Good question.

The only "positive" answer I've heard to that question from someone who believes in equal rights (and a lot more) was from a woman who didn't like the alienating and divisive (according to her) tactics of the local feminist groups in her city, and hadn't seen anything to suggest that other feminists were different. I got a little bit frustrated with this view, and she ended up implying that I was being patriarchal by insisting that she was in fact a feminist.

Touché.

I don't think that most people reject the idea of being a feminist as much as people reject the label of feminist when compared to the crazy feminists they personally know. Much like dru's example.

Once feminism is distilled down to the essentials, I can usually get someone to say, "Yeah, I'm a feminist." Only when they are ardent in not wanting to be a be a feminist, ie, I'm for human rights, etc...do I fail.

I'm a feminist because I dislike the forms of sexism that don't favor me. As for the sexism that does favor me- I prefer to pretend that it doesn't exist. Especially if I happen to dish it out.

I'm also a feminist because I think there's no excuse for violence against women but punching or slapping men for making an offensive remark is perfectly justified and good fun to boot.

I think that male-dominated institutions ought to be integrated, but women need their own special places where they don't have to worry about the intrusions of men.

And there are lots of other similar reasons too! Listing them all would take far too long...

Hey Voxper--sweetie, did Mommy never teach you to read?

*Why the fuck wouldn't you be a feminist?*

I would think that if you really had a reasonable gripe with feminism you would be able to answer the question instead of clinging to tired sarcastic remarks...

Since you asked... could it be that many self-described feminists simply co-opt that good name in order to hide the fact they're just about as chauvinistic and sexist as the male chauvinists that they deride?

But I'm sure that can't possibly hold true for any of the people who come here...

But I'll tell you a little secret, Jess: If more of the dogmatic and uptight regulars here could lighten-up a bit and maybe learn to chuckle in the mirror once in a while, I would come here half as often.

Dude, has instructing someone to "lighten up" really ever worked in your favor?

Please go away. This is a wonderful site to explore ideas about feminism and gender and race and culture. You are clearly in denial that there is any power imbalance/sexism in this country, and thus you do not understand the need for feminism. While you could undoubtedly learn a thing or two here about how feminism answers a lot of questions in women's (and men's) lives, you do not seem interested in learning anything, just inciting and mocking us. So really, go away.

Yep, attitude is a GREAT way to attract women. And an even greater way of keeping them. Stock up on wanker mags, because you might need them.

hey vox -

here's the thing. i've seen your comments you post here, and sometimes you actually do point out a legitimate double standard that takes place. But let me tell you, you do it in such a confrontational manner that there's a reason the ladies here don't answer them.

If you are polite and respectful, and bring up a good topic, there are people here who will answer, or even agree with you. True, there are people here who don't want to listen to anything that makes any attempt to disagree with them (i won't name a name), but for every one of those, there seem to be many more who will say, when politely asked, "well, i was actually talking about (blank)," "well, the reason I feel so-and-so is because (blank)," or "perhaps you're right, but I still feel that (blank)" - jessica is among the second type. Give polite debate a chance. If people ignore you after that, then you *may* have a point. But up to now, you seem to be screaming rather than conversing.

just my $0.02

Has instructing someone to "lighten up" ever worked in my favor? Only when the person in question has at least a minimal sense of humor. I can see that you might not have much of one, but I consider that to be your problem instead of mine.

So getting back to Jessica's fine question: why would one not want to be a feminist- my suggested reply is above.

I hate how the term "feminist" has taken on negative conotations. Personally, I always equated feminism with equal rights, nonviolence and an end to cultural double-standards such as the slut/stud dilemma. When I got to college, I was told those ideas weren't "radical" enough and that I wasn't a "real" feminist. Personally, I think this site does a good job of defining feminism in the broadest and most inclusive terms. If you want to be a man-hater, fine, but I like that we have some male feminists who feel comfortable commenting here. Why the fuck wouldn't you be a feminist? Maybe because you don't fit into someone else's closed-minded view of what the word means. I say, redefine it for yourself. I have and I feel pretty good about identifying myself as a feminist.

Hey Vox, lighten up. Just because pretty girls like Jessica won't talk to you doesn't mean that feminists are out to get you.

aw shucks...

Well James, that was very kind of you. You may not guess it, but people who know me in person consider me to be *very* left of center. There are political issues here that I would normally be very inclined to agree with if they were stated in a slightly modified way-- but I would say that a major problem about the root topic in this thread is that many people who call themselves 'feminist' often base their cases on little more than intimidation and shame-based emotional manipulation. For instance, no decent person really wants to be called 'sexist', and more than a few self-described feminists seem to abuse this very cynically. Others have an incentive to manufacture forms of sexism in areas where other problems (such as classism) could be the actual culprit.

These things, I beleive, have a real tainting effect and are among the reasons why many otherwise sympathetic women refuse the label 'feminist'. But recognizing this would require an ability for some people within the movement to take a hard look in the mirror and address a few systemic faults. And maybe even admit that some of the sisters can be a bit too sexist and rigid now and then. Until this ability to critically self-examine comes into existence, more people will not be brought to feel as if this movement represents their interests and people like me will see reasons to criticize it.

So would you now say that mine is a valid opinion which has been stated properly?

(You'll notice: 2 people [Nancy, Amanda] have knee-jerkingly replied with taunts that reflect rather poorly on them. If I were to tell the women here that they're mad because they're ugly or they just need to get laid, then you can imagine the reaction. I may be sarcastic, but I have never sunk down to quite *that* level.)

I guess one answer to Jessica's question is that some people don't want to be associated with the "rabid man-hater." I have a few friends like that. I also have one male friend who is, in practice, a feminist, but refuses the title because he thinks that "the women's rights movement is over."

Personally, I never saw why a generalization should keep me from being a part of something I believe in. Ok, so some feminists abuse the title and are just as hypocritical as the people they fight. Some religious people are hypocrites/closeminded, but you don't see all the other people of their religion saying "oh, well, I won't call myself a [insert religion here], because a few people aren't adult enough to engage in real debate."

I just try to stay on the side of what's right and fair. This has, in a few cases, led to me standing up for and agreeing with conservatives, but that's how it works.

Yeah, but we're not ugly and we do get laid, so your joke wouldn't be very funny.

Anyway, I don't think it's your looks that are the problem. Who knows what you look like? But god knows exuding resentment towards women just isn't all that sexy.

I have to say, I agree with Voxper, and yes, I am female...I think the exchange between Voxper and some of the women here, is a good example of what he speaks of...and I have to admit, this IS one of the reasons why I steer away from being a "feminist"...I don't want to be lumped into a group of women that take themselves too seriously, are often times sexist...and I'm not saying, by any means that most feminist are this way...it's just that the ones I described are usually the loudest and most noticeable...so, I'll continue to support human rights/civil rights for everyone in my own way, without the benefit/burden of the "feminist" stamp.

I wonder if guys like Vox go to sites debating racism and make the same criticism of "attitude". A lot of guys think its okay to criticize feminist expression of anger when they wouldn't dare criticize the same type of expression directed against racism by African Americans; though in my mind equal damage has been done to women: they are entitled to some expression of outrage.

I guess I don't really know if I'm a feminist. I try to treat people as honestly and fairly as possible and to understand the circumstances by which we have social inequalities in our society. Sometimes I succeed. Sometimes I don't.

Whatever label you want to give that is fine with me; it's the content that matters more.

well, vox, i am still wondering - why this interest in something you don't seem to fond of? I am not sure i understand - your critique is obviously well though out, but i don't think i have ever known you to engage in a real, true, openminded dialogue in here? then why all the energy spent on a subject that you don't really like? maybe i am wrong here, but i really don't understand why you are here? Is it just to prove yourself right by getting people's panties in a twist? Is it the attention? because, and i mean no disrespect with this, do you actually WANT to talk about all these issues that are being debated here? if you do, then why the sort of semi-hostile, sarcastic tone? (yes, i understand you could resort to a lower level, but now i am adressing the level you are at now). anyways, i am just wondering, because in my book dissent is healthy, whereas one-sided mockery is not, and i just wanted to know where you stand on that.

vox - to answer your question - yes. Your (fourth) comment above was a well-thought-out and polite way of expressing your ideas. Notice something when you posted in this manner (rather than a more confrontational/aggressive manner): 1 - you got more positive feedback here than you probably ever did (i don't read that often, so i'm not sure if that's the case).

BUT... in amanda's defense, she did once apologize to me for calling me "sexist" one time when I disagreed with her. she admitted it was wrong, I told her that was respectful, and i'll back her up for choosing to be big about admitting her mistake. True, she appears to be somewhat close-minded as to shortcomings of modern feminist theory, she doesn't seem to want to listen or address any concerns in that area, and she won't win any male friends by belittling them or ignoring their questions (and males are the ones who need to be persuaded for equality if equality is really desired), but she HAS apologized and changed her mind before, so you're not 100% right about that one.

In short, and like evita says above, if you have a legitimate concern and address it, you'll get a response from anyone open-minded. Try and keep it polite and you'll get responses like above.

I have a more nuanced positions than you might think, james. But I'm not in the mood to give a bunch of misogynist trolls reason to think that they are right about my entire sex because I disagreed with some feminist somewhere at some point in time.

rhiann's reason for not being a feminist: "I don't want to be lumped into a group of women that take themselves too seriously."

Yeah, and when you're dealing with issues like reproductive rights and rape prevention, that is _no_ time to act seriously.

You're probably right amanda. It's just the debater in me is so much more impressed with winning a discussion using facts and logic to maintain their side. It'd be so much cooler for you and vox to actually answer each other's points, rather than just ignore the other, calling the other a crazy feminazi, misogynist asshole, I won't answer him/her since he/she doesn't respect me, etc.

How 'bout it editors? How about a real-live debate between the two? They each get to submuit like 5 questions, and over 2 weeks, monday-friday, they each have to answer the question in 1 paragraph or so. It'd be like a point/counterpoint article. No spin, no digressing, no namecalling. I think it'd be fascinatingly entertaining - a chance to put-up-or-shut-up. All great journalism sources have opposing viewpoint contributors (NYTimes has William Safire, WSJ has Al Hunt, etc). Whadya say?

"i mean no disrespect with this, do you actually WANT to talk about all these issues that are being debated here? if you do, then why the sort of semi-hostile, sarcastic tone?"

I've found that people who read their Bible daily are the least likely to actually *think* when their assumptions are challenged in a forthright fashion. But the use of critical irony, however, can often cut to the core of the matter. This holds true for making critiques of ideological world-views in general.

For instance, I find it absolutely absurd that self-described conservatives oppose 'big government social-engineering projects', but think the invasion of Iraq to supposedly create a democracy is somehow *not* a big-government social-engineering project. The only real way to point-out this fallacy to a movement conservative is through whacking him/her on the head with semi-hostile sarcasm.

"I wonder if guys like Vox go to sites debating racism and make the same criticism of "attitude". A lot of guys think its okay to criticize feminist expression of anger when they wouldn't dare criticize the same type of expression directed against racism by African Americans."

Well, Jay, maybe that's because it's a poor analogy to make. In fact: that comparison is a real distortion and reality is more complex. Unlike African-Americans, white women are born into the upper and middle classes at a rate equal to their supposed oppressors. The idea that upper and middle-class white women would even *consider* comparing themselves to inner-city African-Americans as being an equally-disadvantaged subgroup is quite an insult to African-American history. It is also a starkly pathetic form of moral cowardice insofar that it attempts to camouflage the complicity of white women in slave-holding states as well. (But I can see that we all love to get women off the hook for doing pretty much anything bad, though.)

It's about as silly as claiming that white women in apartheid-era South Africa were just as oppressed as South African blacks. Sure, it might sooth a few guilty consciences among Afrikaner women, but for them to even claim such a thing would be insanely unconscionable.

Wow. Are you assuming that everyone here is white? What makes you think that? Do you just assume that people you encounter online are white, unless they say otherwise? You do realize, right, that there are African-American feminists? You also seem to be implying that all African-Americans are from the inner-city, which is offensive.

As I understand it, this is a site for feminists to discuss issues within feminism. There are plenty of other places where you can debate whether feminism is a good thing. This isn't one of them. It's rude to march into this site and demand that we teach you feminism 101. It's like crashing the conference for the society of evolutionary biologists and insisting that each presenter argue against creationism. It's not that we've never considered the objections you raise. We all encounter them and have to argue about them all the damn time. It's just that we'd like to have some places where we can hash things out with people who agree with our basic premises. If we spend all our time rehearsing the same old arguments about very basic things, we won't ever be able to do anything else.

I understand that this doesn't bother you or James. You don't care about feminism, so you don't mind if you get in the way of the development of feminist thought. I wish you'd respect us enough to realize that we do care and give us the space we need to discuss issues internal to feminism. But I suspect you won't.

Whoa whoa whoa! I'm gonna have to call you on that Sally. You just lumped me, for no reason, into a group. You stated in writing, I'll quote (and take them point-by-point):

"You don't care about feminism"
Hundreds of non-paying volunteer hours working with planned parenthood in the bronx, working with 2 state senators and 1 congressman on bills to allow free birth control for lower-class women, and a founding member of Medical Students for a Pro-Choice America would seem to counter that.

"you don't mind if you get in the way of the development of feminist thought."
See above. I don't even WANT to go into OB/GYN. It doesn't mean I don't care.

"I wish you'd respect us"
I don't know how to answer this, because I'm not sure where this accusation came from.

"give us the space we need to discuss issues internal to feminism. But I suspect you won't."
Fine. Suspect I don't care about these issues. Do people like you make me regret all the work I do? Not for an instant. It's more pity I feel. The joy I got from helping pass bills and working in free clinics is infinately more rewarding that some anonymous person insulting me over the 'net.

Sally, like I said with Amanda, I respected her (a LOT) when she retracted a label of sexism for me. I may not agree with her on all of her points (who agrees with anyone 100%?) but it takes a big person to admit that like she did. So I have two offers for you: back up the reasons you said EACH of the four accusations that you put in writing above, or retract them. If you choose the first, I'll be VERY interested in seeing how you defend them (and my curiosity would be addressed). If you choose the latter, then no hard feelings, and I apologize beforehand.

I have always written respectful of posters here (and everywhere), including this post, and I have to say that your above post (and if it is an error I have already apologized)

"I have always written respectful of posters here"

The sad thing, James, is that I think you really believe this. I think you have no idea how patronizing your writing seems. I think you genuinely believe that your pro-choice activism means that you don't have to listen to feminists, that you're entitled to lecture us like we're stupid little girls and you're a big, smart, rational, impartial man. And I just don't have the time or energy to show you the error of your ways. I don't give a flying fuck whether you respect me or not. I doubt Amanda does, either. I just wish you'd stop acting like you were entitled to play referee here. And you might try to realize that there are things for you to learn here, and not just things for you to explain to the rest of us.

Vox, That you consider a comparison of ("white") women to African Americans as a disadvantaged class as "quite an insult" clearly indicates that you have a double standard of discrimination: one for race, one for "females".
Speaking of poor analogies; dredging up slavery and apartheid-era practices as example of how (privileged "white") women didn't suffer as much from discrimination is as silly as claiming black Africans didn't suffer as much from slavery because some tribes profited by selling out their own race! White women have advantages, but are still 2nd class within their culture and are as damaged by their dependency on their supporters as the showcase examples of racial inclusion elevated by the Bush administration. Support the status quo or face the consequence, and the status quo is still what works best for white males.
Dude! Its "moral cowardness" to refuse to see the obvious! Its easy to support a movement like racial equality that doesn't ask much of white males other than lip service, but one that asks complete cultural change, ( as feminism does,) and sacrifices in your life style and privileges obviously threatens you!

I challenged you to either site exact references to back up your claims, or to refute them.

You did neither.

And it's not my business if amanda respects me or not. That's her decision to make. All I said is that I respected HER That'd be cool if she felt the same way, but it's her decision. I may not agree with everything she says, and she may not agree with me, but we’ve both been respectful of each other and that’s why I listen to what she has to say. Jessica and nancy have also had mature conversations with me and neither have ever accused me like you have.

You, on the other hand, flung accusations at me, failed to back them up, and had the nerve to say that I don’t care.

I think Sally is my new hero. Thanks for saying all the things that needed to be said.

The reactions above are excellent examples of why one shouldn't even *attempt* to debate with ideologues.

First: "Are you assuming that everyone here is white? What makes you think that?"

First of all, Sally- You are putting words in my mouth. Never did I say that all people here are white, never did I say all blacks live in the inner-city, never did I say that non-white people can't be feminists. These are intentional distortions that you are making and you very damn well know it. I didn't mention Korean-Americans either, so does that mean I assume there aren't any Korean feminists? Absolutely not. If one is going to describe a complex reality, then it requires one to make periodic simplifications to make a point.

Jay- I didn't say "white women" I said "upper and middle class white women who claim to be as disadvantaged as inner-city African-Americans". Got it? I made distinctions, but you refused to notice them. Your reaction suggests that you're being intentionally obtuse.

How very disappointing of you to take the easy route and accuse me of breaking the playground speech codes. In real life, do you normally win your arguments that way?

"The reactions above are excellent examples of why one shouldn't even *attempt* to debate with ideologues."

Great. So don't. To be honest, your post seemed pretty nonsensical to me, which probably means that your intellect is too advanced for my silly little female brain. So why don't you find some big, strong guys who are up to your lofty intellectual levels and argue with them?

Just giving you some of your own medicine Vox; Oh yeah I "get it", you know all about discrimination without actually experiencing it and are here to tell all the rest of us about it.
My point, which you attempt to obscure,is that sexism and racism are two sides of the same coin, I don't distinguish between the progress of one little group over another within a society when there is disadvantage overall. And I mean overall globally! And if you haven't experienced it over a lifetime, you don't have the right to lecture those who have about being outraged about it and wanting to express it.