Poll: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

[Asuka Soryu]

Wait i think i just failed at life here. Reading what all of you posted i have figured out that feminist go for equality not superiority. Which is weird since feminist and sexist are supposed to be polar opposites. So feminism doesn't imply that men are in some shape or form inferior? I'm Really uneducated on the subject so I wouldn't know...

what im understanding goes like this:

Sexism: Men are superior
Feminism: Equality
???????: Women Are superior (Also what word is for this I'm curious now.)

But what what i was thinking before posting was:

Sexism: Men are superior
???????: Equality
Feminism: Women are superior


Im still confused so someone would like to enlighten me?

Sexism doesn't mean men are supperior. Sexism is the treating of another gender like something lower then your gender or by stereotyping. Both men and women can be sexist.

 

[Saelune]

Its a bad term at this point. Even ignoring the bad apples, it would make more sense to make a new title to better signify it as meaning equality among the sexes. Feminism puts women in the spot-light. Not saying they dont need it, but too often men are actually put down, intentionally or not.

 

[PayneTrayne]

I'm an equalist. Can't have equality when the name of the group trying to define it is associated with a sex.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I'm a male and I dont' consider myself a feminist. I'm all for equal rights for both sexs but I don't see that as making me a feminist. I mean why would you call a supporter of equal rights a feminist?

 

[John Funk]

Yes, and most people of sound mind and moral standard should be. Feminism does not mean misandry (hate for men) or that women should be superior, it means that women are not seen as, or treated as, equals for men even today, and that this is a bad thing that should be corrected.

Yes, but it operates on a flawed premise, that only women are disadvantaged by institutional sexism in our (modern, Western) society. If it doesn't mean misandry, then why does it only seek to correct anti-woman sexism, and in fact doesn't just ignore, but works to further existing (or implement fresh) pro-woman sexism?

If you think there's "no reason for feminism" in this day and age, you are wrong [http://www.weareequals.org/].

There's reasons to search for equality in this day and age, yes. Absolutely. To only focus on part of the problem, and to use misinformation and half-truths to exaggerate and obfuscate the reality of the situation, that has no place in any methodology that alleges to want nothing more than plain equality.

If you think "only women are disadvantaged by institutional sexism in our (modern, Western) society" is a flawed premise, then you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact.

Just because the statistics and information you hear make you uncomfortable does not mean you have the rights to brush them off as "misinformation and half-truths."

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Personally I don't think that's what a feminist is anymore, I'd call it equalist or some shit like that, but not feminism. I don't believe in labels like that because they don't serve a purpose and they normally have a stigma attached to them. The term feminism changes so much I don't even care what it means anymore.

Speaking as a female, call me a traitor if you must, I'd have to say no.

Although I do believe in equality I don't think you should do it under some moniker, if you absolutely have to, then I think humanist is more appropriate. Human beings should be treated equally regardless of gender and whatnot, and you will NEVER see me boasting about my gender or whatever, that is pointless.

I'm more of a misanthrope realist, so you must pardon me for that.

That's my opinion anyways, you must excuse me while I take my little humble soapbox and carry on elsewhere.

 

[AlphaLackey]

If you think "only women are disadvantaged by institutional sexism in our (modern, Western) society" is a flawed premise, then you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact.

I just want to make sure I have this clear: Do you really mean to claim that there exist NO circumstances in modern Western society where women are the benefactor of pro-woman sexism?

Just because the statistics and information you hear make you uncomfortable does not mean you have the rights to brush them off as "misinformation and half-truths."

"One in four women will be the victim of domestic violence" tells us absolutely nothing without a firm definition of what constitutes domestic violence and at what rate men would be victims given the same definition. Instead, it is given with no context to say "look how women have it worse than men". That is nothing BUT misinformation and half-truth.

"..Even when doing the same job" without making any mention of the fact that this comparison does not consider qualifications, experience, education and other credentials, and ignoring the fact that women outearn men (even when normalizing for the above factors) in some professions, is nothing but misinformation and half-truth.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is that we, as a society, expect more intellectual integrity out of a toothpaste advert than out of a "woe is woman!" public service message.

 

[John Funk]

If you think "only women are disadvantaged by institutional sexism in our (modern, Western) society" is a flawed premise, then you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact.

I just want to make sure I have this clear: Do you really mean to claim that there exist NO circumstances in modern Western society where women are the benefactor of pro-woman sexism?

Do there exist no circumstances? Of course not. But cherry-picking the examples that are few and far between does nothing to change the fact that the circumstances in which it is expressly more advantageous to be male are FAR more widespread.

Just because the statistics and information you hear make you uncomfortable does not mean you have the rights to brush them off as "misinformation and half-truths."

"One in four women will be the victim of domestic violence" tells us absolutely nothing without a firm definition of what constitutes domestic violence and at what rate men would be victims given the same definition. Instead, it is given with no context to say "look how women have it worse than men". That is nothing BUT misinformation and half-truth.

"..Even when doing the same job" without making any mention of the fact that this comparison does not consider qualifications, experience, education and other credentials, and ignoring the fact that women outearn men (even when normalizing for the above factors) in some professions, is nothing but misinformation and half-truth.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is that we, as a society, expect more intellectual integrity out of a toothpaste advert than out of a "woe is woman!" public service message.

Once again, you're nitpicking at best. Are you really trying to argue that women are not overwhelmingly more at risk for domestic abuse than men are? Are you really trying to argue that women are given the same professional job opportunities as men?

You're nitpicking specific phrasing and in doing so losing sight of the overall message. You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Kortney]

I have a problem with treating genders equal, because I don't believe they are. It's probably backwards of me, but it's how I think.

 

[gostchiken]

Where's the misanthrope option? Seriously it's hard to be any kind of pro-ist when your hatred extends to everyone but a small select few.

captcha: Where the fuck is Pi?
Edit: holy shit, you actually type out pi.

 

[Merkavar]

Here's an even bigger point to consider -- if the "gender gap" worked the way feminists claim it work -- that women are doing the exact same job WITH THE EXACT SAME CREDENTIALS yet getting paid 70 cents on the dollar, then why have we not heard of one firm, one company, one executive board or one employer firing every male on their staff and replacing them with females, cutting payroll costs by 30% in one fell swoop?

lol good point. shouldnt females be in such high demand cause they get paid 30% less that they could actually demand more pay until it gets even with males?

 

[Cavan]

I voted no, mostly because trying to pretend like there are not unavoidable differences that should and can be dealt with respectfully, is out and out stupid.

It's very easy to shout for equality but that wouldn't actually be fair without accepting some of those differences.

Using an example to explain my point:
Differing pay rates has no basis in anything that has anything to do with gender and should have been universally removed a long time ago.
While the fact that women still can't be front line soldiers has several very basic physical reasons behind it that people seem to overlook(including some people from this site in their indignation over such blatant sexism), yes it may not be the best compromise yet but I wouldn't say that ignoring gender differences entirely is going to come up with a better solution that's actually fair.

How does pregnancy, or the fact that I ,like roughly 10% of the male population, am colourblind fit into the grand scheme of equality? I can't change this because it is a physical thing that means I cannot do certain jobs as efficiently as somebody who is more visually able, and it is the same thing with certain jobs for women.

Sadly i've mostly come across the "best of both worlds"(sad because they make a valid complaint into something rediculous) attitude people, who want everything they feel is owed to them by the evil masculine society ontop of super special consideration for being a delicate ickle girly.

They annoy me deeply, my default response to that kinda attitude is to point out that being raised to never hit girls is blatantly sexism on my parents part, 'if only we lived in an equal world'.

TLDR version: Respect and fairness=good, equality without real consideration into what unavoidable differences are=bad

Edit: Yes I realise this post is probably off topic and has little to do with what sensible people actually consider equality, I still felt the urge to say it >_>

 

[Sacman]

I support equality but I hate the term... so I say no I'm not a feminist cause the term is used in such a negative sense...<.<

 

[NeutralDrow]

Male, and yes.

For the sake of this pole, I'm talking about "Liberal Feminism". Roughly meaning you support equal rights for men and women. There's a lot more to it but I don't want to bore most of you.

EDIT:
To those pointing out the obvious flaws in my description of "liberal feminsim", yes, I know it's unbelievably basic, that was my intention.

I don't think it's nearly as basic as you fear. It's something that frequently missed but absolutely vital in feminist theory that leaves the not-only comparatively liberalized but rather unique gender structure of the Global West. In dealing with women's issues anywhere, but especially in areas of lower economic development, men's issues not only overlap but are themselves a distinct part of women's issues.

To put it another way, it's all well and good to support better health care and economic status for women in a labor-intensive or migrant worker-characterized economy, but if you ignore what problems the men in such family structures are undergoing that contribute to that status, you're not only addressing a bare part of the problem, you're not doing yourself any favors in the eyes of those women, either.

EDIT: Of course, considering a good chunk of the responses in this thread, maybe your fear was justified for a different reason...

 

[AlphaLackey]

Do there exist no circumstances? Of course not.

Usually I have to go to the circus and watch a bear on a unicycle to see such backpedaling.

But cherry-picking the examples that are few and far between does nothing to change the fact that the circumstances in which it is expressly more advantageous to be male are FAR more widespread.

Few and far between? I'm not talking about piddly crap like "Ladies Nights", I'm talking about substantial things. Jail sentencing, family courts, athletics, pensions, health-care plans and affirmative action are far from insignificant circumstances.

And it doesn't matter if there are more (or even FAR more) circumstances where it is expressly advantageous to be male -- the existence of numerous significant pro-woman sexism in society renders the "feminism/equality" equivalence in error.

Just because the statistics and information you hear make you uncomfortable does not mean you have the rights to brush them off as "misinformation and half-truths."

"One in four women will be the victim of domestic violence" tells us absolutely nothing without a firm definition of what constitutes domestic violence and at what rate men would be victims given the same definition. Instead, it is given with no context to say "look how women have it worse than men". That is nothing BUT misinformation and half-truth.

"..Even when doing the same job" without making any mention of the fact that this comparison does not consider qualifications, experience, education and other credentials, and ignoring the fact that women outearn men (even when normalizing for the above factors) in some professions, is nothing but misinformation and half-truth.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is that we, as a society, expect more intellectual integrity out of a toothpaste advert than out of a "woe is woman!" public service message.

Once again, you're nitpicking at best. Are you really trying to argue that women are not overwhelmingly more at risk for domestic abuse than men are?

I'm arguing that saying "1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence" does not paint the whole picture until you define what constitutes domestic violence and compare it to what proportion of men will be victims of domestic violence. You call it nitpicking, but as long as feminists insist on moving the goalposts as necessary, I'll call it proper intellectual rigour.

Are you really trying to argue that women are given the same professional job opportunities as men?

I'm arguing that using a known, deliberate statistical manipulation (heck, some "Gender Gap" reports, such as the one done by the UN, don't even normalize by JOB) constitutes misinformation, and that ignoring areas where women have vastly superior opportunities (oh, athletics isn't a job, not like pro sports is a multi-billion dollar industry or anything) or not considering pro-woman affirmative action and lower physical requirements for women in physically demanding careers, is only painting half the picture.

You're nitpicking specific phrasing and in doing so losing sight of the overall message. You can't see the forest for the trees.

The overall message is that men and women deserve equal consideration under the law, equal rights and equal respect. And as long as there are significant areas in modern Western society where women are benefactors of institutional pro-woman sexism, focusing solely on elevating the status of women cannot, by definition, lead to equality.

Or, in other words, if all that is asked is that women give up what you consider paltry, insignificant advantages in order to get equality, why do they not only fight to maintain, but to expand them?

 

[MasterChief892039]

I suppose I must be a feminist, considering how much I post about sex and gender on these forums.

I don't see that as a bad thing though.

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..

This is fairly ridiculous. That's like looking at the Westboro Baptist Church and saying all Christians are gay-bashing crazy people. The fact that you put a qualifying statement at the beginning of that paragraph only makes it worse, since it mean you realize your views on feminists are illogical and wrong, but have no interest in changing them. Willful ignorance is just as bad as angry feminism in my opinion.

Spoiler: Also (my apologies for being an obnoxious English nerd), but since the made-up word -equalist- keeps popping up, I thought I'd mention that the correct term for someone who believes in equal rights is -egalitarian-.

 

[NeutralDrow]

The overall message is that men and women deserve equal consideration under the law, equal rights and equal respect. And as long as there are significant areas in modern Western society where women are benefactors of institutional pro-woman sexism, focusing solely on elevating the status of women cannot, by definition, lead to equality.

This ties into the affirmative action debate, though. In which case I'll point out that pro-women sexism certainly can lead to equality. It simply can't end up as equality if continued indefinitely; in other words, it works by forcing change on the status quo, but if it becomes the status quo, then you need to start re-evaluating. Like the Buddhists say, once the raft carries you across the river, you don't need the raft any more.

I haven't been paying attention to your particular argument (the first page made my head hurt, frankly, so I didn't see 2, 3, or 4), it's just something I noticed. Whether affirmative action works is another debate, but this just seemed a question of definition.

 

[Merkavar]

for every dollar a man earns a women makes 70 cents. thats rediculous. that only leaves the man with 30 cents


anyone made that joke yet?

 

[Iron Lightning]

As you put it, yes, I support equal rights and opportunities for all sexes. Although I think that makes me more of a humanist than a feminist. However, let me say that I do not see the sexes as literally equal. By that I mean that men and women do have different genetic and physiological qualities. Of course, we oughtn't discriminate on the basis of those qualities, but neither should we discriminate as an attempt to make up for those qualities.

 

[AlphaLackey]

This ties into the affirmative action debate, though. In which case I'll point out that pro-women sexism certainly can lead to equality. It simply can't end up as equality if continued indefinitely; in other words, it works by forcing change on the status quo, but if it becomes the status quo, then you need to start re-evaluating. Like the Buddhists say, once the raft carries you across the river, you don't need the raft any more.

Ah, pro-woman sexism applied to affirmative action when women are at a disadvantage, yes, could lead to equality, in the manner you describe.

However, if the sexism is already pro-woman, one cannot rectify it solely by using pro-woman sexism.

For instance, a woman will receive a substantially lighter sentence than a man would when committing the same crime under the same circumstances. How could one apply pro-woman sexism to that situation to result in equality?

I haven't been paying attention to your particular argument (the first page made my head hurt, frankly, so I didn't see 2, 3, or 4), it's just something I noticed. Whether affirmative action works is another debate, but this just seemed a question of definition.

Yeah, I admit I do tend to write lots. :/