I saw Gloria Steinem speak at my college last year and she said something that really touched me that this post reminded me of.

At the end of her speech, a woman in the audience got up and said, "I really feel like I've failed my daughter because I'm a feminist but she doesn't even know who YOU are!"

And then Gloria reassured her she wasn't a failure and said, "I don't care if your daughter knows who I am. I want her to know who SHE is!"

I think that women don't have to call themselves feminists to act like feminists and know who they are as individuals. They don't have to understand what exactly the patriarchy is to understand other issues like their reproductive rights.

(By the way, there is still a video of Gloria speaking up at the college website: http://www.wpi.edu/News/webcast.html)

I do think it's important to embrace the label "feminist."
As long as few people embrace it (even when they embrace it's values), "feminists" remain relegated to the irrelevant special-interest group status. And society continues to mock us and what we stand for.
When more people identify as "feminists," others will be forced to see that feminists are not what conservatives say we are - we're not the stereotype depicted in the media. We're just regular women with lovers and children and families and friends, the women (and men) sitting in the cubes next to you.

I personally agree with Naomi Wolfe's perspective on this in The Beauty Myth, where she argues that women are afraid of the term feminism because anti-feminists have associated it with ugliness. The backlash against feminism was to redirect the arguments to physical appearance and create the stereotype of feminists being ugly, overweight, hairy, and any number of other things that do not meet our restrictive beauty standards. So in all, because of such extreme pressure to meet beauty standards, women reject the term feminism. I think that's shitty and an indicator of just how much we NEED feminism.

Another perspective that I have heard on blogs especially, is that many women of color feel that feminism is still trapped in its second wave and is about the needs of white women, excluding everyone else. I personally do not find that to be an accurate definition of the feminist movement in its current state in the least, but I do think it is true of specific individuals who identify as feminists. But I think feminism itself stands for a world-view of all people, including all races and ethnicities and genders and sexes and sexualities and ages, etc. And I think it stands for protecting the rights of all minority populations.

In other words, I can understand why people in both instances reject the term, but I think it is out of a misunderstanding of the term or negative experiences with individuals who excluded other people's needs. I think the term is VERY important.

I was in the "I'm not a feminist, but..." camp until my junior year of college, when I took a course on women's psychology. I now proudly embrace the label (and my boyfriend calls himself a feminist now too!), and I think that people shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge themselves as feminists. As SarahMC has, this is the way we confront stereotypes. But, I do worry that the term turns off a lot of guys who support feminist principles, but find the word's "fem"-ness to imply an over-emphasis on female concerns and an implicit exclusion of men. Yes, as a feminist I'm concerned about women's issues, but I'm also concerned about gender issues in a broader sense, and GLBTQ issues, and racial issues, etc. So I kinda wish there was a more encompassing term to use - but until then, I'll keep using feminist and encourage others to do so.

I was in the "I'm not a feminist, but..." camp until my junior year of college, when I took a course on women's psychology. I now proudly embrace the label (and my boyfriend calls himself a feminist now too!), and I think that people shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge themselves as feminists. As SarahMC has, this is the way we confront stereotypes. But, I do worry that the term turns off a lot of guys who support feminist principles, but find the word's "fem"-ness to imply an over-emphasis on female concerns and an implicit exclusion of men. Yes, as a feminist I'm concerned about women's issues, but I'm also concerned about gender issues in a broader sense, and GLBTQ issues, and racial issues, etc. So I kinda wish there was a more encompassing term to use - but until then, I'll keep using feminist and encourage others to do so.

I think that both (saying you are a feminist and acting like one)are important.

With voting, for example, it doesn't really matter if people say they are feminists, just that they have women's equality in mind when they vote.

But in everyday like I think it is important for feminist-minded women to identify as feminists because the word has been so stigmatized that to many it is an insult.

I run into this same problem with friends and family all the time. They think the word "feminist" embodies something too radical for them to fully embrace. I think a lot of people equate feminism with male chauvinism, and no one wants to be called a chauvinist.

I can understand not wanting to be labeled, though. I think "feminist" is really the only label I'm completely comfortable with wearing. However, someone who really wants to be a feminist can't hide his/her true feelings just by refusing to be labeled. I think part of being a feminist is understanding what the word actually means...and if you understand what it means, how could you object to it?

I think a big reason that women don't want to call themselves feminists because they want to get laid. Being for feminism doesn't mean being against men and family.

Do you hide your feminism safely until you get past the first few dates? What choice do you make when the man you love or his family recoils at the mention of feminism?

Reading the comments even on this blog, some women are loathe to be different, to stick out, to run the risk of being "too..." (insert adjective here). The risk of being "too..." is a deep, deep fear.

Open up a conversation on this blog about not taking your husband's name upon marriage as a choice to be an equal in the household name or, like recently, about the childfree choice being a very good choice.
Lots of people chime in like they are injured because a choice they did not take is applauded and admired. It's like you always have to tack fifteen disclaimers to an opinion that is not about a woman going traditional to ensure that the traditional ones don't get their feelings hurt. Even on a feminist board you run the risk of being deemed "too.." and "who does she think she is..."

What if you don't go with the pack? What if feminism means at times to stick out? What if a woman dares to eat with relish and take the last cookie at a gathering without any regrets? I make this up, but to some, it is outrageous and unnatural for a woman to not always put herself second (or third or fourth).

And there are some women that think that there is nothing more important for a woman to do than to be a mother, for example. That's not true, but on the other hand, are even feminists open to non-traditional choices - evaluating them on the same level of value?

But hey, what would it mean if you did not have kids? Would your life have the same value as a woman who has kids? What about a single woman versus a married woman? Who is worth more? Would you have a life worth living? Are you worth as much on your own? It's a provocative question.

Deep, like I said. It really scrapes deep into what your value system is about human beings. The "F" word challenges that all women have equal value in human beings - even among women. Even some women who call themselves feminists have a hard time letting go of a caste system of some women and their choices making them worth more as human beings than others.

I think that both (saying you are a feminist and acting like one)are important.

With voting, for example, it doesn't really matter if people say they are feminists, just that they have women's equality in mind when they vote. (And that the votes are counted accurately).

But in everyday life I think it is important for feminist-minded people to identify as feminists because the word has been so stigmatized that to many it is an insult.

I agree with Marissa that anti-feminists have associated feminism with "ugliness" or "manly-ness" (not shaving or "dressing up," etc.).

Another association is with lesbianism. If anyone has seen "I was a teenage feminist," there is one scene where a woman is beening interviewed and asked if she identifies as a feminist.

She says no because she doesn't want people to think she is a lesbian.

The next question is "Are you a lesbian?" and she says yes.

That exchange really floored me. Like sophia86, I am also concerned with LGBT issues and I think heterosexism/homophobia also has a lot to do with feminism's bad reputation in some spheres.

I guess I feel like I'm the opposite--A "Yes, but.." feminist. I'm a feminist, but:
-I don't think it's crazy to believe there might be some innate gender differences, nor do I think research into the question should be off-limits.
-I do believe there is moral content in sex and some sexual decisions, even between consenting adults, can be morally wrong.
-I think it's ok to change your name when you get married (even though I wouldn't), or do some other thing that's grown out of patriarchal roots, without being so serious about it...
-And the list goes on.
My point is: I want to be labeled a feminist, and I agree with what I understand to be core feminist beliefs. But I often read other feminists arguing that people who believe certain things I believe aren't really feminists. And that's when I want to say I'm not a feminist.

The ideals are far more important than the label.

The ease with which you can convey the value and logic of feminist views to others is a sign of successes of the feminist movement.

The persistence of the negative connotation of the word "feminist", and people's reluctance to identify with it is simply a sign of your *opponents* success.

You're winning (however slowly the progress may sometimes seem to come) the more important battle over ideals, but having a harder time defending the identity of feminism itself.

Ideals never change quickly or easily, though, so progress there is *very* worthwhile. Names and identities, however, can change more easily, and thus can be *reclaimed*.

But don't diminish the victories you should be celebrating because of a minor setback on a mostly unrelated front.

I've considered myself a feminist since I learned the word (thanks, Mom, for giving me its true definition).

At 13, when I said I was a feminist, my then-friend informed me that being "feminist" was (insert Christian conservative inaccurate definition). I knew what it was and how I felt about equality, but I began to understand how much the word scared other people. I began to see how others misinterpreted feminism (often to their own ends). I also saw how intimidating that word was to others, especially boys. Therefore, I became very careful about who I admitted my feminism to because I was young and still cared about what other people thought of me.

It would have appeared as though I was rejecting feminism because I didn't proudly state my affiliation out loud.

Growing older, I cared less about what others thought of me. And I started to get really, really angry at the way women were treated in our society. I began to proudly wave my feminist colors and if anyone around me was intimidated or uncomfortable with that word, it was their problem.

Basically, I believe that most people who don't claim the name "feminist," but agree with its principles, will one day become angry enough to try on the label and find that it fits. If they don't get angry enough, maybe they weren't really a feminist to begin with.

I've considered myself a feminist since I learned the word (thanks, Mom, for giving me its true definition).

At 13, when I said I was a feminist, my then-friend informed me that being "feminist" was (insert Christian conservative inaccurate definition). I knew what it was and how I felt about equality, but I began to understand how much the word scared other people. I began to see how others misinterpreted feminism (often to their own ends). I also saw how intimidating that word was to others, especially boys. Therefore, I became very careful about who I admitted my feminism to because I was young and still cared about what other people thought of me.

It would have appeared as though I was rejecting feminism because I didn't proudly state my affiliation out loud.

Growing older, I cared less about what others thought of me. And I started to get really, really angry at the way women were treated in our society. I began to proudly wave my feminist colors and if anyone around me was intimidated or uncomfortable with that word, it was their problem.

Basically, I believe that most people who don't claim the name "feminist," but agree with its principles, will one day become angry enough to try on the label and find that it fits. If they don't get angry enough, maybe they weren't really a feminist to begin with.

I've considered myself a feminist since I learned the word (thanks, Mom, for giving me its true definition).

At 13, when I said I was a feminist, my then-friend informed me that being "feminist" was (insert Christian conservative inaccurate definition). I knew what it was and how I felt about equality, but I began to understand how much the word scared other people. I began to see how others misinterpreted feminism (often to their own ends). I also saw how intimidating that word was to others, especially boys. Therefore, I became very careful about who I admitted my feminism to because I was young and still cared about what other people thought of me.

It would have appeared as though I was rejecting feminism because I didn't proudly state my affiliation out loud.

Growing older, I cared less about what others thought of me. And I started to get really, really angry at the way women were treated in our society. I began to proudly wave my feminist colors and if anyone around me was intimidated or uncomfortable with that word, it was their problem.

Basically, I believe that most people who don't claim the name "feminist," but agree with its principles, will one day become angry enough to try on the label and find that it fits. If they don't get angry enough, maybe they weren't really a feminist to begin with.

I think that if their taught to "think" and "act" feminist, that's an awesome first step, and will eventually lead to being an "outed feminist" as it were.

By the same token, encouragement to identify with that political group and consider oneself part of the movement should always be the end goal, so long as the encouragement to do so doesn't become counterproductive (which is a minority of cases, I think)

Insofar as that "fear of being called feminist" alot of the other commenters here are correct to note that that is a result of a at least partly successful marginalization tactic by anti-feminists. The efforts that the modern movement are taking (like the bloggers here) to correct that are heartening.

As long as feminists are demonized, the things feminists stand for will be demonized. As long as feminism is not okay, requesting equality for women is not okay. As long as women are afraid to identify as feminists, women will be afraid to ask for equal rights for fear of being labelled feminists.

As long as devious anti-feminists are out there trying to tell us all that they totally support women and think we are awesome which is why they think we should make lots of babies, it won't be enough to say you totally support women and think they are awesome.

As long as there are people who get the fact that feminism is good but don't completely feel like giving up their anti-woman stances on a few issues or aren't fully educated, it will be necessary to point out to some "feminists" that they are adhering to anti-feminist beliefs (and that carrying anti-feminist beliefs is incompatible with being a feminist).

I don't particularly care if feminism causes men to feel excluded. Any man who gets upset that a word used to describe opposition to patriarchy puts an emphasis on the plight of women, who are more hurt as a group by the patriarchy than he is, is probably a douche.

And any man who feels so offended that some feminists would rather he use the word "feminist-supportive" that he rejects feminism and thinks we're all evil bitches for not allowing him a prime glorious spot in our movement where he can do something glamorous and attention-grabbing... is an enormous fucking douche. It's only off-putting if you think of any woman who doesn't let you into her club as an uppity bitch.

I didn't take the time to read ALL of the comments, but I figured I throw in my opinion. So, forgive me if I happen to repeat what other people have said.

I think that the philosophy is more important the label itself. While putting a label on people can help them organize, and really convey the message of who they are, I think labels can also be restraining, and legalistic. In the same way that our country has been thoroughly fucked up by the "are you a Republican or a Democrat?" mentality, people should not be classified by what they call themselves, but rather, by what they believe in. My room mates (women) don't call themselves feminists, but they believe in all the same things, and they won't hesitate to fight for what they believe in. That, I think is the most important part.

I swear I'm not posting with the intent of starting another comment war...

A significant portion of what feminism struggles to accomplish is, to put it very broadly, an end to the phenomenon of men wielding a disproportionate measure of power and influence, which is awarded to them on the basis of tradition, their penis, and society's continued acceptance of a lot of archaic gender roles and sexist assumptions (i.e. women are more emotional, men are better leaders, etc.).

Given that feminism is fighting an uphill battle, it seems that the cause would be well-served to focus at least as much energy on recruiting/converting male allies as it does female. Like it or not, the very definition of the patriarchal mindset dictates that the men who so badly need to be convinced of the validity of feminism's ideals will give those arguments more weight if they hear them from another man.

To that end, I contend that the "feminist" label should absolutely not receive nearly as much focus as the ideals, nor should one who chooses not to use it be viewed automatically as an inferior variety of ally. What matters is getting more people in the real world to be aware of the forces of patriarchy that are still at work, and to do everything they can to expose & fight them, and you may find that you attract more of these people (especially men) without the f-word than with it.

I'm sure there will be some people who read this and immediately react "No. It's all or nothing. If you don't embrace the word, you're compromising the ideals on some level, and that's a step backwards." I would respond to that by asking that you look at the successes that the "other side" has had (to our detriment) in their willingness to compromise by advancing their agenda one small step at a time. The reason why Roe v. Wade is being slowly chipped away into nothing is because they keep pushing for small restrictions, looking forward to the cumulative effect. They would not have been able to do this if they'd held out for an outright ban on abortion, which is unlikely to ever happen. Unfortunately for women's reproductive rights, they're more pragmatic than that, and they will succeed in continuing to restrict it to the point where it's wholly impractical for more and more women.

Ask the related question; which is more important:

A. the acceptance of the word,

or

B. the accomplishment of feminism's mission (with the possible exclusion of A.)

The answer, to me, is obviously the former.

That was a wonderful article. I wish we (my wife and I) could get my 21-year-old sister-in-law to read this site and understand what is discussed here. She's smart, but I don't think she understands the importance of feminism yet.

I never knew about the stereotype about the ugly, fat, butch feminist until after I already identified one. When I was about 15, my impression was that feminists were angry women who blamed men for their lower position in society, resented their higher one, and wanted to bring men down a notch. Interestingly enough, that was pretty much how I felt at the time, though I was under the impression that feminists were more radical than I was and wanted nothing to do with men.

...I meant to say THE LATTER. B. Sorry.

But Murray, "feminism's mission" IS associated with feminism.
And until more people embrace the word feminism (and the "feminist" label), feminism's mission will remain misunderstood and maligned.

I always just think the "I'm not a feminist but" types are just really dense.

You can say you aren't a feminist but that doesn't mean you aren't - That would be like me saying "I'm not an atheist but I don't believe in god". It doesn't even make sense

I think it's important to embrace the word "feminist" for a lot of the reasons already stated. Coming out has helped advance the cause of equality for the GLBTQ community because when a GLBTQ person is someone you know and care about, they can't be demonized as easily.

If merely labeling an idea, policy or movement as "feminist" associates it with a negative stereotype for the mainstream American, that makes it a lot easier for opponents.

Murray, you may have a point there but the way you're suggesting it sounds a lot like the standard "if you're nice enough, the men will cooperate. Don't push too hard or you'll scare off the men."

I think that feminism is not just about equality measured against men's rights and freedoms and value.

It is also about equality among women and their potential. To not put down the seriousness of women who went for the Ms. title or voting rights (even being strident and in people's faces!) or the women who did not take their husband's name -- as being "too..."

It is valuing older women, angry women, childfree women, even the "ugly, fat, butch feminist" mentioned before. What would it mean if these women were equal in value to "pretty, thin, feminine women?" What would it mean if older women had the same value as younger women? What would it mean if childfree women had equal human value to women who have children? What if poor women had the same value as rich women? Pick another mind blowing comparison.

Pretty radical, but it gets to the heart of the matter.

Also Murray, men who are actually susceptible to feminist messages are, in my opinion, not terribly put off when I ask them to say they are "pro-feminist." The men who respond to this with anger at feminists and a refusal to hear what feminists have to say tend to already be jerkfaces and don't actually believe in equality for women.

Very good comparison, Geek.

The more women who call themselves "feminist," the more uninformed people will think, "Wait. She's a feminist? But she's so nice. And has a boyfriend. We get along. Hmmmmm..."

I am not privileging "niceness" or "having a boyfriend" above other qualities, I am just throwing out examples of qualities not normally associated with feminists.

We will never get people on board with feminism if people with feminist ideals refuse to call themselves feminists.

That just allows people to continue thinking "all feminists are radical man-haters," rather than, "Hey, my babysitter/cube-mate/lab partner" is a feminist; maybe she's onto something."

SarahMC, I think your point assumes that anyone not embracing the word automatically misunderstands and maligns feminism/ists, and I think this is demonstrably false. One can make this choice while coming from a place of tolerance and non-judgment.

No no no, Murray. That is not what I'm assuming.
I am saying that people who demonize feminism/ists are enabled when well-meaning folks with feminist ideals reject the term "feminism."

This allows anti-feminism, stereotypes and misinformation to fester.

Murray- Anybody afraid to use the word feminism despite the fact that it describes to a T the values that they already hold is making a judgement about feminism and feminists. They are rather clearly deciding that they find the movement and the people in it repulsive enough that they refuse to identify as such even if they agree with absolutely everything said by feminists and feminism.

Just because they are not combative or aggressive doesn't mean they aren't being extremely judgemental.

Murray-

The subject of this post is an article about "how to be a feminist without anyone knowing." It does not seem like the audience for this piece is making the choice to not call themselves a feminist "from a place of tolerance and non-judgement," as you say, but because anti-feminists have pushed the image of feminists as ugly, hairy, butch, masculine, man and child hating, "uppity," lesbian or anti-sex feminazis and they are SCARED or as the author says "not ready" to be associated with these stereotypes.

As Sera said:
"As long as feminists are demonized, the things feminists stand for will be demonized. As long as feminism is not okay, requesting equality for women is not okay. As long as women are afraid to identify as feminists, women will be afraid to ask for equal rights for fear of being labelled feminists."

Geek,

I agree with your analogy for sure. I think visibility is a good thing; I just don't think it's the only thing.

I didn't mean for my point to be "don't push too hard." I certainly didn't mean to imply that we should remain complacent in a state of "almost equal." I was just saying that it's important to keep in perspective that the word is just a label, and as such its value should not be seen to outweigh the value of the thing to which it refers.

Sera, I disagree that men who are susceptible to feminist messages are automatically accepting of the word. I've dealt with family members who will bristle and immediately reject anything with a feminist label, but if I leave that word out of it I can make points about modern sexism that they will accept. I understand their reaction is somewhat primitive, but still I prefer to choose the course of action (avoiding the word) that will actually make them think. It's better than nothing.

A rose by any other name...

I, too, have struggled with labeling myself as a feminist. In most cases, I do. I'm president of the Feminist Discussion Group on a fairly conservative campus, so sometimes I cherish the word for all the rebellion its associated with on campus. I've read Full-Frontal Feminism, and loved it. I also love the history of standing up and making noise that the word is connected with.

But there's two sides to this coin. That same history is often racist, and sometimes sexist. The word leaves an awful taste in some people's mouth--some people who would love attending our meetings and helping in our causes.

In my life, and on campus, I have worked really hard to change the face and the definition of feminism so that people who have been fed "feminism is evil" their whole lives are given positive, tradition-shaking people and things to equate the word with. So far the mission is going well but slow.

I, too, have struggled with labeling myself as a feminist. In most cases, I do. I'm president of the Feminist Discussion Group on a fairly conservative campus, so sometimes I cherish the word for all the rebellion its associated with on campus. I've read Full-Frontal Feminism, and loved it. I also love the history of standing up and making noise that the word is connected with.

But there's two sides to this coin. That same history is often racist, and sometimes sexist. The word leaves an awful taste in some people's mouth--some people who would love attending our meetings and helping in our causes.

In my life, and on campus, I have worked really hard to change the face and the definition of feminism so that people who have been fed "feminism is evil" their whole lives are given positive, tradition-shaking people and things to equate the word with. So far the mission is going well but slow.

Murry, your clarification makes sense but only bolsters the point that the label is important. When a good idea can be dismissed by people as a knee-jerk reaction to the label its given that gives opponents an easy shortcut to demonizing that idea even among those who would otherwise support it.

I'm not saying (and I doubt others are) that defending the feminist label needs to be part of every discussion. But the fight for a broader acceptance of the feminist lable is important and, I think, inseparable from the larger feminist movement.

Well, before I discovered what feminism really was, I was already a sassy, rude, smart loudmouth, so it wasn't that much of a jump for me to define myself as a feminist. I've found that all the feminists I know have a unique combination of intelligence, weirdo-ness, and a generally pistol-like wit. I've always wondered if that particular personality type leads to feminism. I think it is certainly an asset, considering the sense of humor needed to handle all the bullshit in the world.

Who I worry about are young women who notice that things around them don't seem fair or right, but are stuck in situations with reactionary people and who don't have the resources to help them define exactly what is unsatisfying to them about their lives.

I think Angyal hits the nail on the head with her advice for young women, especially the bullet point concerning the nature of one's sexual expression. As a college-aged woman, the single most difficult thing for me to reconcile is sexuality. What to do, how to do it, who to do it with and, most crucially for me, what I really want to do instead of what my partner wants me to do. College-aged women are the most scrutinized sexually by the media, since they're old enough that men won't get a statutory rape charge, but young enough to still be TOTALLY HAWT AND SECKSAY and supposedly dumb enough to exploit Girls Gone Wild-style. I've made some difficult transformations in my life, but the single toughest has been reconceptualizing myself as not an object of desire but as a subject with desires. TMI probably, but I've found that with my specific sexual needs, women fill them better, though once in a great while (like right now), I'll come across a feminist man who even surprises me with his views on sex and gender.

Not sure you're interested in an outsider's (guy's) opinion here, but anyway.

I think the problem with the label "feminism" is that no one really knows what it stands for anymore without at least five sentences of qualifiers - are you a radical f., sex-positive f., marxist f., equality oriented or gyno-centric f., difference f., separatist f., feministing.com f? I think even a feminist philosopher would have trouble coming up with a significant superset of all those strands.

Does being f. mean you believe in the more than problematic attempts to redefine epistemology (standpoint epistemology) once popular among many academic feminists? Or are you more on the post-modern side?

When I hear "I'm feminist" I just have to ask "what does that mean to you" before getting even the slightest idea of what that person is talking about.

As f. does such bad job at identifying what positions a person actually holds without further explanation, I can understand that people don't see the point of calling themselves feminist.

SarahMC,

Got it; thanks for clarifying. One who rejects the label TACITLY misunderstands and maligns feminism/ists by allowing said misunderstanding/malignment to continue. That goes hand-in-hand with Geek's points too about visibility.

I don't know; I guess my point was just that you should go with whatever you find, in your own life, fosters productive dialogue. Based on the principles that you've outlined about visibility & standing up for the word, do you think I made the wrong choice with the example that I outlined about talking to my more conservative family members?

Emily, the history of feminism is also often homophobic. It's necessary to acknowledge confront those issues. But can't we do more good by speaking out against racism, talking about how racism and sexism intersect and by speaking out against homophobia and transphobia as feminist than by discarding the label? By demonstrating that feminism is not about those things. Feminists have been flawed, but we are diverse and racism and homophobia are NOT inherent in the women's rights movement.

ts -

I think the basic definition that women are human and deserve to live their lives as fruitfully and freely as men is a good one. And I don't think you're much of an outsider if you know all those different kinds of feminism. I wouldn't say it's a problem at all that there are so many subsets of feminism, because different people have different concerns. I agree with you though, that once some people get passed the tip of the iceberg of the media's portrayal of feminists, it can be a tad overwhelming to figure out what everyone's feminism is.

Geek: "When a good idea can be dismissed by people as a knee-jerk reaction to the label its given that gives opponents an easy shortcut to demonizing that idea even among those who would otherwise support it."

I agree with Geek. To illustrate: once my ex-boyfriend was complaining about (my) feminism to friend of mine and asked her (in a very confrontative way) what feminism meant.

She identifies as a feminist to me, but I understand why she didn't want to get into it with him.

The reason we had broken up was because his refusal to aknowledge sexism in the world, and our inability to have a discussion about politics, philosophy, etc. (He voted for Bush both times!)

Anyway, my friend told him to look up feminism on the internet. He did and got a basic definition, "political, social, economic equality for women" or something of the like and could not believe that it was the real definition. He scoffed, "If that was feminism, EVERYBODY would be a feminist." But cognitive dissonance kicked in and he kept on believing the same old stereotypes, still refused to aknowledge sexism.

If my ex could have believed that that was what a feminist was, then maybe he would have been one step closer to supporting the cause, but the word was so demonized in his mind that he had to reject the definition completely.

priestesssarah,

Your story was a great illustration of your counter point, and it made me realize that I was probably overestimating the usefulness and ubiquity of my own history. Sorry you had to go through that.

I think embracing the label is important for two reasons:

1) We owe it to the first and second wavers. We should always fight to make history as accurate as possible, and by allowing the word "feminism" to languish in its slandered reputation is to allow the patriarchs to control history and undermine the battles fought.

2) The world needs to overcome its fear of united women. This has always been terrifying to male-dominated societies. I think women shun the f-word not just because of the lesbian or radical associations, but because they do not want to threaten or intimidate men. They want to be agreeable, and many men find united women threatening, so they frown on it. Thus, women who are preocuppied with pleasing men also frown upon it. But of course we should be PROUD and BOLD and show men that sisterhood and feminism will only, if we let it, make things better for everyone.

That said, people do take to the word at their own pace, and some people just don't like labels at all, which I can understand. I don't think it's as important to shout the word from the rooftops as it is to know better than the roll one's eyes at it.

Well I don't think anyone should hide who they really are. If people are feminists, they should scream it out loud. There's no shame in being a feminist. I think it's marvelous to be a feminist and speak out and tell others about it.
These past few weeks, I've caught myself in love with feminism and it’s all I've been talking, thinking, and dreaming about. It gives me joy and pride to know that there are a lot of people who do believe in gender equality. However, we do need to speak about it more so that the word will get around and the whole world can enjoy this amazing lifestyle.
And I’m also hoping to buy Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism. I’ve read parts of it online and I can’t wait to get my own book. It’s the best book I’ve read so far(from what I’ve read). Hooray for Jessica!

In my previous post I meant as feminists, not as feminist.

I also wonder if by not encouraging women to identify as feminist, they are less likely to be interested in feminist theory. It's important to build on the framework of social analysis that feminists have developed. If a woman says, I'm not a feminist, but... I think she's also less likely to be interested in feminist theory. But if we encourage women to identify with feminists, it will make the theory more accesable.

If we called the feminist movement/viewpoint "Dolphinism," that label would be rejected and misunderstood and maligned as well.
Even pro-choice people who don't agree with gender stereotypes would hesitate to call themselves dolphinists because those who have an interest in keeping women down would quickly tar-and-feather that term, too.
Women's advancement is not a popular cause. Calling it something other than "feminism" won't mean SHIT. Calling yourself a feminist is saying, "I support the social/political/economic advancement of women." The more people do that, the harder it will be for our enemies to frame the discussions and demonize us, and the closer we will get to reaching some sort of equality.

While I can understand both sides of the debate, I do think that it's important to acknowledge that not everyone who isn't identifying as a feminist is doing so because they're afraid to do so. As with any political movement, the feminist movement (and thus feminist label) has an agenda and a history, both of which go beyond "women and men are equal." The feminist label means more than that, and a rejection of the label is often a legitimate, thought-out rejection of particular aspects of the current and historical agenda, a possibility often ignored in feminist debates on the necessity of the label.

"I think women shun the f-word not just because of the lesbian or radical associations, but because they do not want to threaten or intimidate men."

Good point, lizadilly.

Great posts as always, SarahMC.

I don't know why anyone would want male feminists to call themselves "pro-feminists" or "feminist-supporters" instead of just "feminists." Asking anyone to take a qualified status based on their genitalia despite their philosophy is inherently anit-feminist.

And another point we have to be aware of -- whatever we call ourselves, it will get slandered. We can change our name every decade, but we're always going to be defending our identity. And if we don't claim a name for ourselves, we will be given one (a very unflattering one, I'm sure). So I think we might as well stick up for those that stick up for us, and champion the f-word

priestesssarah's story perfectly illustrates the reasoning behind people who say "I'm not a feminist, but..." Part of the issue is that many of the most visible icons of feminism are second-wave leaders, writers, activists, etc. People hear sound clips or read books from the 1970s about the main issues in feminism from that time, some of which no longer feel pertinent (for example, a woman headed to law school may not understand "The Feminine Mystique" because she has career options). This leads a lot of younger people to conclude that feminism is obsolete. There's a bit of willful ignorance involved, and a willingness to assume that the justice system is, well, just. But the end result is a group of people who believe in equality for women but don't think "feminism" encompasses their concerns.

The media-created false dichotomy on any issue doesn't help. For example, when abortion is distilled to a simple pro-life/pro-choice binary, women who feel that abortion itself is wrong but who seek to correct the social issues leading to it (better sex education, paid family leave, welfare funding) may not find a voice in the media portrayal of the pro-choice movement and may then conclude that they're not allowed to be a feminist. It's like any other group or movement--the stringent radicals get the most press and it's up to more moderate people to create a voice for the movement that doesn't leave everyone thinking we're all wackos.

Very good point biochem.

Applying a label to yourself goes beyond looking at what the dictionary definition of the word is and agreeing with it. In my biased mind I cannot fathom how someone could not be politically liberal when looking at the definition of the word but I definitely understand why someone who could have a lot of liberal beliefs could not label themselves a liberal.

I think the word "liberal" is treated about the same as "feminist" in some circles.

Seconding what biochemgal says. I identified as a feminist from the time I was eleven or so. Once I got more grounded in feminist theory (and lots of other theories), I stopped describing myself as a feminist for a two main reasons: my theories of justice go beyond feminism, and I have concerns about the ease with which we as feminists colonize the experiences of "others." My main pet peeves in college were the tendency to speak for women from the "South" in a way that devalued "their" view of the world and the crass way women's studies courses used intersex conditions to break down female/male binaries, with no regard for the people who actually are intersex and what they think about their bodies and experiences.

I'm now back to describing myself as a feminist because I believe it's a way to publicize to others that the way I live and think and vote is absolutely informed by and inseparable from my feminist values. We may not all agree on the particulars of how feminism should look, but it's a damned big tent with room for a lot of perspectives and dialog.

I aspire to be worthy of the label 'feminist'. I always hope that I do and think enough to deserve to be called one. Respect!

"I think the word "liberal" is treated about the same as "feminist" in some circles."

it absolutely is. often even in the same breath (and often followed by "latte-drinking").

i've found that sometimes, if you're trying to make a (feminist) point to someone who needs a little education, they might listen to what you have to say and consider it UNLESS or UNTIL they hear the word feminist, at which point they just dismiss what you're saying becuz, well, of course you'd say that becuz you're one a dem radical feminists. you can sometimes achieve more for the cause if you do so covertly.

If you self-identify as a feminist, then you are already a part of the ideal. As for those who say, "I'm not a feminist but..." It would be cool if they would reclaim the title. Think of all the words we have to put down women- we shouldn't let "feminist" be another one of those negative words.

I think if you believe in feminism and act feminist, yet don't call yourself a feminist, you are a coward. You are saying "yeah I believe all these things but I'm not like those FEMINISTS".

By refusing to label yourself a feminist you are saying there is something wrong with being a feminist. You are allowing other peoples negative perceptions to impact you.

If it thinks like a feminist, acts like a feminist, it's a feminist.

I don't call myself a feminist, but I sympathize and agree with most positions (as I understand that) that are traditionally considered feminist.

So why don't I take the label?

I have the same problem with taking the label of feminist that I have with taking ANY label.

The word "feminism" means too many different things to too many people.

Is it a negative thing to be a feminist overall? No, but if you can have two people who believe in two mutually exclusive things as being representative of their feminism, then the word isn't right for me.

I'd be happy to call myself a "sort of feminist", maybe one member of a subset of the group, but I can't call myself a universal feminist.

Bear with me, it took me many years to accept the mantle of "atheist", despite having no religious belief for all my life.

I don't think anyone expects feminism to mean the same thing to every person.

"I think if you believe in feminism and act feminist, yet don't call yourself a feminist, you are a coward."

The problem is that there are a lot of different philosophies that have, for better or for worse, gotten grafted onto the label "feminism." "All heterosexual sex is rape." "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." "Breeders." If all you believe is that "women should have equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities as men," how do you repudiate the stuff you disagree with while still attempting to use the one-word summary of the movement?

My involvement with the feminist movement goes back to the 2nd Wave. The terminology discussion back then was whether "feminism" or "women's liberation" was the best vocabulary word.

I'm guessing that the term feminism finally won out because women's liberation got shortened to "women's lib" by the media. It made the whole thing sound trivial which I suppose was the point.

As a man, I've always been reluctant to call myself a feminist because I thought it sounded pretentious for a man to do that. There are certainly men around who apply the term to themselves as a way of covering over their own male chauvinism. The term "male feminist" sounds kinda silly to me because you would never hear the term "female feminist".

I know both male and female feminists in the younger generation tend not to have this hang up and I was told in no uncertain terms by a women's studies prof that I'd better start calling myself a feminist because the whole movement is under attack and it needs all the help it can get.

Personally I think the term feminist is wonderful and my involvement with the feminist movement has been one of the high points of my life.

Now if I could only get rid of my old fashioned hangups about calling myself one....

Bob Simpson

I always considered myself a feminist but I have since discovered that I cannot be one, as I am a SAHM and don't appear to fight the patriarchy.

""And yes, I do think that feminism should be about careers and productivity."

Hell yeah! You CANT be a feminist and a housewife at the same time. Get your ass out there and work." -from yesterday's children = cars thread.

Although seriously this society is so fucked that I tend to not identify myself as a feminist to others since I am fat and therefore, ugly and the world already has that stereotype of feminists I don't need to prove it.

Just to toss in my .02, I think it's interesting that the 'label' debate so often garners responses along the lines of "well, some people don't identify with feminists, but that's mainly because they don't know what feminism REALLY is" ...because I think what the question demonstrates, in fact, is that there's really a plethora of feminisms that are invoked by that label and they're all (well maybe not ALL of them) "real" feminisms. I think some commenters (the earlier male poster comes to mind) have basically alluded to this already... I think that given the plurality of feminisms, it would follow that there's also a lot of reasons to call oneself a feminist, and a lot of reasons to reject the label.

For me, as a transgendered person (also as someone who identifies as antiracist), I hated the idea of calling myself a feminist for a long time because my sense was that feminism didn't seem to care very much about people like me. At the time, that probably made sense because I was in a college program where I was surrounded by mainly straight, upper-middle class women who honestly didn't appear to understand or care very much about trans issues or why a feminist movement should be accountable to those issues (most of my college years I was like, "what the hell, all these bougie women spend their class time freaking out about whether their boyfriends will like them for being feminists and I can't even use a school restroom without getting hassled!") A lot of the people who were the most transphobic to me in college were women who used feminism to justify their transphobia. Of course, there's been other movements, historically, away from the feminist label for-- at least I think--completely valid political reasons (womanism, for instance).

So yes, I do agree that there should be education towards folks who are scared to call themselves feminists (I mean, for reactionary reasons), but it's also on us to make sure the label lives up to it, right? That seems like an even more important calling to me.

I have to admit I'd find it kind of strange to start with the label of feminist.

I just turned around one day and realized that I believed in certain things, stood up for certain things, thought in a certain way....and that the sum of all this technically made me a feminist.

I don't usually say that I'm a feminist. I don't have to, because whenever I do or say something uppity bitch-y , the word is thrown in my face like it's supposed to be an insult. And that's when I embrace the term.

Btw, and I'm making an exception from my own rule here to say that I say this *as a feminist* (label first), I reserve the right to take my husband's name when I get married, provided that I like it, because I'll be making an informed choice.
I also reserve the right to become the stay-at-home Mum of a litter of children.
And I won't be talked down to for that, either.

i have had many, many (often heated) arguments with one of my friends over this very topic. she shares all the same beliefs and values as myself, but refuses to call herself a feminist. she's a very intelligent woman, so i think it goes a little deeper than the "i'm not a feminist but" type. rather, she has recognised that, more often than not, identifying as a feminist may have the result of effectively alienating yourself from other sections of society. while i understand her point, i strongly disagree. in the UK (as i'm sure in the rest of the world, unfortunately) telling someone that you are a feminist results, at least 7 times out of 10, with at best a look of surprise, at worse downright horror. i have had numerous experience where i have told friends that i'm a feminist, only to received shocked/confused responses, including the classic "but you have a boyfriend...." . what i think is important, however, is that, while these initial reactions of shock and horror are the result of a culture which still paints all feminists as irrational man-hating ogresses, they soon lead way to genuine questions about what feminism is. what i'm trying to say, somewhat convolutedly, is that defining oneself as a feminist often raises the opportunity to dispel the myths that those around you may believe about feminism itself.

I fully embraced the feminist label when I really learned about the movement and what it continues to do in my Women's Studies course I took when I was a sophmore in college. I think that's because I've always thought like a feminist, but didn't know that there was a glorious identity label and group to belong to. It's like having a disease that has plagued you for your whole life, and no doctors have been able to figure out what's wrong with you, and then finally, a doctor tells you, "You're not crazy. You have" whatever it is, and then you get this sense of relief that you're not alone and that you have other people who'll understand you. Except with feminism and not a disease.

I do understand that not everyone is going to embrace that label, and I think it's okay. Actually, I would rather people apply that label to themselves when they're ready and willing. I used to think that if you believe in gender equity in all ways personal and political, then you were a feminist. But then there are people who consider themselves feminist, but are actually quite racist, homophobic, and/or transphobic, and I don't know if I want the already "scary" label of feminism to apply to such people. Not that feminists have to be perfect. I think feminists just have to be cognizant of other oppressions out there that affect women.

"Btw, and I'm making an exception from my own rule here to say that I say this *as a feminist* (label first), I reserve the right to take my husband's name when I get married, provided that I like it, because I'll be making an informed choice.
I also reserve the right to become the stay-at-home Mum of a litter of children."

Seconded. Sometimes, someone like my mom or my sister or my best friend will ask me if I will take my husbands name if I ever get married, and what about my kids? I say I probably wouldn't take his name, maybe he would want to take mine. Or maybe I would if I liked his name. It depends.

And while I think I'm probably too excited about having a career once I graduate to be a SAHM, I don't think in this day and age it would be so bad, at least for me. I'm very much an introvert. As long as the kids and husband help do housework, all I'd need would be books, video games, the internet, and a subscription to a good MMO and I'd be all set. Certainly doesn't mean that I'd let the "breadwinner" make all the financial decisions and whatnot, or become some kind of an unpaid servant.

Hm, I have never had a problem with my "feminist" label, since I learned the term (when I was 8 or 9?). I guess I was just born this way. Throughout school I knew that when other people gave me shit for the label, I just knew they were idiots anyway. No big deal.

I never understood women who didn't identify as one. It just always seemed natural to want to be treated as an equal. I'm sure we all identify ourselves as parts of other groups, and like the range of beliefs in any specific group, it's OK NOT TO AGREE WITH ALL FEMINISTS ON EVERY TOPIC.

I've also never had a problem getting laid, but then again why would I want anything to do with a penis affixed to an anti-feminist?

A lot of it, as lots of people have already mentioned, has to do with what your experience with feminism, as a label, has been. I posted about this on my blog, if anyone's interested. I don't think I've said anything that hasn't been addressed in comments, but I went on in a little more detail. :)

Ultimately how we live is going to change the world more than what we call ourselves while we're doing it.

While I think being a feminist can mean many things, I tend to be academic about things and I see it more as a way of looking at the world and analyzing various social structures, history, literature, etc. That is why many feminists can disagree very strongly about many different things. But if your views are shaped by a feminist analysis, you are a feminist.

Much like, say, the Christian religion rises from the believe that Jesus is the son of god and that a Christian should follow his teachings. That belief shapes how Christians analyze the meaning of things around them an dmakes them Christian while still able to have very different beliefs about almost everything else.

I didn't identify as feminist until fairly recently. I didn't have a problem with the term, I just didn't think about it. I was brought up in a sex positive, feminist environment - my mother used to explain about the sexism I'd encounter as I grew up and took me to women's support groups, my father play fought with me, taught me how to fix things, taught me not to be ashamed to talk about my vagina. He also tried to throw a party for me when I got my first period. I was not impressed lol

But yeah, I was surrounded by feminist literature and wasn't exposed to much popular media so I never got negative connotations established with the word. Hence I didn't even think about labelling my views until I found this site and was excited to be part of a movement, not just a lone voice lamenting to sympathetic ears.

defining oneself as a feminist often raises the opportunity to dispel the myths that those around you may believe about feminism itself.

Yes! This is what I was trying to say.

And Geek, I totally agree with this:

But if your views are shaped by a feminist analysis, you are a feminist.

I don't see why the fact that all feminists are not identical would turn people off the label "feminist."

Liberal Christians still call themselves "Christians," even though right-wingers also call themselves "Christians."

I have a question for those of you who say you don't embrace the "feminist" label - How do you respond when people ask if you are a feminist, or whether you agree with feminists, or some variation of that?

"I have a question for those of you who say you don't embrace the "feminist" label - How do you respond when people ask if you are a feminist, or whether you agree with feminists, or some variation of that?"

Personally, I would say "I believe that women and men should enjoy the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities." That's pretty difficult to argue against.

In reference to priestesssarah’s post regarding her ex-boyfriend not being a feminist, because feminism is not just, "political, social, economic equality for women", I have to agree with the ex-boyfriend.

I also believe that women and men should enjoy the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities, but I would not call myself a feminist. While having that belief is necessary to be a feminist I do not think it is sufficient.

Most feminist writings, rhetoric and ideas I have encountered also seem to operate under the assumption that societally forced gender roles harm women far more than men. It seems like a core assumption for most feminists. This assumption is what I think separates my views, and perhaps others, from most feminists.

And your assumption is, what? That gender roles harm men more? Or that they don't harm anyone at all?

My views are irrelevant. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just suggesting why I, and maybe others, can want equality but not be feminists, even by most feminists' standards.

My views towards equality of all kinds are pretty hardcore, especially in regards to foreign affairs and the extent to which countries should change, even in the context of their current cultures. However, I don't identify as a feminist, nor do I think I ever will. It's pretty simple as to why: the term itself implies a singular goal, and my goals are much more (no pun intended) broad.

I identify myself as an egalitarian. It's not a gender-specific word, nor does it have any connotations but the ones I make for it. I just find it funny that people want "congressman" changed to "congressperson" (as they rightfully should), yet the movement itself has a gender-specific prefix. Even if it's not implied by its followers, the word itself implies that feminism is for females. That's one main reason why men don't identify as "feminists" in general, event hough many agree with its core tenets.

80 posts later...;)

So I actually talked with Courtney about this after her presentation at Illinois College, but it's a hard subject to bring up.

I don't post a lot on here, but I think I made it somewhat apparent that I'm a practicing Roman Catholic in at least two of the posts. I have trouble calling myself a feminist because it comes with certain political assumptions. I believe in the equality of the sexes, that man and woman were created as equals and should treat each other as like human beings. However, I also believe in life at conception and waiting until marriage to have sex.

I feel like the larger feminist movement rejects me and women like me. Before talking with Courtney about my true feelings, I asked a watered-down question during her presentation that led to three other students and a professor approaching me and asking about what I really meant. When I explained, they all said they felt the exact same way I did; they have strong, Christian beliefs, but they don't know how to call themselves feminists when they feel rejected by the larger community. One of the girls even surprised me with these feelings because she is so involved in the GWS events on campus.

We want to promote gender issues. I am angry about the number of sexual harassment and assault cases in our society. I hope to have a very fulfilling sex life with my husband. And I really hate the fact that one of my male friends dismisses his value as a person because he can't get a "cute" girl to go out with him.

But do I dare call myself a feminist? Religious groups would think I was pro-choice, and feminist groups deny I'm a "true feminist" because of my religious beliefs. It's a nice Catch-22 I've gotten myself into...

“I don't particularly care if feminism causes men to feel excluded. Any man who gets upset that a word used to describe opposition to patriarchy puts an emphasis on the plight of women, who are more hurt as a group by the patriarchy than he is, is probably a douche.�

Yes, but there is another aspect of the term feminism which lately has been my concern about this as the label for fighting sexism against women.

The problem as I see it is that all right-thinking people, men and women, should be against the injustice which is the oppression of women. To achieve real change, men will need to be deeply involved, sooner or later.

But the problem I've faced over and over again as a male feminist is that I'm a second-class citizen within feminism. Now, that's been good for my consciousness-raising, but it's not good for the movement as a whole.

And the reason this happens is because there's two aspects to the feminist movement: opposing the oppression of women and advocating for the interests of women. What is presumptuous and borderline offensive for men is to act as advocates for women because it implies that women cannot advocate for themselves. Whenever a man is an active feminist, the discomfort mounts because the implication is that it takes a man to take care of those poor women. It's condescending. And the thing is, I think that anything that smacks of advocacy for an oppressed group by a member of the oppressing group is condescending.

On the other hand, opposing the oppression itself is not condescending.

An example I thought of was this: there is a difference between advocating for the Iraqis and opposing the injustice of the Iraq Invasion. The former is presumptuous for an American, as America is the invader. Iraqis can advocate for themselves, should advocate for themselves, and wealthy and white liberal Americans advocating for those poor Iraqis smacks of the whole White Man's Burden thing. But simply opposing the Invasion and Occupation itself on the grounds of it being unjust? That's not condescending, that's not usurping something the Iraqis could do for themselves.

All of us ought to oppose the oppression of women, because the oppression of women is unjust. And a man doing so is not stepping on any woman's toes or condescending to her. It's simply doing what's right.

It's my opinion that the choice of the term feminism is a result of the unfortunate (and revealing) truth that it was women alone who spoke up against sexism. In that context, opposing sexism against women and advocating for women in general were identical concerns. But the larger issue here is ending the oppression of women and that's not equivalent for advocating for women in general and it is an appropriate thing for men to do, in fact a necessary thing for men to do; while, in contrast, advocating for women is not.

I think a lot of disagreements I've had over the years with my fellow feminists who are women would have been avoided had it been clear that I oppose the oppression of women, but I do not in any way see myself as a "liberator" of women, or otherwise condescending. I'm doing what I do as a person who believes that I can tell the difference between right and wrong and that the oppression of women is clearly wrong and I must oppose it.

So, to me, the issue isn't that feminism is a bad word. It's not; and I'm sad that so many young woman are afraid to self-identify with it. But I do think there's an issue here concerning the need for a term that is more specifically anti rather than pro. How can anyone condemn a woman for opposing the injustice against women? How can they condemn a man for doing so, for that matter? It's a lot harder for women—not just men—to self-identify as being self-interested advocates rather than as opposition to injustice and evil. Misogyny and sexism against women are evil, they are just as much so as racism and slavery (which, by the way, a large portion of the world's women live within as a practical matter). There should be no shame in announcing, loudly, that you oppose evil. Unfortunately, feminism sounds like a special interest group.

Thestrua,

I am curious as to whether or not you believe your religious values extend to other people? If you do not believe in abortion for yourself, do you believe we ought to then restrict access to safe abortion for everyone? If you do not think it is morally correct for yourself to have sex until marriage, do you think we should make laws and regulations so other people will follow that path (such as the justification for abstinence-only education)?

I appreciate you being open about your position on a feminist blog and opening up your personal ideas for debate, so I apologize for putting you on the spot.

Keith,

How can one exactly be a "second-class citizen within the feminist movement"???? As a white person, it is damned insulting for me to call myself a second-class citizen within say the civil rights movement for instance. I think a more appropriate term is privilege, privilege from the same kinds of racism and discrimination that happen on a daily basis.

FEMily!, that's how I came to it too, so I actually think that the word itself is important. I wouldn't have embraced it like I did if I didn't learn so much about the history of feminism in women's studies classes and, while I now consider myself "always a feminist," I think I'm a better feminist for knowing so much of that history and for getting over society's negative connotations of the word. But I also realize that the word may have more meaning for me than for others simply because of how I ended up embracing feminism in the first place; I can also understand a lot of the other points that have been made about why someone wouldn't embrace the word but would embrace the philosophy, and it's really the philosophy that counts, no matter what we call it.

Perhaps, rather than looking at it as an "either/or" thing, we should look at it the way many of us view sexuality now: as a spectrum of possibilities that is different for everyone.

Keith, I think you need to read this article about the ways that people from a dominant group can help those from an oppressed group. It is not condescending unless you are telling the oppressed group what you think they need, rather than listening to what they are saying they need. If only those in the oppressed group can advocate for themselves, the very fact that they are an oppressed group - meaning they don't have as much power as one or more other groups - means they aren't going to get very far.

“It is not condescending unless you are telling the oppressed group what you think they need, rather than listening to what they are saying they need.�

It's my argument that a non-member of an oppressed group shouldn't be in the position of advocating for the interests of that group, which is what concerning themselves with “what they need� is doing. In the terms of the article to which you refer me, I don't think it's the place of men to "help" women at all. Women can help themselves. Men can oppose the oppression of women. There is a difference, though subtle.

“As a white person, it is damned insulting for me to call myself a second-class citizen within say the civil rights movement for instance.�

Insulting to whom? You ought to be a second-class citizen of the civil rights movement insofar as that translates into “furthering the rights and interests of black people�. Which is, as a practical matter, a large portion of the activity of the civil rights movement, then and now.

Going to an urban, largely black ghetto and organizing a voting registration drive is condescending and not appropriate for a white person. You are in that sense acting as an advocate, and implying that your unacknowledged privilege means that it is appropriate for you to step in and do what blacks can do for themselves.

On the other hand, when being in the civil rights movement means actively opposing racism, then you are not being condescending as a white person, you are acting in your own interests with regard to the furtherance of justice.

Now, as a historical matter, the civil rights movement has always been more integrated than has the feminist movement with regard to men. The more integrated the movement is, the more there's a sense of common cause against injustice. This is a double-edged sword and for many this is too watered-down, thus more radical movements which are intentionally not integrated.

Within some civil rights groups during the civil rights era, a white person would not have been a "second class citizen" and shouldn't have been. Within others, he/she would have been and, more importantly, should have been.

Throughout its history and to the present, the feminist movement hasn't been integrated and it has thoroughly mixed advocacy for women with opposition to sexism against women. Which, as I said, are the same thing when only women are involved.

But it's not appropriate for a man to advocate for women, because advocacy is ultimately "helping", which is condescending especially when so few other men are involved. The perversity of the situation is that the less integration there is, the more inappropriate any single instance of integration.

In concrete terms, a room full of mixed black and white people addressed by a white person (say, John Edwards) on the topic of racism is a far different thing than when it's a room of almost nothing but black people addressed by a white person (say, John Edwards).

In the feminist movement, it's always a roomful of women. A man has no place being prominent in any way. A man shouldn't be prominent in any way. And when participation is strictly limited in this sense, that's exactly what it means to be a “second-class citizen�. What I think you missed was my point that it's appropriate that it's this way.

But it's not for the best for the long-term goal to eliminate the oppression of women. That will require a broad social movement which involves both men and women. The only way that the movement can be integrated is if the movement is sharply distinguished from being advocacy for women and well understood to be opposition to sexism against women.

I don't think there's problems with the term feminism and what it implies (and how it is understood in practical terms) because men are pushed away from it—I think it's a problem because there is a) a definite need for there to be an appropriate outlet for men to oppose sexism against women; b) a definite need for an outlet in which women can oppose sexism against women without feeling like they are advocating for themselves; and c) this being naturally the same outlet would be a broader-based social movement than has feminism been to-date.

This isn't a criticism of feminism, as such. Going back to the arguments about racism and blacks, I feel there is a need for both integrated antiracism movements and black-only advocacy/antiracism movements. They are both important and necessary. It's approaching the battle from two different directions and respecting peoples self-determinacy. Put another way, blacks don't need whites or others to “help� them. But all people need all people to fight racism. This is exactly true with regard to women, men, and feminism.

"A man shouldn't be prominent in any way. And when participation is strictly limited in this sense, that's exactly what it means to be a “second-class citizen�. What I think you missed was my point that it's appropriate that it's this way."

I agree with a lot of what you say (such as how it is condescending for you to advocate on behalf of, etc.). What I take issue with is your choice of language. It is not appropriate to be a member of a dominant group and call yourself a "second-class citizen" within a minority group. The phrase "second-class citizen" has a number of implications that just should not be appropriated by a member of the dominant group. This type of language sounds like that used by MRAs or those who argue for reverse racism. I know that is not at all what you are saying, but I do think you should rethink your language in this instance.

Keith, I disagree. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but I personally find it more insulting for a man to sit on his hands when he could use his privilege to help me. How do you actively oppose the oppression of women without doing anything to help women to end that oppression? If you are a prominent male legislator, in the position to use your popularity to garner massive support for pro-woman legislation, how on earth can you justify not doing so? If you find yourself as the CEO of a company, in the position to enact major changes in policy that relieve harassment and discrimination, how could you sit idly by and just say, "Do it yourself?"

“ The phrase "second-class citizen" has a number of implications that just should not be appropriated by a member of the dominant group. This type of language sounds like that used by MRAs or those who argue for reverse racism. I know that is not at all what you are saying, but I do think you should rethink your language in this instance.�

Yeah, I see that. But I think it's unfortunately quite accurate in that it points at the oxymoronic nature of the term. Implicit in my argument is that contemporary feminism just doesn't know what to do with the few men who want to be involved and this is because it's fighting the internal tension of wanting to be egalitarian with the fact that, in this context, it's not appropriate that it be egalitarian.

I've been a feminist for my entire adult life, which is just now a quarter century. I've been navigating this terrain for a long time. A man's introduction into a feminist environment—any feminist environment, you see it here all the time in the comments—causes a conflict of identity and purpose. Both men and women will choose sides on the egalitarian vs appropriateness debate. And then much time is spent talking about what to do about the man/men. It's a distraction, it sucks energy away from the core of the feminist movement, those women who are working for real change. “We have to argue about what we will allow a man to say again??� they sigh. This is all because feminism, right now, is trying to be all things to all people. It's trying to be egalitarian and a space for women...not to mention being green, being conscious of all power relations and social injustice, etc.

Really, feminism is too restrictive label for all these things and, more to the point, the movement itself needs to allow itself to divide into different things pursuing different—but related—goals differently. Specifically, there needs to be a place here, where men are involved in an egalitarian manner, and a place there where they are not. And, again, how this relates to the term feminism is that by its etymology and by its practice, it implies something narrower than that while simultaneously trying to be something wider than that. The tension is evident in everything from male involvement to female reluctance to be involved.

marissa asks: "How can one exactly be a "second-class citizen within the feminist movement"????"

By way of explanation, sera: "And any man who feels so offended that some feminists would rather he use the word "feminist-supportive" that he rejects feminism and thinks we're all evil bitches for not allowing him a prime glorious spot in our movement where he can do something glamorous and attention-grabbing... is an enormous fucking douche."

In other words, sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way, oppressor-man. This is "our" movement, not "yours." In fact, don't even use the term "feminist" to describe yourself. You can't be an actual "feminist" unless you're an actual "femme." (You're welcome to join the Ladies' Auxiliary, though.)

That kind of second-class citizen IN THE MOVEMENT.

The operative phrase is "within the movement." It is entirely possible that the privilege that one enjoys within society at large is the very thing that makes one into "tainted goods" within the specific movement.

The original question is why people don't label themselves "feminist." According to sera, half the population isn't allowed to. Oddly enough, this is categorizing people into groups based not on their political stances, but on their genitalia. How enlightened.

“Keith, I disagree. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but I personally find it more insulting for a man to sit on his hands when he could use his privilege to help me. How do you actively oppose the oppression of women without doing anything to help women to end that oppression?�

Well, what I'm trying to say is complicated and needs to understood with nuance and not so literally. Obviously there is a large gray area between “opposing an injustice� and “helping those harmed by the injustice�. The two blend to each other and in some contexts are indistinguishable.

But even where they are indistinguishable, you can tell what someone's doing by how they arrived at that place and time to make that decision or take that action. Even if the action itself is indistinguishable between advocacy and opposing harm, what brought them to that point tells you a lot.

Go back to my racism parallel. Suppose you're a white person in a black neighborhood witnessing a police beating of a black person. (Well, I know that a sane American will not interfere in the heavily armed actions of our police, our supposed protectors, but bear with me in this.) If you take action in some way—speak up, take a photo, whatever—is that patronizing/condescending, or not? Well, it depends upon why you're there.

If you were following the cops around, looking for abuses, then you're opposing their injustice. If you were hanging out in a black neighborhood so you could do something to protect blacks from racist police, then you are patronizing them. Why you're there makes all the difference in the world.

So, as a man, I have to ask myself: why am I here, talking to all these women who are feminists?

And, really, the thing is, I don't really belong here. I certainly don't belong here posting comments like the five or so I've posted tonight day after day after day. Call this a guest appearance from an ally. I'm not a member, I shouldn't be.

With that in mind, I shall bow out now. I do hope I've presented some interesting ideas.

Keith,
I see what you are saying about the sheer scale of what feminism covers, but I believe quite firmly in the need for the term feminism. I think without the term, the movement may lose sight of the fact that on a global scale, women face the brunt of oppressive forces and are very much disproportionately effected. This is my problem with people who refuse the term feminist in favor of the term humanist. I feel, given the state of lack of concern for women's issues, women will be left behind if the term is changed. But I do empathize with your position, being inbetween in a sense. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the term "pro-feminist male" or the idea of studies of masculinities within feminism?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the distinction.

By way of example: Women and men should get equal pay for equal work. This is a perfectly straightforward principle. Name me any circumstance where a particular class of people should get unequal pay for equal work. Yet somehow it's condescending for me as a man to state (dare I say it, advocate for) this principle? I'm just not seeing it.

You can say you aren't a feminist but that doesn't mean you aren't

I rooted for the Giants in the last Super Bowl. Doesn't make me a Giants fan. I just hate New England.

I do these days identify myself as feminist because I believe in gender equality but for a long time I didn’t because my experience of the movement left me with the impression it was all about favouring women over men. Basically swapping our traditional gender roles not bringing them into balance.

Even up-thread I note that SarahMC says “Calling yourself a feminist is saying, "I support the social/political/economic advancement of women."� And I wouldn’t really agree with that. Maybe it is just semantics but I would say I support social, political and economic (at least in terms of access/opportunity) equality for everyone. At the moment I totally agree that means advancing women but if there was an issue that men were on the oppressed side of I would be all for fighting that.

I had a long, intense argument once with some girlfriends where they tried to insist I was a feminist because of what I believed and I refused to accept that because of what I thought feminism was. Ironically that lead me to do some more internet reading about feminism and to eventually conclude they may have a point. On a related note I am younger than them and it was my husband and I in disagreement with them. I mention younger because I think my generation got the chance to take first and second wave achievements for granted and to be impacted by what I think are some misguided outcomes of feminism like positive discrimination (positive discrimination is in my opinion still discrimination and not at all positive). Incidentally my husband still wouldn’t identify as feminist – he is fine with the goals and ideal but sees it as something for women more than men which is not an argument I can totally disagree with. He says he would prefer a movement with a label like “equalist�. I think I am slowly convincing him with all my talk about feministing though!

At the end of the day he is not that big on labels anyway and for both of us whatsername summed it up well “Ultimately how we live is going to change the world more than what we call ourselves while we're doing it.�

DaveNJ17 summed it up really nicely as well.

I think I started identifying myself politically as a feminist when I realized (in my teens) that the values I held about women, gender, sexuality, etc., weren't "common sense" to many of the people around me. I had been aware of the term before, in a more historical sense, and thought of myself as part of that heritage of feminist activism--but it was hearing other people dismiss or revile feminist actions and feminist beliefs that made me consciously take on the term. When a word still has that much power in a culture, then it still has work to do.

On the question of men and feminism: I've heard a lot of women, in a number of different generations, talk about the "can men be feminists" question. Only speaking for myself here, but I personally think men CAN be feminists, and I'm not insulted by men claiming the word if through their values and actions they embody what feminism means (just as I try to do).

I think, for me, there's a difference between claiming a political identity--which is how I think of feminism--and claiming a more subjective identity (say, as a woman, as a person of color, as a trans person). Obviously, men are NOT women--and they should realize that there are subjective experiences of being a woman in our culture that they will never experience personally. But I don't think being a feminist requires that you have those experiences. There's shouldn't be a vagina litmus test for feminism, any more than there should be for national elections!

Monika, in order to achieve equality, we must advance women socially/politically/economically. Men don't need the advancement. Women do.

I have grown very tired of people who walk on eggshells to avoid coming across as pro women's lib because "I believe in equality for EVERYONE." That's reduntant. "Equality" includes everyone. Men, as a class, already have power. Feminism doesn't aim to bring men down; it aims to elevate women so they are equal with men.

Keith, I appreciate your contributions and am always pleased to get support from male feminists.
But I find it really offensive that you'd prefer to sit on your hands than use your power to advocate for women's liberation. How does that attitude distinguish you from your run-of-the-mill non-feminist man?

I am fine with men calling themselves "feminists."
I think their most important role is to listen and examine their own privileges.

I mean, if someone tells a misogynist joke in your presence, do you not protest?

I am also curious as to why a religious person would hesitate to call herself a feminist, just because feminism and her religion have some conflicts.

Like I said before, conservative Christians, liberal Christians, Baptists and Catholics all call themselves "Christian," even though there are a lot of conflicts among those sub-groups.

thestrua,

do I dare call myself a feminist? Religious groups would think I was pro-choice, and feminist groups deny I'm a "true feminist" because of my religious beliefs

Marissa raised a good point above; I agree that to me, as a feminist, the question is not whether any one individual would have an abortion, but rather that they don't attempt to coerce other women into making the same choice they would. Someone on this blog, at some point, pointed out that freedom to follow one's moral convictions in these matters is really a freedom-of-religion issue--so by protecting other women's constitutional rights to make moral decisions, religious people are supporting their own right to make their own moral decisions, based on their religious beliefs (the original poster, I forget on which thread, put it much better than I did!)

I don't know if you're aware of the substantial body of feminist theology out there--Catholic and otherwise--which might be of some help in attempting to reconcile these two parts of yourself, and maybe communicate with religious folks about feminism. I went to a Church-affiliated college as an undergraduate and my introduction to theoretical feminism was actually through feminist theology classes, believe it or not! So I've always thought the two went together quite well. Although it did lead to a lot of anger at the institutional church along the way, I won't lie.

If you're interested, I'd recommend a book my prof wrote, Feminism & Christianity: An Essential Guide. It gives a nice overview of feminist theology, the history of women and the church, and it's written for a lay/undergrad audience, so it's not jargon-heavy.

I have to agree with SarahMC (as I usually do) about feminist allies who have privilege but don't use it to help advance feminist causes. There is a difference between knowing that women need to be the voice and decision makers when it comes to feminism and thinking that any action on behalf of women is condescending.

Since when do allies not "help"? Help is not condescending if you aren't telling women what they need or how they need it.

I really disagree with the example that white people involved in voter registration drives in majority black neighborhoods is condescending, especially if done as part of a diverse group of people working for the same goal.

It does require a lot of education to advocate for another community, but that doesn't mean it can't be done with respect. Women DO need men to act just like Hispanics need white people to do more than say "yes, there is descrimination and I'm against that." Because otherwise members of the privileged group are complicit in the racism or sexism of the dominant culture.

I'm so bummed that I missed Courtney's talk at Princeton! As a daily feministing reader for about six months now, I was excited to see her come visit my campus, but I had a show opening the next night so I couldn't make it.

Chloe's article in The Prince is spot on - there are so many people on this campus, men and women, who embrace feminist values without wanting to be associated with what they perceive to be a radical or man-hating movement.

I'll share one story that gave me hope: during freshman week, the Resident Advisors talk about respect and treating everyone equally. At one point, one RA asked his advisee group, "Who here is a feminist?" The only person who raised his hand was a freshman boy from Arizona, who then proceeded to explain feminism to everyone. The RA asked, "Now that you know what feminism is, who here is a feminist?" and everyone raised their hands.

Note: It wasn't just an exercise in conformity. At every diversity-awareness event there's time for discussion of different points of view, and it's always made clear that free speech is a given even if it offends other people. If there are racist, anti-feminist, or homophibic comments made, the RA mediates and explains how everyone has a right to their own opinion, but has to act respectfully toward others even if they don't agree.

I just want to add my vote that men absolutely can be feminists.

I didn't read the comment upthread as entirely excluding men from being feminists but as calling out those men every feminist has met who call themselves feminist and then act like they should be treated like benevolent gods for deigning to embrace feminism. There are some men like that, but there are plenty others who don't use that identification as an ego-stroke who are feminists and (imho) free to use the "feminist" label.

I am baffled by people who don't call themselves feminists because there are just too many viewpoints of feminism, so the word "feminist" is meaningless or not descriptive enough.

Aren't there lots of people who call themselves "Christians," but hold wildly varying, if not contradictory, viewpoints? Same thing with "Democrats," "Conservatives," "Environmentalists." Just because a movement or belief system has debates within it, or even contradictions, is no reason to reject the label, unless you disagree with the fundamental concepts underlying it.

One of the reasons I call myself a feminist is BECAUSE there is debate and disagreement in the movement; it's not monolithic, so it has room for me as well as for people who don't see eye to eye with me.

I think that men can be feminists and I completely agree with exelizabeth:

"Aren't there lots of people who call themselves "Christians," but hold wildly varying, if not contradictory, viewpoints? Same thing with "Democrats," "Conservatives," "Environmentalists." Just because a movement or belief system has debates within it, or even contradictions, is no reason to reject the label, unless you disagree with the fundamental concepts underlying it."

HotblackDesiato: I fully embrace the feminist label, and one of the issues I am most concerned about are constructs of masculinity, many of which I think are harmful to both men and women. There is quite a lot of recognition and discussion of that amongst a lot of feminists!

I find often when people say things like, "Feminists don't talk about X," they actually DO talk about X quite a lot, it's just whoever's saying it hasn't come across it (or bothered to do the research).

exelizabeth:

I'm not saying that feminists cannot be concerned about constructs of masculinity. What I am saying is that one of the required assumptions of feminists would have to be that societally forced gender roles harm women far more than men. Without this much feminist dogma including male privilege and notions about the patriarchy would not make any sense.

I agree with you that feminists could care about how societally forced gender roles harm men, despite believing that they harm women much more. But without this belief I don't see how someone could agree with many of the core teachings of feminism.

I posted because I disagreed with some comments above who equated feminism with only wanting equality. I think there is more to it than that, even though there is still a lot of disagreement and discussion within feminism.

“I didn't read the comment upthread as entirely excluding men from being feminists but as calling out those men every feminist has met who call themselves feminist and then act like they should be treated like benevolent gods for deigning to embrace feminism.�

Yes, but part of my point is that I'm often misperceived as one of those people. That's why I'm trying to make the distinction I'm trying to make for myself, and to propagate its idea to others.

To make this most clear, I feel that sexism against women is a clear injustice that should be fought by every right-thinking person. I'd like to fight against it with as much vigor, with as much leadership as I'd fight anything else I consider injustice. And, more importantly, I think I ought to be able to.

In contrast, however, in a great many or perhaps most or even all contemporary feminist contexts, it's not appropriate that I be active with as much vigor, with as much potential for leadership, as the women around me. For exactly the reasons discussed in the quote and more extensively elsewhere in this thread.

The idea I'm trying to get at is the answer to asking why it seems obvious (to me, and I think most people) that any person should be able to be an equal partner in the fight against sexism while, simultaneously, it's equally obvious that men should not be equal partners in the fight for feminism.

In feminism, a man cannot do the sorts of leadership things that both men and women do when people organize for a cause because they are implicitly utilizing their privileged position when they do so. They are implicitly saying, “I'm taking charge because it's the most natural thing in the world that I, a man, take charge when women are involved.� It doesn't matter that the individual man isn't actually thinking that. He is, in some real sense, still doing that because we are all part of the larger society—and when the forms of the inequalities of the outside society are duplicated within a community designed to eradicate those forms, it's very hard to prove that it's not just forms, but substance. If for no other reason (though there are surely other reasons) than that we are creatures of habit.

When I make the distinction between opposing an injustice and advocacy, I'm trying to get at the distinction between the cases in which women are not threated and the cases in which they are. Women are threatened by men involved in feminism when they (correctly) feel that their own agency is being challenged or reduced, usually in forms that mimic external society.

A woman's agency is a finite thing, she possesses it in full, in part, or not at all. There are things that men can do—and often, in fact, do—to ostensibly further women's interests but are also reducing some particular woman or group of women's agency.

In contrast, there are things that men can do to oppose sexism that don't in any way affect any individual woman or group of women's agency.

The notion of empowerment is deeply involved in this kind of distinction. You can “help� people in ways that empower them or disempower them. Many, many people have a sort of color-blindness when it comes to the distinction between the two.

But all of us who are disadvantaged in some way know the difference very well from being on the receiving end of the difference. And I include myself in an underclass because I am physically disabled. I know the difference between people who are helping me in a way that empowers or disempowers me.

So do women, and so do blacks and other racial minorities.

I went to a very small, exclusive, liberal arts college. It was very white. In my class, we had only two blacks out of about 125 students. One evening, when one of these black people, a woman in my circle of friends, came back to the college, she was closely questioned by the campus police who ignored the other students with her. One of my other friends was incensed. While my black friend told her white friends to forget it, this one friend just couldn't let it go. She must go to someone and protest, she said. Someone had to pay for the racism.

I very gently said to her that although this was clearly an outrage, going against our friend's preference for letting it go was in a very real sense usurping her own agency to answer racism and reifying the social status that it is we white people who matter, who will be listened to, who can “save� our black friends.

But she was more enamoured of her outrage than she was concerned with how her actions might simply compound the indignity our friend had received that night.

There is a place for her to fight racism. It wasn't that time and place.

There is a place for men to fight sexism against women. In the context of the feminist movement as it exists today, that place is narrowly circumscribed as it necessarily must be when there is only one game in town, feminism, and there are few men involved. In that context, every man who attempts to act as an equal is being naively blind to the reality that in doing so, he is necessarily diminishing the agencies of the women around him.

No, you don't go, as a white person, to a black neighborhood and encourage them to vote as a means to reducing racism. That's condescending and only a white person would fail to recognize this.

As you can see from the male feminists who have disagreed with me in this thread (or at least cloak themselves in feminist garb in order to complain about discrimination against men), this is a comprehension that is very difficult for a male feminist to achieve.

More importantly, and this is very much subjective and speculative, it's my sense that many of the men for whom it's easiest to play a muted, diminished role in feminism are those for whom feminism is a sort of indulgence in women's culture in the first place. Ask yourselves: when you see Iraqi children dead in the streets from American bombs, is this an outrage you will find it easy to mute in order to not offend? Activism that you would limit in order to not offend? No, it shouldn't be easy.

There needs to be a place in the movement fighting sexism against women where men are full partners, where they can be as active, as loud, as anyone else—not just because there should be a place for them to be, but to get them out of the places they shouldn't be. Right now, there's only the places where they generally shouldn't be, and that's a problem for everyone.

In the months or however long it's been that I've lurked at feministing, I've noticed more and more men in these threads. And they have been increasingly disruptive and their higher and higher profile is inappropriate and counter-productive. The good as well as the bad.

With all due respect to SarahMC and others, anyone who thinks I'm advocating some sort of blanket "sit on his hands" policy is simply not reading me very carefully. There is a great many things men can do that will reduce sexism against women. But there are things they shouldn't do, too.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed, not denied or glossed over.

I am very tired of women being afraid to call themselves feminists--I see that as a win for the patriarchy who have succeeded in taking away from women the empowerment of the term by degrading it.

Recently, I redid the top page of my blog to describe myself as a Feminist first, before anything else. I'm not going to be afraid of the label.

"Out of curiosity, what do you think of the term "pro-feminist male" or the idea of studies of masculinities within feminism?"

What "masculinities within feminism" sounds like -- repeat, operative phrase being "sounds like," as the original question concerned the apparent perceptions surrounding the word "feminist" that may cause people to reject the label -- is that the speaker is defining some sort of Feminist Principle as the be-all and end-all of right-thinking human experience, within which right-thinking men define themselves. In other words men are expected to define themselves in terms of womanhood, effectively making "man" into a subset of "woman." This is ironic, considering certain feminist attempts to control language via terms like "womyn." (BTW, I'm curious what you think of that term.)

I'm not claiming this is what you intend. I'm discussing a possible reaction to the specific words used and the connotations or implications that they carry.

HotblackDesiato: This is a complicated issue, so it's doubtful I'll be able to address it very holistically, but I can give you the gist of things that I've been thinking and reading about.

The patriarchy still exists, and it as an aggregate benefits men more than women. This is why we still see men getting paid more than women, women still bearing the majority of responsibility for birth control and child care, women still being raped at alarming rates, etc.

Now, constructs of masculinity, because men are still dominant (though women have made much progress) inherently shape concepts of femininity more than concepts of femininity shape those of masculinity. Femininity is often see as the opposite of masculinity, so masculinity is associated with strength, assertiveness, competitiveness, stoicism, leadership, and so on. Femininity is associated with caring, emotion, nurturing, weakness, kindness, softness, etc. As feminism has changed concepts of femininity, there has not been a similar shift in concepts of masculinity, which, in my opinion, has greatly limited individual men who don't fit those paradigms.

While men are privileged collectively, this does not translate to individual privilege for all of them, and a lot of individual men who don't fit traditional concepts of masculinity are greatly harmed by being perceived as outside of male gender roles. The thing is, they are a largely harmed by other men (think school yard bullying). They are harmed and oppressed in the same way that women are. This is why concepts of masculinity harm both men and women, and why I think feminism must address them and involve men in that effort.

So I do believe social roles harm women collectively more than they harm men collectively, but that individual women do have access to a broader gender role than individual men do.

I have actually said many times that I think feminism has gone just about as far as it can go without addressing concepts of masculinity and how they impact men and women. We need men to be heavily involved and leading this effort to do that, and we're not really working towards that end. I'm not sure how to do this, but I do know that men who are harmed by the masculine mystique need to get mad enough about it to do something before anything can change.

Keith, thank you for clarifying. I understand your viewpoint a bit more now, and I think I agree with most of what you have to say.

A couple weeks ago I commented that I found it ironic and bothersome that a commenter with the handle "A male" was dominating so many of Feministing's threads. I do not dislike that person, but I completely see where you're coming from and what you're saying.
Though I think a lot of the men who tend to dominate conversations on feminist blogs are not feminists, but rather MRAs or agitators.

Keith, I second Sarah's thank you. Your latest post was much clearer for me, and I appreciate very much the respect you have for women's needed primacy in the movement right now.

Keith: You raise interesting points, and I do see your point. As a white person, I support anti-racist efforts and ideals, but I often feel I am too silent. And yet I am not sure how to be active without being insulting. But I realize that the most effective way I can support those ideals is to not be silent. You don't have to tell feminists what to do; you're right, that would be insulting. But supporting the work of feminists is to indeed be a feminist!

Speak up when someone makes a sexist joke or when you see an insulting commercial. I see SO MUCH everyday that's fucked up, that is hurtful both to men and women, and I try to comment on both. I think entrenched gender roles and gender determinism hurts both genders, and I try to speak out against it (see my comment above for more on that, if you're interested).

And you're right, not every feminist discussion a place for you; but not every feminist discussion is a place for me, either! I am white and straight, so discussions about queer issues and race are not always a place for me to interject, though I appreciate the opportunity to listen and learn, which is a way I can learn what to say to support their issues, and how to be respectful.

And you know what? Sometimes you're gonna get attacked. There are angry people out there (and everyone gets angry sometimes), and some of them are women, and some of them are feminists. And there are some female feminists who have a hard time figuring out what to do with male feminists or who aren't comfortable with them, and sometimes you're gonna get crap just for being a man. It sucks to get crap for being who you are. Welcome to the everyday experience of women and feminists. And no, it's not right, and we fight against that, but it's gonna happen and you have to pick your battles.

The example you gave with your friend is interesting. I think you're right that the white girl took the agency away from her black friend. However, which is worse? Speaking up too vigorously and perhaps crossing a line? Or staying silent in the face of injustice? I think it's good to be aware of that line (which is why listening is helpful, so you know what those lines are) and not try to cross it, but don't let it rule your life. It's better to cross it mistakenly occasionally than to always stay silent.

An example of this is I had a really intense and awful discussion with a rape apologist on a livejournal. Only one person said anything to support me (well, my boyfriend said something, and the troll accused him of exactly what you mention-- standing up for me because I "couldn't handle it myself;" but standing up for someone who is being attacked and fighting back doesn't take away their agency! It provides them support!). My friend whose journal it is, I pretty much assume he agrees with the apologist, or at least didn't think his horrendous views were bad enough to speak up about. I think he was afraid. I lost some respect for my friend.

So anyway. I can speak for myself and many feminists when I say we're glad to have men who support us.

Yes, I think I see what you're saying Keith. Your post made me try to imagine a male midwife or a male women's studies teacher. I mean men can only understand what it's like to be a woman to a certain extent (and vice versa). Just like I can understand what it's like to be black or poor only to a certain extent. So I can do my best to be not racist but inclusive of all and encourage others to do the same but I won't be "leading the movement" like the girl you described in your post. I think that's what you're getting at?
That being said, I do think it's important to get men involved so they can understand why the feminist movement is so important, not be part of the problem, and not encourage sexism from other men.

"I could see that I was reaching the young women in men in my class--that they were moved to think about race and sex as constructs, sexism in the workplace, rape, sexuality as a spectrum not a binary (in other words, they were really "getting it")--but few of them left my class wearing the feminist label proudly on their sleeves.'

Boy! You sure are brainwashing those kids aren't ya? Yeah! it looks like it.

"I could see that I was reaching the young women in men in my class--that they were moved to think about race and sex as constructs, sexism in the workplace, rape, sexuality as a spectrum not a binary (in other words, they were really "getting it")--but few of them left my class wearing the feminist label proudly on their sleeves.'

Boy! You sure are brainwashing those kids aren't ya? Yeah! it looks like it.

Well since we teach that labels are social constructs, why not forget about the feminist labels. It just makes it that much easier for haters to make it into a box to fit the stuff we do into it and make it look like a dirty evil place. Christianity is like that in my opinion. People forget that to be Christian is not the same as being a fundamentalist. Many folks are doing the same with Islam lately and of course that has to stop too.

Liberals rarely identify by that label for the same reasons lately. In 2002 give or take it was turned into an evil person who hates Americans and wanted/caused people to die. Now I see the progressive label thrown around as an alternative and that's not right either. At first it sounds good but it's really an old label and the original definition isn't really what they espouse today under the same banner. I fear that it will eventually go the way of populist and just mean absolutely nothing at all and/or just serve as a mask for fundamentalist smears.

Also the term feminist may lead to omition of other related and important themes that need to be considered. I see a lot of discussion about men and feminism. My argument about labels aside, I believe men can definitely be feminists and rightly should be. I've heard stories about women's studies professors baring men from their classes and even though I understand the premise, can we really believe that's the best thing in the long run? At what point does all this labeling and excluding cross the line into the opposite extreme of the crap-tastic adventures in funda-nutty land which we were trying to avoid in the first place?

I consider myself a feminist male (well I could go into the shades of gray that Cortney thankfully mentioned in this article which apply to me but I won't since I have trouble with labels and all anyway)and even though I don't technically know what it's like to have a vagina and be objectified and continually abused in a institutionalized and socially accepted manner and all those other juicy details we learn about from feminist theory, I can relate to victimization in it's various forms. One of the things I have to ask is who's to say who's victimization is worse? Do we have to at all? I see arguments comparing racism and sexism and all the other -isms like it's a contest of who's got the coolest scar! It's frigging disgusting if you ask me.

Which brings me to another subject which is more or less on topic. I am sick and F*cking tired of the stupid "who's the bigger feminist" debate. If I have to listen to one more damn debate about who's not a real feminist because they're not reading all the right books or up on all the right famous feminists, I'm libel to shank someone with a sieve made from my own arm bone. Graphic I know but I really want to make the point clear.

You know at the end of the day we're all fighting the same fight and I think if we slow down enough to listen to our gut/heart/spirit/god then we will be able to tell who's really with us and who's against us. I think our time, energy and other precious resources are far too... well, precious to be wasted fighting amongst ourselves and denouncing someone who may just be a budding feminist instead of taking them under wing and helping each other become better feminists and better people together.

Besides, the internal quibbles are exactly what our detractors want to see us do. They want labels... They are so black and white in their thinking that the best way to shut them down is to be unified and diverse. It'll blow their minds. Also to keep in mind is the psychological effects of this constant holier than thou attitude. I'm no professional psychologist or anything but isn't this the same phenomenon that causes young girls to lose their minds from the constant comparison to celebrities and their more(perceived) successful peers? I think the best thing for any movement to do is to get along and make sure they do all they can to be welcoming to novices and newcomers. Being uppity or even appearing to be uppity should be taken very seriously and actions taken to soften it.

I know a lot of folks in the social change world think it's cliche to harken back to Dr King but Letters from the Birmingham Jail really helped me focus my efforts in all social justice. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for focus. Many accuse him of not being angry enough or playing into the man's plan for the black community but reading this book proved to me that he was one pissed off leader. He thought he was fighting the good Christian fight but when it came time to stand behind him and do the right Christian thing, almost all other church leaders left him to rot.

I really appreciate this forum and this article to spark conversation on this topic. It's great to get this out into the open and make people question the fundamentals of what we're doing here and to remember what it is we came to do in the first place.

As much as it breaks my heart, I think we need to give up on the name "feminism." It's just been dragged through the dirt way too much. There's no way we can make it cool or relevant for the masses ever again. "Post-feminism" is too firmly established in the dominant discourse of the new generation to get "feminism" to rise out of the ashes. Too many people think that it excludes men, and god forbid we exclude men.

I say that last sentence sarcastically, because we still have such a long way to go with women's rights. Women still need their own space, their own platform, just so much still, but the men of today aren't the men of fifty years ago. They don't feel culpable for the history of patriarchy because they're not. So even though 20th century feminism didn't do enough to revolutionize the male experience, and as a result men are still being raised with all kinds of problematic ideas regarding their gender, identity and place in the world, we have to include men now and get the message out there that patriarchy sucks for everyone.

My guess is that there will be another feminist revolution, but it won't be under the name of feminism.