.

I totally agree. I respect women as much as I can having grown up around so many, and it ticks me off to see so many guys just playing girls and the girls playing along, falling for it, or just not caring that they're treated like a hunting trophy. However, it has to go both ways.

Political correctness...sigh, people are entitled to their own opinions. Sometimes you have to be a bit controversial when making a stand that YES, this is what you believe in. Sorry it may not be "open-minded" enough to include everyone's differing various beliefs but is that really possible? Is that really believing in anything at all?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I understand that it is always the worst of a particular group that is the most vocal, but my views of feminists has been damaged a fair bit over time. Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is equal and should have equal rights, but most of the feminists I come across seem to want more rights for women and less rights for men.
For example, a woman in my town who is a very vocal feminist will blow her top at the most courteous men for doing harmless things, and she never seems to be happy about the way she is treated. One day a man might hold a door open for her, and it's "How dare you! You think I'm incapable of opening a door because I'm a woman!?". The next day someone might do the opposite and she claims they're rude and un-chivalrous. She's a mad witch.
Equality is always a good thing, though..

I absolutely despise that sort of person. It's so hypocritical I want to barf on them.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Male, and no. I'm 100% an individualist - I believe every single human being should be treated according to their own merits, their own character, their own abilities, etc. Lumping people into groups based on anything and then judging them on belonging to a certain group is just wrong.

 

[Verlander]

The flaw in feminism is that it favours one gender by it's very definition. I'm a dirty liberal all the way, and I think that the concept of feminism is outdated-we need equality, not segregation

 

[HentMas]

i personally am not a feminist, i do not believe in the equality of gender because females act differently according to the set rules on our society, and untill those rules are take away, i dont believe they can be "equal" in all the sense of the word, yes! they can work the same jobs, think the same things, so most of the stuff we do, but only they can carry the kid in its womb, and that is a really important role in todays society.

i might be stupid or watever, i know this is a wrong way to think, but having a kid and being divorced has made me realize that the mother of my son could do a better job taking care of him if she wasnt trying to do everything we males do

of course i try to be as motherly as i can whenever my kid is over, but i can never replace his mom (better said, A mom).

 

[Colour Scientist]

Female, and no. I want equal rights and things like that, but I don't believe we should be anywhere ahead or superior to men. Both sexes should be equal in my opinion. If women were to become superior to men, then they'd become the bad guys, I.E. the roles are reversed. :O

Feminists wanting to be superior to men is a stereotype, and an old one at that.
Yes, there are groups who believe that but they are now in the minority and most would come under the term liberal feminism.

Feminism does not equal female superiority.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Feminism does not equal female superiority.

Does it equal "equality achieved by focusing solely on elevating the status of women?"

If yes, how does it propose to address pro-woman sexism en route to equality?
If no, then why call it "feminism" and not "egalitarianism"; after all, MLK was not a "Negroist"

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

I'm in favor of women's movement.

Especially when I'm standing behind it.

 

[Xojins]

Nope. I do believe in fair treatment but men and women are far from equal in modern urban culture.

 

[Woodsey]

Well yes, I support equal rights for men and women, but that's not quite the same definition as feminism.

Fortunately, its far less needed than it once was. Unfortunately, all you really have left carrying feminism are angry, ridiculously sexist women.

We should be looking at these things as people's right, not men's rights or women's rights or gay rights or whatever. If we segregated rights movements by race these days people would look at you like you're hideously behind the times.

 

[DanielBrown]

I think we should have equality, but sometimes I think it goes to far. I don't want to see firemen or police offices that got employed just because they were women(we even had ads in Sweden before where they specifically wanted foreign women). An old friend of mine also said that the requirements for becoming both a cop or fireman were different for men and women. If it's true, which sounds doubtful but still, it's just a step in the wrong direction.
Add: Some jobs are just more fitted for others. I wouldn't try to become a math teacher if I knew my math sucked incredibly bad(which it does).

Men should also get some attention. As it seems now, especially based on media, it's only women that have a hard time in life.

 

[moretimethansense]

Good point, but then they're actually being judged on their suitability for the job, which is really how it should be anyway. The black agent isn't being denied a job because they're black, it's because they would absolutely not be right for the job. This is why I find it incredibly annoying whenever I hear a study of someone being denied a job, or something, and then playing some kind of 'I'm being discriminated against just because I'm X' card. No, you just aren't a good choice

Precisly, I have read (though I can't remember where so take this with a couple shakes of salt) that some sevices (fire department, paramedics, ect) were planning to lower the physical requrements for women.
That is to say that a man would be expected to be abe to lift an unconciouss person where a woman in the same position would not.
Now I can't confirm if there's any truth to this (or even if there is, if they scrapped it or not) but if it is true it makes me think that those in charge of those requirments are monkies, and not particularly well trained ones either.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I take umbridge with OP's definition of Feminism. By that definition of the term, most people would be, and I don't think it's a particularly useful way of defining the term. As a secular humanist, supporting basic equality and rights for everyone regardless of their gender, nationality or other identity traits, I obviously support equal rights for men and women. I do not believe that makes me a feminist, and as such I've voted "no".

I'll also add to the problematic definiton of Feminism: There are certainly branches of feminism who I'd argue do not believe in equal right for men and women. The most radical branches often seem to argue that women's rights are more important than men's rights. Does this mean they're not feminists? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Lilani]

I voted no, simply because of my personal definition of the word "feminist."

See, I think believing in equal gender rights is just sort of a "given." You don't need a special name for it, just as those who believe in equal racial rights don't have one (or at least are no longer referred to as "abolitionists.")

A feminist, on the other hand, is someone who believes that women are superior to men in some respects, and should be treated as such. Thus, not equal. Also, I feel there is quite a bit of vindictiveness in feminism. A feeling that us women should get some sort of recompense for the thousands of years we've been treated subserviently, which is completely ridiculous.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I wish a lot of people didn't explain it that way. x.x

I was not aware there was a LF though. :O

I think that's the problem.

The pay gap is commonly thought to be overstated, in the UK it's illegal to pay one sex more for the same job. The only problem is that when people look at individual cases it often turns out they're not the same job. One person will work more, work in tougher conditions or have bargained for more pay. I remember reading somewhere that a big component of the pay gap was that men were more willing to sacrifice their life for work and were more adept at negotiating pay rises, that's one of those tricky situations because it is 'judging everyone on their individual merits regardless of sex' but it looks like it's one of those things that comes more easily to men.

Well one of the major reasons behind it is the fear that women will need maternity leave, a lot of women who actually get the high up positions have passed menopause or aren't married.

I actually have, I'm chalking it up as a university thing though. To be honest I respect their passion but I consider it misplaced, insulting and counter-productive. If men as a group had a well designed, engaging and honest (no spin) explanation of feminism given to them I think most would agree with it. The problem is it's the nutcases who get the attention because they're interesting, the other problem being that I've never really seen a rebuttal of these people by 'true' feminists. It's a concern regardless of how rare they are because the worry about them is real and feminism as a movement needs to be more outward facing.

I'm in university I haven't had the same experience. The "nutcases" are challenged, quite regularly. It just isn't public because people just either don't hear it or don't want to hear it.

It's not unwillingness per se, it's more that it's not their place to do the background research for your explanation. I didn't mean that in an aggressive way, it'd be like giving a public talk on something and expecting the audience to have read up on the subject. Sooner or later you need to give some background. Fact of the matter is that the term 'feminism' has been hijacked...and very thoroughly at that.

It'd be like if someone formed an organisation called 'nice-ism' that was about being respectful and some people chose to interpret that as meaning respectful to everyone except Asians. They'll get the news coverage and the special articles because they're racist and it's interesting to read about. Well people will mix the two organisations up because they look superficially the same and that's not their fault, it's not their job to find out about it, it's that person's job to either say:

1. Those people are NOT nice-ists!
or
2. Fuck nice-ism, we're pleasantists!

Basically my entire standpoint can be boiled down to 'I refuse to reduce my opinion or a single word, especially not one that people can misunderstand.'

But it's almost impossible to have something like feminism without it getting some sort of title, which, will inevitably be interpreted.
It's like books getting categorised into genres. Say, a book is marketed and categorised as a romantic novel. It may not have all of the traits of a romantic novel but that's what people will perceive it as if they haven't read it and a lot of people will steer clear of it purely because of that label.

 

[trooper6]

I am male, and I consider myself feminist--though I also respect the viewpoint that I should call myself a "feminist ally" rather than "feminist."

 

[RanD00M]

No, I am an equalist. I believe in general equal rights, but I can also see that men are superior at certain tasks and vice versa.

 

[Haydyn]

Hello no. I'm okay with people wearing the Feminist shirts, but Feminism has nothing to do with equal rights, and that's why I am against it. If people were Masculinists, it would be seen as sexist. You can disagree with me all you want, but it's impossible to support Feninism when you know so many Feminists and all of them are sexist towards men. To hate someone based soley on their gender is sexist, and that's what a large portion of Feminists are.

I'm the first guy to say that women should be treated equal, payed equal, and have the freedom to choose a career. But Feminists are more sexist than any men I know. I am being judged just because I was born a certain gender. That's exactly what they claim is wrong, yet they do it anyways. To judge all men or all women one way is asinine and I shall have no part in it.