Our Shared Shelf discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archive
>
For those that don't identify as Feminists but are here
date
newest »
newest »
You're right. You don't inherently fall under any one label simply due to your ideology or beliefs. A label is just that; a label. It would be good to remind everyone here that Emma's UN speech wasn't about waving the flag of feminism so much as it was about changing the context of the label. The end goal was to trigger thought and progressive non-traditional ideas on gender equality.
Mission accomplished.
That's arguably a primary issue with feminism, though; the label. In that in regards to 3rd wave feminism and how it's manifested in this postmodern society, there isn't a distinct meaning, so much as every individual's "belief" as to what feminism should mean "for them." Feminism itself has become so fluid a movement, that it no longer has a definitive structure; so much so that the early feminist intellectuals (Wollstonecraft, etc.) would arguably not even recognize 3rd wave feminism as being true to the original, fundamental ideals of feminism at all.
Triggering thought and progressive non-traditional ideals are all well and good, but I'd argue that they can be nothing more than ideals, unless feminism itself is re-established with a definitive structure and belief system, rather than a vague range of wishy-washy ideals and questionable statistics.
Because this hasn't happened - and appears to have no outright way of happening (and even if it did, I'd have a fundamental issue with feminism existing as a movement at all), I'm with Shaq, here; I cannot currently entertain the idea of being a feminist.
Rachel wrote: "That's arguably a primary issue with feminism, though; the label. In that in regards to 3rd wave feminism and how it's manifested in this postmodern society, there isn't a distinct meaning, so much..."
I'm wondering how some maintain ideals, and idealism that work as a movement, but on the opposite end of the spectrum culturally (without explicit regards to gender), a peaceful goal can be dismissed given it has a sense of idealism?
Feminism, in my simple understanding of it as a movement, is a way for people, not men or women, but people, to work together communally as opposed to inherit biases we're raised to accept in a standard patriarchal nation or culture.
As an aside, I'm reminded of the quote,
"There are only two types of statistics, lies and "cursed" lies."
I'm wondering how some maintain ideals, and idealism that work as a movement, but on the opposite end of the spectrum culturally (without explicit regards to gender), a peaceful goal can be dismissed given it has a sense of idealism?
Feminism, in my simple understanding of it as a movement, is a way for people, not men or women, but people, to work together communally as opposed to inherit biases we're raised to accept in a standard patriarchal nation or culture.
As an aside, I'm reminded of the quote,
"There are only two types of statistics, lies and "cursed" lies."
Fair point. Well, I personally dismiss the notion because individuals defining feminism in whatever way they find most appealing is becoming harmful to the movement itself, in that it's resulted in anything and everything from bra burning to "slut walks," to simply arguing for a woman's right to breastfeed in public. There's a huge discrepancy here that can't exist if this movement is going to consist of a group of people who actively work together to reach the same goal. It's essential that the direction taken to achieve said goal us the same, for the movement to remain sound. Because currently, it's extremely open to vast misinterpretation. I mean, feminism has always been - specifically - about the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes; this is essentially what the HeforShe campaign is based upon, from what I understand. The issue arises when the thought is put forward that, perhaps, we (in the West) don't live in a patriarchal society. From what I've read, I'm inclined to agree with this.
Man, that's a great quote, there, though
Saw this today and it made me giggle (regarding the definition of the word feminist itself).https://www.facebook.com/attn/photos/...
I personally identify as a feminist, but not everyone that believes in equality has to label themselves as one. Choosing to call yourself by another name or just remain lableless is an individual's choice, and doesn't impact their views on social justice and equality. The name itself isn't what's important, but the beliefs. I know a lot of people associate with being a feminist because it's a label that most people recognize and is also a bit of an umbrella term since it tends to cover a lot of social justice movements, though it definitely focused on sexism. For those reasons I call myself a feminist, but as I've said before it's the actions and thoughts that carry the most value, not the the term one calls them self.
"...I think saying that someone is something because they hold a particular set of beliefs or support a certain cause takes away from their own identity and free will."I completely agree with that statement, and I think It is a beatifully clear way to put it. Now, if I may put my own opinion, I think the reason why supporting this cause *could* make you a feminist is the following: (bear with me)
Feminism is, even though in a good pop culture moment, still a very mocked and discredited movement. People still see a woman who calls herself a feminist as an stereotype of "extremism", "man-hating", "hipster smugness", "lesbianism" etc.
Now, there are lots of people (and celebrities), who care about feminist issues like equal pay, gender violence and retrograde stereotypes for both men and women, but chose not to call themselves feminists arguing that they believe in something that unites us all more, like equality itself, or "humanism".
In some way, they consider that feminism is a bit restrictive to the greater cause they believe in.
Here's the thing: In a perfect world, with rational and educated mayorities and groups of power, yes: humanism or equality itself would be better and more appropiate labels than feminism.
But we clearly do not live in that world. Similarly to the "gender quota" on some places, in which it is required that a porcentage of women are given special spots, calling yourself a feminist is not necessarily the ideal, but it IS a starter way to give the movement a chance that otherwise it might not get.
When you support the equality cause AND call yourself a feminist, you are contributing to the mainstream cleaning of the still "dirty word", and giving the movement a chance to stand out.
This is specially true and more meaningful when a man does it.
Yes, a lot of people might call themselves lightheartedly "humanists", or "equality advocates". I mean, who wouldn't? But to call yourself proudly yet naturally a feminist? That's a bit more compromised, and it does the cause a lot of help. Truly.
This is my take on the "do I need to identify myself as a feminist?".
My answer would be "No, that is completely up to you, what counts is what you do everyday. But if you choose to help empower the movement's image and are not afraid to use this f word, then that's a beautiful use of your freedom of will."
Shaq, I hope you find this useful.
Helena.
shaq wrote: "Quick intro - I'm Shaq, 19 & live in New Zealand. I have a lot of Feminist friends and although I agree with a lot that Feminists advocate for, I myself have never chosen to call myself a Feminist...."Helena Pardo-Salas
"...I think saying that someone is something because they hold a particular set of beliefs or support a certain cause takes away from their own identity and free will."
I completely agree with that statement, and I think It is a beatifully clear way to put it. Now, if I may put my own opinion, I think the reason why supporting this cause *could* make you a feminist is the following: (bear with me)
Feminism is, even though in a good pop culture moment, still a very mocked and discredited movement. People still see a woman who calls herself a feminist as an stereotype of "extremism", "man-hating", "hipster smugness", "lesbianism" etc.
Now, there are lots of people (and celebrities), who care about feminist issues like equal pay, gender violence and retrograde stereotypes for both men and women, but chose not to call themselves feminists arguing that they believe in something that unites us all more, like equality itself, or "humanism".
In some way, they consider that feminism is a bit restrictive to the greater cause they believe in.
Here's the thing: In a perfect world, with rational and educated mayorities and groups of power, yes: humanism or equality itself would be better and more appropiate labels than feminism.
But we clearly do not live in that world. Similarly to the "gender quota" on some places, in which it is required that a porcentage of women are given special spots, calling yourself a feminist is not necessarily the ideal, but it IS a starter way to give the movement a chance that otherwise it might not get.
When you support the equality cause AND call yourself a feminist, you are contributing to the mainstream cleaning of the still "dirty word", and giving the movement a chance to stand out.
This is specially true and more meaningful when a man does it.
Yes, a lot of people might call themselves lightheartedly "humanists", or "equality advocates". I mean, who wouldn't? But to call yourself proudly yet naturally a feminist? That's a bit more compromised, and it does the cause a lot of help. Truly.
This is my take on the "do I need to identify myself as a feminist?".
My answer would be "No, that is completely up to you, what counts is what you do everyday. But if you choose to help empower the movement's image and are not afraid to use this f word, then that's a beautiful use of your freedom of will."
Shaq, I hope you find this useful.
Helena.
If I have learned anything from studying 1000s of years of human history, it is this: 1. People never change; not in 8000 years have we changed.
2. Social change happens over generations, not a few years.
3. Imagination is limited to the technology of the time.
4. Religious beliefs will always exist & influence any given society.
5. The majority of people are "conservative" in their political & social views. Extremists & fundamentalists always fail.
6. Forming an ideology or belief system, in of itself, isn't a bad thing. It is when those beliefs become a political or social movement that problems & conflict arise.
7. Lastly, just don't be an asshole. So many wars could have been prevented if just a couple of men in power would have been nice & pragmatic.
So there you go. Take it or leave it. Short list but generally accurate.
Regards,
Ryan
Mod
1. People never change; not in 8000 years have we changed.
2. Social change happens over generations, not a fe..."
Ryan, I'm a bit confused because it seems to me (and I have studied history quite broadly as well) that many of your points contradict one another.
For example...
#1 and #3 - Through development of technology, humans have changed both culturally and intellectually in very significant ways.
#2 and #6 - If we do not form political movements, how do we affect generational change? This is why we think of feminism as having "waves" rather than as separate movements.
I'm not entirely sure what your list has to say about feminism, whether you mean it as support for the cause or if you think it is futile. I'm curious about how you meant it to come across!
And:
Re: Humanism
Humanism is already an established philosophy with a long history. It is defined as a recognition of individual human agency rather than divine beings, dogma, and superstition. Basically critical thinking and evidentiary ideas rather than faith and religion. While this is certainly not at odds with feminism, it has an entirely different basis with an established history and literature. Therefore, I find calls for changing the title of the feminist movement to humanism to be problematic because they reveal that opponents of the former term are rather misinformed.
After reading all this my impudent wit came to the most stupidest conclusion ever, Feminism exist because we say it exist? The more loudly we shout Feminism, rally people to participate in it, the more we are agreeing that discrimination is there. I remember Morgan Freeman's answer (my apologies if I got his name wrong) to how do you end racism? You just don't talk about it. I belive the same in Feminism. To end discrimination, there is no need to rally hundreds and thousands of people into some sort of event or something. To end discrimination, we all need to stand up against it individually. Fight for your rights, because if you don't, who else will?
Mod
The problem is that for many people, fighting individually is not feasible for a variety of reasons. Women all over the world are threatened with violence and even death for speaking up. If those of us with the means do not come together to support them, how else will their quality of life improve?
Malala is just one example, merely a girl when she was shot for standing up for her desire to continue her education. Thankfully she survived, but many others have not.
Furthermore, the reason feminism exists is indeed because we say it exists. But we say it exists because we use it as a way of combatting gender discrimination. Disavowing feminism will not make gender discrimination go away, but working together as part of a movement definitely can, and I believe that it someday will.
Some really brilliant and thought provoking points made here so far, I couldn't be more happier with the input. The general consensus seems to be that the title doesn't hold as much weight as the actions involved with it, but then there's what Helena put forth. Taking up the label of Feminist empowers the actions made. Which is an interesting point to make and one I bizarrely hadn't thought of myself. In fact I'd thought of the complete opposite: that taking up the mantle simply put it at risk. I think if you make yourself broadly recognised as a Feminist and at some point engage in actions or ideals that reflect badly of yourself - it wouldn't just hurt you personally, but it would also hurt Feminism as well, would it not?
This is a really interesting discussion, appreciate everybody's opinions.
Mod
Yeah, I think that's definitely a concern. And that has been an issue recently with the rising concept of "white girl feminism," which refers to feminists who neglect to be intersectional, meaning they fight for the basic rights that are relevant to themselves, usually street harassment, pay gap, etc., while ignoring or simply continuing blissfully unaware of the more dire challenges faced daily by women of color, transgender folks and the rest of the LGBT community, the disabled, etc. Particularly when prominent women neglect these issues, they receive flack from others in the feminist movement because it is perceived as a threat to its overall legitimacy.
But I also think that's a problem no matter what it is you are advocating... I think we are all responsible for people and things beyond ourselves. It's super intimidating. But also kind of wonderful, I think.
"I remember Morgan Freeman's answer (my apologies if I got his name wrong) to how do you end racism? You just don't talk about it. I belive the same in Feminism."With all due respect to Morgan Freeman, he is wrong. Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it not exist. That's like a toddler thinking she becomes invisible because she closes her eyes. All it does is allows the thing to become even more insidious and harder to eradicate. Pretending sexism doesn't exist won't magically make it not exist. Feminism has a nasty habit of making you see the sexism that's there, though. Think of it as buying a car...let's say you buy a Toyota Camry. Before you bought your Camry, you never really noticed the Camrys out there. It wasn't a thing you were concerned with. But now you own a Camry and now everywhere you look, you see other people driving Camrys. Once you become aware of an issue, you can't not see it anymore. That's what Feminism helps to do. If we stop discussing feminist issues, if we just pretend they don't exist anymore, the ways that they do, in fact, exist start to become harder to notice. Things become normalized and internalized so we don't question whether they are right anymore. If something is normal, then of course it's right. Right? That's the danger of that position, whether we're talking about feminism, or racism, or Islamophobia, or transphobia.
As to identities, you have the right to identify however you want.
Again I won't say anyone is wrong. Nice example with that car. Erin, the good deeds need not to be expressed but the bad deeds should be the center of attraction in a public debate? What if people just taught teenagers that every human is equal no matter the color, size, language or sex without mentioning discrimination. The problem discrimination is the notion that one is superior and one is inferior. We need to change that notion.
And I didn't say that feminism doesn't need to be there. All I am saying is that you don't need to rally thousand of supporters to support a cause. What will they do? Do an event because one of their favorite celebrity asked them to do it and then go home forget about it? We need participation by those who are affected, you can't give someone justice if they are not willing to get it themselves. That's all I want to say.
Kandarp wrote: "Again I won't say anyone is wrong. Nice example with that car. Erin, the good deeds need not to be expressed but the bad deeds should be the center of attraction in a public debate? What if people ..."I explained why I think he is wrong. I don't understand what your reply is supposed to mean. Who said anything about not acknowledging good deeds? As for not mentioning discrimination, it exists whether you mention it or not. Unfortunately, it's not going anywhere any time soon. I see no reason not to call it what it is when you see it happen.
I see what you're both saying, great analogy with the car Erin. I also see what you're saying too Kandarp, I wouldn't say it's an entirely feasible idea but I appreciate the way you're thinking out of the box with the subject. Innovative thought is always necessary, even if it doesn't always reach a definitive result.
We all have opinions shaq and Erin. I'm still a teenager so mine are a bit childish. I don't have the right to say anybody is wrong. They all have reasons for saying what they say. All I said was my option differs from Erin.
The only reasons why I don't call myself a feminist is because that term has grown to mean "supports the killing of and denying rights of fetus in the womb". And also, because I support the equal rights of many discriminated groups and to add all those labels to me, would be mind boggling. I'm trying to come up with more inclusive term, so currently I am using Pro-people. But, that denies my Vegan slant (although not vegan due to food allergies). Pro-Equality. That works. lol
Kaylan wrote: "Saw this today and it made me giggle (regarding the definition of the word feminist itself).https://www.facebook.com/attn/photos/... "
That one makes me laugh, too...
I don't identify me as a feminist. Because I have a very feminist best friend and I'm not like that. For example the main character in Star Wars 7 was a female I don't care too much in fact I didn't "notice" that until my best friend told me. By i don't care I mean like I don't care if a main character is or isn't a female but I appreciate when in the movie there are second characters that are really important (like in Harry Potter) and not considered like someone who thinks only to make-up if she is popular, videogames if she's a "loser", ecc.
It saddens me that you only hope that the secondary character should be a strong female. This is not to insult you by any means, but more to comment on the fact that young women have ceased to hope for protagonists that are multi-dimensional and dynamic female characters, but instead have resigned themselves to hoping the sidekick will be a multidimensional dynamic female character. *disclaimer: this is not to say that those characters are not important. The Harry Potter Series could not have existed without Hermione Granger, and I do not consider her a secondary character, however the books are not titled Hermione Granger and .... This is also not to suggest that all good books should have female protagonists. I love that series the way it is. What it does suggest is that we should strive for equal representation in both popular literature and the literary canon.
I think you (shaq) are a feminist but you just don't know it yet. That's right, you shoudn't call yourself anything if you're not sure about it, or if you think you don't have all the information that needs to be consider, or didn't think enough about it.
But also, don't be afraid of calling/admiting yourself as a feminist, or even deciding to be one if that's finally the case. The word feminism, and the whole concept, is been mistreated, devaluated and ridiculed (with nonsensical arguments mostly) for those who fear feminism itself (maybe out of fear of losing privileges and the position of power over others).
Take your time to investigate, read, think, re-read and re-think.
This is an article I think might be useful, it's written in spanish so I hope you (all of you) can read it (when in trouble, ask google, google knows it all ;) ): http://www.proyecto-kahlo.com/2013/12...
But also, don't be afraid of calling/admiting yourself as a feminist, or even deciding to be one if that's finally the case. The word feminism, and the whole concept, is been mistreated, devaluated and ridiculed (with nonsensical arguments mostly) for those who fear feminism itself (maybe out of fear of losing privileges and the position of power over others).
Take your time to investigate, read, think, re-read and re-think.
This is an article I think might be useful, it's written in spanish so I hope you (all of you) can read it (when in trouble, ask google, google knows it all ;) ): http://www.proyecto-kahlo.com/2013/12...
Feminism is a movement. For me it's just that: the belief of gender equality and my research on it makes me a feminist. I know that many people wouldn't consider themselves as feminist so quickly and that many are skeptical but for me that's just it. I don't know, if it's a label or just a word...
I identify a lot with this OP because I am generally for gender equality, but I don't like the label of a feminist. It is supposed to stand for equality but the word itself suggests that it is partial to one side. I think it's also that, quite apart from how the word 'feminism' has gotten a bad rep for unjustified reasons, I am not entirely sure myself if I think the same way as all other 'feminists'. For example, if I passed by a charity foundation for the empowerment of women, I wouldn't feel compelled to support it. I think the cause that I do stand for is the empowerment of all peoples, not any particular group in preference to the rest.
i think also that by focusing on the plight of a particular group, we may end up fostering a victim mentality. That is not to say that women are not often victims of discrimination and abuse. But, particularly in the "first world" countries, we are increasingly becoming a society of offensive and easily-offended people. Just as I would want my male counterparts to exercise more understanding and sensitivity, I think women can also do with more graciousness. I think everyone ought to treat everyone else decently, whether a fellow man or woman.
Wonderful points made Debby, definitely agree with a lot of what you said.
Kytriya wrote: "The only reasons why I don't call myself a feminist is because that term has grown to mean "supports the killing of and denying rights of fetus in the womb". And also, because I support the equal r..."I relate to that, Kytriya. Not because I'm anti-abortion but because I hesitate to call myself an atheist sometimes. I know that because I don't believe in god or reincarnation or anything supernatural I am technically an atheist but a lot of chauvinist jerks on the internet have taken over the term so I feel like distancing myself from "the atheist community" on youtube, especially. Sometimes people with views you find abhorrent become associated with a movement and things get complicated. There are anti-abortion feminists out there too, I know many Catholic feminists for instance. I don't assume all people who are feminists will be pro-abortion rights. But most people would assume, so I get that.
I believe in equality, I believe in respecting everything a woman has to offer as well as with men. But I don't call myself feminist...cause to do so is to create a boundary between a feminist and a non feminist, and to be totally equal is to be whole, with no boundaries between anyone. I do agree with most feministic leaders and the main reason for doing so...but I don't think I could ever fully call myself a feminist.
Shaq, Thank you for initiating this discussion. I also do not call myself a "feminist" despite my beliefs in the concept/definition of feminism. Thank you Ian for posting the link to Emma's UN speech. Her words, her entire heartfelt, well written speech was brilliant and had me almost convinced I could call myself a feminist for I do believe every word she said and I do believe the world has a long way to go still with the feminist movement and Now is the time. However, like Debby and Morgaine have said, the "movement" itself and some of the "feminists" themselves project an image I cannot identify with. I do not like to put myself into a "labeled" box of any kind. That does not mean I can't get "off the fence" and make a decision or choose an ethical action. As a woman, of course I believe in feminism. But even if I was a man, I would believe in feminism, or at least I hope I would. If and when, all "feminists" speak and act as profoundly as Emma did in her speech, perhaps I'll consider myself a "feminist". Until then, my respect and contributions toward acquiring "equality" will remain as those from a human being who supports. I feel the "He for She" program is something I could support. But why? Why that and not feminism when they BOTH are after the same results? It's the language, it's the approach, it's the small steps action plan that EVERYONE can do to help change the cultural climate. I suppose marketing has a lot to do with it and personal backgrounds that affect how we respond to certain cues. I'm open to evolve on my point of views. I'm open to calling myself a feminist...I'm just not ready to do it today.
much easier to call yourself HeforShe..don't you agree?
Wonderfully put Susan, I get what you're saying. Good point too, Sahicorn. lol That's always an option I suppose.
Ryan wrote: "If I have learned anything from studying 1000s of years of human history, it is this: ...4. Religious beliefs will always exist & influence any given society..."
Oh, I do so hope you're wrong about #4! Religious beliefs & the power trip they're about is the main (or most likely, only) reason we haven't changed in 8,000 years. Enough already with the superstitious, wishful thinking; main thing it's done has enslaved people & convinced too many to put up with, instead of fighting against, the sh*tty things that happen because of some kind of divine reward. Fooey on all that.
Kandarp wrote: "And I didn't say that feminism doesn't need to be there. All I am saying is that you don't need to rally thousand of supporters to support a cause. What will they do? Do an event because one of the..."I don't think I agree. I live in a top 5 most equal country in the world, yet we will have equality in regards to salaries in a bit more than 100 years only. (My blood boils from the mere thought of this. Why are we women still not worthy of equal pay? Why are men still okay with this? How many freaking hoops must we jump through still???) That is unless decent people, men and women, step up to demand change. That requires way more than a few thousand supporters.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
I don't think the reason should be because I believe in equality, that it makes me a Feminist. Excuse me for saying so but I've always felt like that reasoning made for a cheap sense of indoctrination. Of course I believe in equality, I've grown up around hard working women, men too. Both mistreated in their own ways. But I think saying someone is something because they hold a particular set of beliefs or support a certain cause takes away from their own free will & identity.
I could be wrong though, that's why I'm putting this here. I want to learn. And I hope you can help me with this. Feel free to share your opinions, I'm genuinely interested in this.
Looking forward to hearing from you all.
- Shaq.