And when otherwise rational and progressive people still won't use that word?

Smack them. Just kidding.

My new thing with folks who have feminist values but won't use the "f-word" is I'll ask them what exactly makes them not a feminist. Generally this will give way to their fears/stereotypes about the word. (Oh, I'm not a radical, I'm not a woman, I'm not a manhater, I shave my legs, etc.)

I feel like taking on the bullshit head on makes it easier to start a conversation...it also kind of shames people who know better than the stereotypes.

But then of course there are people who don't identify as feminist for political reasons (the movement's homophobic, racist history for example).

--It means that the Far Right won the PR battle..

While feminist movement history has its low moments, its most lasting legacy is the innovative analysis of power that it developed -- when it dared to say that oppression starts in the family structure itself when women are relegated to roles that are not valued economically and to limited spheres of influence.

Their "cultural theory" was later "appropriated" by the very communities who feel excluded by them -- GLBT, civil rights, "minority" and other social justice groups.

Their innovations in forms of civil disobedience were also adopted by these same groups.

Alas, that's all forgotten, becoz the Far Right PR machine managed to reduce this legacy down to an image of unshaven, white middle class legs and man-hating stridency.

"feminist theory" should be required reading of any educated woman before she rejects the name itself.

Quit blaming the right Feminists are responsible for their own bad PR.

Beste, true... I mean, after all, we are the ones making up cute little nicknames like "feminazis" and "PMS squad," right? Yup, all our fault.

But what do I know, I don't shave my legs. I wax.

Law fairy,

Do you think those terms would have taken off if people didn't generally percieve feminists negatively?? If that weren't the case, terms like "feminazi" would have been scoffed at right off the bat.

Beste: Yes, just like hateful racial terms (I'm not going to list them - you know what they are) were scoffed right off the bat too, right? And now that racism is no longer a problem (thanks, Mr. Snow) all those nasty slurs have disappeared from our lexicon...

I'm not going to bother going into a long explanation - I'm too busy braiding my leg hair.

Not if you were losing your privilege to dominate and exercise power and control over said people, Beste.

C-bird
I have no idea what you are talking about. But I think you are projecting ... I don't want dominate anybody.

The fact is feminists are mainly responsible for the way they're percieved by society.

IT is the main reason that people who believe in equality have trouble identifying themselves as feminists.

I believe in Equal Pay, Sexual Freedom, Reproductive choice and Respect

I must be a feminist:)

I believe in those goals, but vehemently diagree with the anti-man, anti-stay at home mom, vitrol that feminist icons and current leaders espouse. It doesn't seem like it is about letting women make choices, from the woman writing about how women HAVE to work or they are selling out society by forfeiting their power, to expressions like a womman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, it is a harash and unwelcoming rhetoric. I can't really remember a time when I came to respect and therefor listen and eventually be influenced to change by someone who was openly hostile toward me. I think many men feel that way about the feminist movement, and it is changing their behaviors that is the biggest key to those 4 things listed above coming true.

I can see where you are coming from beste but feminism isn't a political organisation that uses PR and spin in order to look good, it is a movement and ideology. Should people keep ideas and theories quite in order to 'look good' to the masses?

It's not even like you have to be part of a particular body to be a feminist, it is such an individual thing.

There is so much variation in political parties and organised religions so to

I believe in those goals, but vehemently diagree with the anti-man, anti-stay at home mom, vitrol that feminist icons and current leaders espouse.

Would you care to give some examples? Because I've been involved in feminism for 10 years and have yet to see what you're talking about.

darn, ignore the last bit I couldn't make it sound right and pressed post accidently.....

I have yet to see a lot of anti-man stuff too, and I was raised in an extremely pro-feminist environment. There are always wackos in every movement (re: the SCUM manifesto), but they are what they are - we shake our heads and move on.

I am happy to see that some men are giving voice to the ways that sexism hurts them, too. Although I don't think men have been as maligned as women have been throughout history, they have been shut out of a lot of important areas because of their sex. Exclusion is bad - for everyone.

So, Buffy and Beste: Sources?

Andrea Dworkin is a classic example of a feminist leader who was anti-man. Her quotes like "I don't hate men. Not that they don't deserve it." are what creates the stereotypes upon which those insulting names are coined. And I'm sorry, I don't remember her name, but a well read feminist professor in just the last 3-4 months (I'm almost positive I read about it here) released a tome where she said if women leave the workforce to raise a family they are selling out the movement of women forward and they should not choose what makes them happy but rather serve future generations of women by staying in the workforce. That flies in the face of the goals of increasing choices for women. It just changes the task master who chooses for women from the patriarchy to feminists with publishing contracts.

I am far from being an expert on the history of feminism or its present forms, so if I get something wrong here, please feel free to correct me.

I think to some extent feminism has been a victim of its own success. Of course it's dishonest to point to the achievements of feminism (without actually identifying them as such) as proof that feminism is no longer necessary--but people do it anyway.

As for the harsh rhetoric and such--yes, woman:man :: fish: bycicle sounds today like its own grim form of authoritarianism, but that's because women have so much more freedom to choose their own partners, careers, etc. now than they did then. The militancy was absolutely necessary, and if it doesn't seem so now, that's only because we've forgotten or can't imagine the actual situation at the time.

As a man, I don't feel uncomfortable with feminism, or think it's somehow out to get me. Of course, individual feminists can be too self-rigtheous, but that's true of any belief or movement, and the failings of individuals obviously say nothing against the principles or ideals of feminism.

It all makes sense now: Rodney Dangerfield was the original feminist.

Buffy:

Her quotes like "I don't hate men. Not that they don't deserve it.

"It just changes the task master who chooses for women from the patriarchy to feminists with publishing contracts."

Ah, yes, the enormous power of feminists with publishing contracts, bending others to their will, drunk on the prestige and power that comes with a publishing contract....if only, if only.

Please. The feminist movement and its leaders are responsible for opening professional and sexual freedoms for women that were unimaginable fifty years ago, and yet somehow all that is trumped by a few quotations from Andrea Dworkin, whose work most anti-feminists never even bother to read? And somehow, that incredibly skewed perception is the fault of feminism, rather than the concerted efforts of entrenched sexists who have fought every single feminist advance tooth and nail? Who knew Dworkin wielded such power?

It's a nice fantasy world, where Dworkin and "feminists with publishing contracts" have such control. I wish I lived there.

I have "Equal Pay, Sexual Freedom, Reproductive choice and Respect" and I am not, nor ever been a Feminist. Germaine Greer and her "ilk" were idiots (and she is one still).

Equality for all accross every spectrum from the cradle to the grave it is not a right of passage, it is a right. But your very weird legal system thwarts you at every turn, so it's a Sisyphean battle.

Buffy, the woman you are thinking of is Linda Hirschman, and she is very much an extreme; her views are not widely supported among most feminists I, at least, know (several of whom have children that some of them stayed at home to raise--my own mother dropped out of the workforce for several years and is the one who taught me to consider myself a feminist). Andrea Dworkin is another very extreme feminist, whose comments incidentally ought to be taken within the context of her life and times (though perhaps I should also point out she was married. to a man I think I heard is gay, but still--obviously she didn't in fact hate men).

Feminists are not a hivemind; just like within any ideology there are different interpretations of what that ideology entails. The biggest constants are the four things mentioned in the post. These woman are not what I would call "mainstream" feminists, not that there really is such a thing. To judge feminism solely by Andrea Dworkin and Linda Hirschman is like judging the civil rights movement entirely by Malcolm X (who, like these two women, did have a lot of contributions to the discourse that I find very worthwhile, but whose ultimate conclusions I also disagree with).

I certainly share the general feminist ideology. When people ask, I tell them that I am a feminist. However, I've always had a problem the with the term "feminist". It sounds sexist and I think that really is what turns off a lot of people that I know (esp. men) from considering themselves to be feminist. It sounds like a girls' club. I also feel that generally, I don't hear enough from the movement about educating men and boys on the ways that the patriarchy hurts them too. I know its been discussed many times, but its not often in the media, mainstream or otherwise. I could go on here, but I'll prob. get way off topic. At any rate. I think that the term and movement are felt by many, my self included to be a little biased towards one sex where as we all should really be working together to make things better for women AND men (and Boys and Girls). I hope I don't offend anyone. I'm just trying to make an honest personal observation. The feminist movement is incredibly important. I just wish the terminology was a bit more inclusive (though really I can't come up with anything catchier!)

I love that poster. Pretty colors too. Hirshmann is not a "well read feminist professor" although I like her manifesto. She makes good points. Her article and manifesto are just one article and one manifesto. You are free to write your own.

That is an actual Dworkin quote. By like I meant quotes such as this one, not she said something like this. Here's one reference to it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/13/db1301.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/13/ixportal.html

darko, when all the feminist blogs I visit write about Professor Hishmann (thanks for providing the name) she seems pretty well covered by the feminist blogoshpere. That doesn't qualify as well read?

the name's donna, donna darko. :) well-read suggests she was 1) read and i don't think many read her manifesto 2) well-received and she decidedly was not because of 1) her authoritative tone 2) her elitism or 3) her failure to discuss the lack of of family friendly workplace policies. i generally welcome bracing manifestos but not the s.c.u.m. manifesto which someone previously mentioned.

"I believe in Equal Pay, Sexual Freedom, Reproductive choice and Respect. I must be a feminist."

Well, then, I guess you are one, or at least feminist friendly. There's nothing wrong with that.

I wear the "feminist" label with great pride, though there are many women in the movement who insist that I'm a “pseudo�-feminist. And yes, some times I call them 'feminazis' mostly because I think it's important to distinguish them from the rest of us, who believe all women should be free to choose their own direction in life- even if we don't always approve of their choices. I would much rather live in a society that had stay at home moms who bore 14 kids "for Jesus" than live in a society that imposed a certain supposedly “ideal� lifestyle on all women, with no consideration of their personal interests.

A lot of these so-called "rad-fems" are blatantly sexist. I've seen more than a few "patriarchy" bashing weblogs that are every bit as offensive and prejudiced as any misogynist I've ever come across in life (in the real world or in cyberspace). There is a certain level of acceptance when it comes from women; just as there is towards racist (anti-white) comments made by people of color. Society allows for a certain amount of backlash from groups that have faced historical oppression. But those who are most successful in their struggle for equality don’t engage in the same closed minded behavior they found so abhorrent in the patriarchy.

I guess it makes sense that women who lump all men together in one group characterized as rapist, batterers and sex fiends; would feel that they were defined a collective womanhood. But the existence of hookers does not make sex objects of other women just as housewives don’t make the rest of us mothers. I think it’s time these women focus more on their own shortcomings (if they have them) and quit focusing so much on what they don’t like about the rest of us.

The thing is, neither Dworkin's ideas nor Hirshman's ideas are accepted by mainstream feminist groups like NOW or FMF. Not that I agree with those groups.... I most certainly do *not*, even though I consider myself a feminist. My point is that Dworkin's and Hirshman's ideas do not represent mainstream feminism.

i posted this on my blog, too: http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=928

but it originally comes from the folks at Mind the Gap:
http://mindthegapcardiff.blogspot.com/