Are you a feminist? (If so why, if not why not?)

I am a feminist.

Feminism means all genders should be treated equal, but that does not mean men should also get paid menstrual leaves at their job. Equal rights, yes. Everyone should be treated fairly.

Defining it as paid menstrual leave is kind of the problem. Hear me out.
Women should be able to take paid leaves from work to deal with menstrual problems, but it shouldn’t stop there. All people should be able to take leave from work when they need it.
So, if it is redefined as paid leave, then it equalizes the field.
- I think the "when they need it" part is where the feminism becomes relevant - there is a history of women (and men) being denied leave when they need it for sexist / patriarchal reasons (e.g. men are generally not given paternity leave, women might not be allowed to take leave due to menstruation).
  The scope of acceptable reasons to take leave is what is debated and where feminism has pushed for paid leave for reasons previously denied to both men and women.
- I get you. But say, a company has a policy that we give employees 2 paid leaves per month, for example, a woman can take those 2 paid leaves for the same reasons as the men do, but they would also need a day more of paid leaves to deal with the menstrual pain/stress. If that extra day is not defined as "menstrual leaves" men would argue that why are women getting more leaves, and hence the feminism thing will be broken as both are not treated fairly.
  Same in the case of pregnancy. Companies give 2 months of paid leaves for that.
  Or maybe the right thing to do is, just say, if you're pregnant, you get paid time off, if you're having periods you get paid time off. Do not include gender in it.
  Idk man.
I kind of agree on this. Women cannot expect equal pay for less work.
- But that's not what they are expecting. They expect to not have to work if they are sick. And that should apply to anyone, shouldn't it? Which leaves the question, who has to care for the sick? Historically that would be the family, but nowerdays with the focus on individualism, either everyone has to care (e.g. by some health care system) or we just accept that sick people are not cared for in our society and hope that we don't get sick. I know I prefer the first solution

feminist as in "tear down unjust hierarchies", and definitely not feminist as in "girlboss yay we need more ladies oppressors"

Exactly, also this "all men are bad and monsters" has to stop. This is not how you get the good men to help you stop and punish the bad men.
But yeah, fuck the patriarchy, women should have just as many rights and freedoms as men do, in theory and in practice.
- reversing sexism isn't a solution to any issue, it's the irrational hierarchies that are bad, not the fact that it's not your people on top.
  also, I don't think I've ever heard a feminist talking about "all men are monsters", but I've definitely heard antifeminist men claim they do.

I'm a feminist, opposed to any unjust hierarchy really. One of the things that set me off at a young age was how the US never passed the equal rights amendment.

Also in my home country the women's liberation movement was tied up with the communist movement which also is why I have a lot of the politics that I do

There are various schools of feminism, some of which have conflicting opinions. But the common feminist standpoints, like equal rights, seem to be just common sense for me, especially in this day and age. I'm not sure where the requirement for equal physical ability fits into the equation.

At least for me, going out and saying that you are feminist carries a sort of special connotation, and since I haven't participated in any explicitly activist events related to feminism, I wouldn't readily emblazon myself with the feminist label even though I stand by those ideas.

the physical therapist had a misconception of what feminism is, probably due to conservative misinformation that presents egalitarian movements like feminism as forcing men and women to be treated the same, and in this case the PT thought this meant soldiers were being forced to have women on their units that would slow them down or make them less effective because they weren't allowed to vary the tasks based on strength because of "feminism". I'm not even sure her story was based in reality, tbh - I'm not sure whether the military integrates women soldiers that way, but either way she has internalized some griping from her husband about this.
Either way, it's interesting to me you wouldn't identify as a feminist even if you agree with feminism - I wonder what connotations it has, and how those connotations will change if people who are feminists don't own that ... That was part of why I owned being a feminist in my interaction with the PT - she clearly had a misunderstanding of what feminism is, so I clarified why I see myself as a feminist. Otherwise she might not ever be challenged in her views, and "feminism" just becomes the absurd strawman she rejects.
- If, say, I hear that "Bob is a feminist", I reflexively think that Bob is somehow renowned or outspoken in contrast to the general public for supporting feminist causes, perhaps as an educator, figurehead, or activist. I'm not sure what other specific situations I would emphasize myself as feminist, but I'd do the same if put in your situation as a way of standing up.

Yes.

Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters!

– Vladimir Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women

Comrades, there is no true social revolution without the liberation of women. May my eyes never see and my feet never take me to a society where half the people are held in silence. I hear the roar of women's silence. I sense the rumble of their storm and feel the fury of their revolt.
Thomas Sankara

I consider myself egalitarian

I feel like the term Feminist gives too much of an impression that I tolerate or encourage misandry, which I certainly do not. That and if you look at feminist groups throughout history TERFs have been the norm, not the exception.

Egalitarian, because sexism cannot be tolerated no matter which direction it's facing.

I don't believe in an -ism. I believe in equal rights. I think the name feminism does more harm than good.

"isms" are useful, and the name feminism is perfectly fine.
Why does the name do harm? If it was "anti-sexism" instead would it be more appealing, or are all "-ism" labels bad in your mind? (Might I ask why the -ism is problematic? Would you have the same view of anti-racism, for example?)
- Egalitarianism is a better term.
- I'm not OP, but many people associate feminism with strengthening women specifically. If you look up the definition it actually does focus gender equality, no matter what gender you have. So from my perspective the term isn't really intuitive.
  Another thing I don't like about the definition (at least the one on Wikipedia) is...
  Feminism holds the position that modern societies are patriarchal—they prioritize the male point of view—and that women are treated unjustly in these societies.
  While I sure get what they mean, I personally don't like to classify one's point of view as 'male'. I agree that there are far more toxic men that seek more and more power. But i don't dislike such people because they are men. I'd dislike their behavior just as much if they were women, non-binaries or any other gender. Classifying a character trait male IMHO is similar to calling a skirt or dress 'women clothes'.
  So yes, to me personally, anti-sexism / anti-discrimination or even better pro-equality are more appealing.
- Labels that start off as descriptive become prescriptive. People who associate strongly with a label are less likely to have nuance to their views or change their minds. It becomes us and them.
  You can become a prisoner of your labels.

Yes, my whole life. It's how I was raised, but now that I'm an adult, it's also what I choose for myself and how I'm raising my own children.

Feminism is the radical idea that a person's worth, dignity, rights, and social status are not and ought not to be determined by their genitals.

I prefer the term egalitarian or something to that effect. I definitely fall under the definition of a feminist, but I think it's sort of ironic that a term for equality has an inherent bias for women in the word itself, even if it is not the intended meaning.

I think the word itself has actually harmed the movement significantly. Turns out the words we use matter a lot. So again, I prefer a more neutral sounding term, like egalitarianism or equal rights.

I think its one of those things that doesnt translate so well outside of its time/place. Here in the UK we had people scoffing at "black lives matter" because "surely all lives matter are white people not as important..". We're not feeling systemic racism nearly to the same extent America is and the movement loses a lot of its power based just on the name. I think feminism has caught the same thing being out of its time.
There's surely some issues still to work on with gender equality, but the main big ones have been pretty much solved as best we can. Women can vote, drive, work etc. On the surface the works already been done.
- I think you might be on to something there. I'm in Denmark and Scandinavia have been forerunners when it comes to equality and LGBT+rights and such, so perhaps the use of the "fem" in the term feels undue for my cultural background.
  There’s surely some issues still to work on with gender equality, but the main big ones have been pretty much solved as best we can.
  I think this very much depends on where you live. I'd say that even in Denmark, which is very well ahead of most of the rest of the world, there are still lots of gender equality issues. We've only "solved" them in the sense that the laws are fairly equal (not equal to the extent I would like it, but almost), but the culture is still somewhat unequal. Women still take much more parental leave than men do, for instance.
100% agree with this. A lot of people associate feminism with oppression of men.

As a CIS male I consider myself a feminist because I recognize that women continue to face systemic challenges that demand more than just abstract ideals of equality. To me, feminism goes beyond egalitarianism. It’s not just about treating everyone the same, it’s about recognizing the different challenges people face and working to change the systems that create and sustain those imbalances.

I was raised by my mom and 3 sisters, and that gave me a front-row seat to the everyday injustices women face. Everything from subtle slights to overt discrimination to being victim of abuse. It wasn’t theory for me, it was lived experience, just one degree removed. I've seen the strength and resilience of the women in my life, and I’ve also seen what they’ve had to push through simply because of their gender.

Now, as a father with a daughter, I feel an even deeper responsibility to be part of the shift. I don’t just want her to grow up in a world that pays lip service to “equality”. I want her to live in one where she’s safe, respected, and empowered. That means doing more than being “not sexist.” It means actively pushing back against the structures and behaviors (the patriarchy) that holds women back.

I have zero tolerance for toxic masculinity and so-called “alpha male” attitudes that promote dominance, entitlement, and emotional repression. That culture hurts everyone, but it especially harms women by normalizing control and aggression.

I want my daughter and every woman to see examples of men who are allies, not bystanders. Feminism is a promise: to show up, to speak out (or more often shut up), and to help dismantle barriers so that every person, regardless of gender, can thrive without restriction or fear.

JK Rowling and the other TERFs have kinda ruined that term just like the american right soiled the flag.

I prefer "egalitarian" at this point, less loaded, and gender inclusive. I'm one of those radicals where I want non-traditional families, no gender roles, and all the vanilla straight stuff to all exist side by side in harmony.

Also, women's clothes needs real pockets. And men need cuter clothes like shortalls. That's a world I want to be a part of :)

The one thing I'm not egalitarian about- straight men need to be taught to pee sitting down, or at least lift the seat, damn. I know it's not all of you, but there are a couple of animals out there that need help. :p

The one thing I'm not egalitarian about- straight men need to be taught to pee sitting down, or at least lift the seat, damn. I know it's not all of you, but there are a couple of animals out there that need help. :p
This isn't really a gender issue, either, but I acknowledge men tend to be more of a problem here. But the solution is simple and egalitarian (or feminist, if you prefer): If you make a mess, clean it up. It also works in places besides the bathroom.
What flag?
- I think they mean the U.S. flag.

I call myself egalitarian. It distinctly means what you mean by feminist without being so readily confused with what she means by feminist.

ironically I think it's more confusing, if I tell someone I'm an egalitarian they honestly might not know what that word means at all, whereas at least if I say I'm a feminist they are closer to understanding that I'm in favor of women's rights ...
What my physical therapist considers "feminism" is not something I generally take seriously as a real meaning of feminism, it's a strawman, and it feels wrong to me to cede the meaning of the word to something so contrary to the actual context of what feminism is (both historically and in its present forms).
There are a variety of feminisms, but none of them advocate for the kinds of things my PT believed, so ... I don't know, it doesn't seem reasonable to only call myself an "egalitarian" and not use the term "feminist".
- Don't get too caught up in nuance and small strains of academic philosophy here. The difference is clear:
  Egalitarianism is a philosophy that asserts equality among all people. An egalitarian holds the belief or principle that all people are equal and should be treated equally.
  Feminism is a social movement born out of the pervasive and systematic disenfranchisement, oppression and abuse of women, which holds to an egalitarian philosophy of equal rights between men and women. A feminist is an advocate for the equal rights of women.
  One is an abstract idea that influences modern humanism, liberalism and democracy. The other is a struggle to make that ideal a reality, that has a different face in every different time and place that it's happening. Both are virtuous.

I am a feminist because I believe men and women should have equal rights. I think a lot of people fell for the propaganda that feminism is about women over men or something. The thing a lot of men fail to realize is that "the patriarchy" hurts them too. A lot of the things you see men complain about like being told to "man up" or not being able to express their feelings without being mocked are 100% a side effect of patriarchy.

I would love to rephrase the word to "Equalist".
Equal rights for all!
- As for the topic, I am a feminist. The first and second wave feminism, that is. The equality ones. Not the pink haired screaming "all men are evil and should pay" third wave.
  Actually, I'm kinder to women then men...

I'm not, because I do nothing actively in feminist political spaces. I believe opinions count nothing and don't change the world, so I don't want to be bundled up with the plenty of people who use it as a label for virtue signaling while not actually putting the effort in.

Yeah, specifically I'm fairly third wave in that I've been convinced of the value of an intersectional perspective, am pro modern sexual liberation (including the freedom to not want it), and generally am more aligned with the feminist critiques of the second wave. Furthermore I find a lot of the fourth wave to a shitshow, though considering the concept of the fourth wave is not based on academic ideas or coherent demands, but rather the idea that social media changed feminist discourse so radically as to constitute a change to a different wave.

Feminism has always had multiple sides, and like most liberatory movements it has people who are cringe, who are counterproductively hostile, and who generally suck. It will try things that don't work or push things in bad directions. Also college students and young people will do it in ways that look terrible. But feminist theory is also insightful texts that challenge cultural biases. And in a time where rights such as abortion are under attack and government officials are expressing their opposition to women's suffrage, the principle of equality and fundamental rights remains even if it looks different now from when our grandmothers and great grandmothers were fighting for the right for a bank account.

(This comment uses translation software.)

Yes. I am a feminist, though I am skeptical.

Some feminists argue(Article in Japanese) that the gender equality brought about by feminism also liberates men from the suffering unique to them.

I take a similar stance, believing that the 'gender equality' brought about by male feminism, which seeks happiness for men, also liberates women from the suffering unique to them. In some ways, I am a reactionary feminist.

Previously, I was a male feminist with old-fashioned thinking, striving to eliminate only women's suffering, not men's.

However, I changed my mind after the Japanese government, where I live, adopted a policy of allocating "female admission quotas" at prestigious universities, including national universities, as part of its affirmative action program, modeled on America's racial admission quotas.

Even back when I supported traditional feminism, I was critical of the current state of university education in Japan, where there are public women's universities but no public men's universities. I also believe that expanding these quotas to general universities would violate the Constitution, which proclaims gender equality. I cannot trust traditional Japanese feminism, which supports the unconstitutional status quo, and that is why I have become the skeptical feminist I mentioned earlier.

If feminist just means I think women deserve the exact same rights as men, and same with any other gender, then yes I'm a feminist.

If feminist means a woman advocate who strives to push more female perspectives in a world dominated by male ones, well I'm a cis man so by definition I can't do that. If I want to support that, and I do, the best thing I can do is stop talking and listen.

I think it's a fundamental failure of feminism to make men think that they don't deserve a voice, even in support of women.
hm, don't you think cis men can be woman advocates who help female perspectives be seen?
Thinking of examples here like Poor Things, which is written and directed by men, but which clearly pushes, at the very least, feminist perspectives (if not "female perspectives").
John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women likewise comes to mind - we need men taking & putting forward feminist perspectives, to help female perspectives get traction in a patriarchal society.
Listening is helpful (mutually), but I don't think it's the only role for men.

I would call myself a feminist because I believe in equality. You know, fuck sexism.

I'm a feminist and a men's liberation kinda guy. Feminism is necessary and useful as theory and as a movement. It benefits both men and women

Feminist as fuck!

Feminism is the fight for equality, with a particular focus on the needs of women and folk perceived as women. Men are included in feminism, but indirectly, in that improving equality for women necessarily requires addressing systems, norms and issues that negatively impact men as well.

Sure, it's easy to say that you're "egalitarian" or believe in "equality for all", but those sound bites, whilst heading off the anti feminist folk, completely fail to address the fact that inequality is not equally spread between men and women. When everything else is equal, women still deal with more inequality than men, and feminism is exists because of that fact

Can you explain how women deal with more inequality than men?
- Until 1972, birth control pills were not accessible to unmarried women.
  Until 1973, women in most states could not serve on juries in the U.S.
  Until 1974, women were unable to obtain a credit card or open a bank account without their husband as co-signer (and unmarried women were entirely unable to have a bank account or credit card).
  Until the 1970s, women were not permitted at most Ivy Leagues (e.g. Harvard did not allow women until 1977).
  Until 1978, women could be fired for becoming pregnant.
  Until 1980, sexual harassment was not considered a form of sex discrimination, and the first legal case where a court agreed a woman was sexually harassed in the workplace was in 1977.
  Until 1993, husbands could legally rape their wives in the many states of the U.S.
  Until 2010 health insurance companies were permitted to discriminate against women and charge them higher prices than men for the same coverage.
  Until 2013, women were not permitted to serve in combat roles in the U.S. military.
  One in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner (compared to 1 in 14 for men).
  Women still earn 82 cents to the dollar compared to men, and in 1982 that was 65 cents to the dollar (the situation has not improved since the 90s).
  Women experience greater job gaps and unemployment than men.
  Only 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women.
  In 2022, only 33% of university presidents were women.
  Women currently make up less than 30% of the U.S. House of Representatives, and 25% of the Senate.
  For more: https://www.un.org/en/un75/women_girls_closing_gender_gap
When everything else is equal, women still deal with more inequality than men, and feminism is exists because of that fact
this is such a succinct and eloquent point about why "feminism" is focused on women at all ... this point seems lost on so many men, who seem to think "equality" demands we ignore the way inequality and power is distributed, as if the only approach to the situation is a kind of gender-blindness, and anything else is hypocrisy

The thing about feminism is it benifits everybody. Men are a victim of the patriarchy as are women. I believe feminism is necessary to create a better world for everybody.

Of course I'm a feminist. It's one of those sublime categories like "alive" or "pregnant" that has only two possible states.

Feminist
Sexist pig.

This 👆is the answer
This is the basic problem with how feminism is promoted. If you don’t agree with our views, you are a sexist pig.
This is not a good way to make reluctant people to accept your ideas. It pushes them even further into opposition.
- Can you please be a bit more concrete? What do you think feminism is and which views would push someone into opposition?
- If a person can't accept the basic premise that woman are equal to men, they're sexist by definition. This isn't the fault of "how feminism is promoted".
- If you are not a feminist, you don't believe in the equality of the sexes, right?
  I'm not sure, this feels a bit like when people complain about "anti-fascist" as a label because it makes them feel pressured to be anti-fascist or otherwise be seen as sympathetic to fascism ... my question is why is anti-fascism (or in this case, feminism) so hard to accept?
  I guess feminism works precisely by getting us to think about sexism and whether we think that is acceptable or not - I don't think it's good to be sexist, and I think it's reasonable to feel ashamed about being sexist. Social shame and taboo seems appropriate in this case, no? Like the anti-fascist example, fascists should be ashamed and face taboo for their views.
  Not that you're wrong, some people will double-down in the face of opposition, this is precisely why so many fundamentalist churches promote street preaching, it doesn't convert people (which is the reason given for the activity), but it is effective at solidifying the loyalty of the member, since on the street they experience significant opposition, which bolsters their in-group identity. It's like a cult dynamic.
  So yeah, it's probably good for social shame to be introduced for sexism, fascism, racism, etc. - but it's not a complete victory, the shame can induce stronger loyalties to those movements for those who still hold the views despite their taboo status.

Yes, in the sense that I believe men and women should have equal rights. I suspect people who say they aren't feminists have a different definition of it.

As an anarchist, sexism and cisheteropatriarchy are unjustifiable hierarchies, and therefore I oppose them. In turn, this makes me an intersectional feminist.

I am not a feminist.

Feminism has a variety of different flavors with sets of specific ideals that are not a priority in my view, however the basic idea of equal rights is definitely important to me. The more I think about it, the less I feel I know what I'm talking about which is also why I don't wanna signify I have strong foundational knowledge on this topic. "Equality" is kind of baseline and not what you expect most kinds of feminism to expand to.

Hm, equality is precisely what I think feminism is about, some of the most famous feminist works like bell hooks' Feminism is For Everybody is entirely about how feminism is an egalitarian movement.
What do you expect feminism to expand to, and why do you think that? It's interesting you feel like you might not know much about feminism - have you read or studied any feminist authors or books (like Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex)? What has informed your view of what feminism is?

I support freedom of women to make their own decisions and live their live as they see fit. I think this makes me a feminist.

Yep. Screw the patriarchy.

As a guy though, uh… I guess I’m passive? For better or worse, my impulse is usually to point to women to do the talking on this subject, who should be platformed instead of some dude fumbling to explain what they don’t experience.

Ironic that, by upvoting this comment in agreement, I'm doing the opposite of what you advocate for...

Yes, I am a feminist because I believe everyone has equal rights under the law regardless of their gender.

If a feminist is just anyone who supports woman’s rights then yes I am a feminist. I’m not an activist though I don’t go out of my way to help.

I believe women and men should have equal rights and opportunities and that neither should be forced into certain roles or coddled because of their gender. However I also don’t believe that acknowledging differences between men and women is sexist, nor that equal opportunities resulting in unequal outcomes is a necessarily a result of sexism. I leave it up to others if they want to consider that feminism since I never associated myself with that particular term.

I think I'm more egalitarian. But this is largely dependent on what you mean by feminism.

I believe all women should have total agency over themselves. I believe they deserve equal pay, treatment, and rights. I believe them when they discuss their issues and the prevalence of sexual assault and abuse.

I also believe that there are structures in our society that unfairly put them above men. For instance, in child care and criminal sentencing. Women tend to get the benefit of doubt that they are the better parent and that the relationship between a child and a mother is generally more important than that of a child and father. Women also, in general, get lighter sentences for the same crime.

I believe that we should be more equal in the value we place on the relationship between a child and it's father. Raising the importance of how we as a society view that relationship rather than bringing down the importance of the mothers relationship.

I also believe we should lighten the sentences of men to be more in line with women's sentencing. Although that largely falls in line with my personal opinion that criminal sentencing in this country is far, far too harsh.

Women tend to get the benefit of doubt that they are the better parent and that the relationship between a child and a mother is generally more important than that of a child and father.
ironically I would give this as an example of patriarchy, as precisely the kind of thing feminism aims to eliminate ...
Raising the importance of how we as a society view that relationship rather than bringing down the importance of the mothers relationship.
I think the feminist approach might be to stop thinking of children as primarily the responsibility of mothers, that both parents should be responsible and engaged, such that the courts wouldn't assume the mother is "the parent", while the father is more like a "provider" (that's the patriarchal setup - women don't earn, they stay home and serve as housekeepers and caretakers without pay or economic autonomy, under the control of the patriarch of the family who earns & controls the money).
Although that largely falls in line with my personal opinion that criminal sentencing in this country is far, far too harsh.
if you are talking about the U.S., there is a huge discussion about prison abolitionism, but I think there is significant overlap between various social justice movements, and contemporary feminism has been focused on recognizing how interconnected these struggles are (we can't just narrowly consider "women", as that often leads to only considering the experiences and rights of cis, middle and upper class, white, and able-bodied women).
- This directly brings up the question of what is feminism and the various waves it's gone through.
  I would consider the abolition of a "patriarchy" separate from feminism. I think there are various criticisms of that notion and it's rather cultural centric viewpoint. Raising women doesn't have to come at the notion that men must be brought down. I don't consider egalitarianism to be a zero sum game.
  If your definition of feminism includes the dismantling of patriarchy, I don't think I'm entirely convinced patriarchy isn't a mislabeling of the underlying systemic issues in our society. And I don't particularly like the implied core issue being men are holding women back.
  Society as a whole has radically changed with regards to how women are viewed and their role in this social construct, even with the current political climate and the unfortunate direction it's turned. The feminist movement has found incredible ground and made significant headway, and I'm incredibly impressed and overjoyed to see it.
  I still see a lot of change that needs to happen for us to really reach equal footing. But I may not share the same idea of what the root cause of that inequality is.
  As for the discussion of other social justice movements, my underlying beliefs remain the same. Raise the lowest among us, provide the same opportunities and social support, and treat everyone with respect.

I don't like labels and I never considered myself a feminist but I probably am compatible to this label. I simply try to be a decent person to everyone regardless of virtually everything, and constantly ask myself whether any kind of bias or prejudice played a role in an opinion or decision I made.

I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, be they man, woman, in between or none of the above.

But saying (and perhaps believing) one is a feminist and actually acting like one are often two different pairs of shoes. We all are confronted with so much discrimination, with so much bias, with so much misogyny, it takes active labour to actually behave like a feminist, because no matter how you think about yourself, at some point and to some degree, all that shit we get confronted with every day will rub off on us, and we have to understand that and constantly check ourselves so that it does not influence us in our thought patterns. Constant mental garbage collection, if you want.

That is true for all kinds of discrimination, no matter what it is based on.

I will say yes, because I am a woman who has benefited from what feminists did in the past, and don't believe in strict gender roles for men or women, and my kids were all born as girls, I had to work a lot to get them good education, my focus has necessarily been more on advancing the lives of girls than boys, I didn't get boys until I married.

I think humanity as a whole is stronger when women are stronger. Empowering women empowers men too, when we all do more we are stronger, it's not a zero sum thing.

So yeah I think so, yes, soy feminista.

I don't care about gender. If you want to identify as a man or a woman, then you're free to do that. If you want to identify as something else, that doesn't bother me.

But if you want to take someone's rights away because of who they are and not for what they've done, then I'm against your ideals.

If you call me a feminist for that, then I'll happily accept that title too.

Yes, I am as for me it includes gender equality (same rights for all as well as breaking away from traditional social norms).

I am a staunch second-wave feminist. I believe in equal rights and equal respect for men and women and everyone else who doesn't fit into that binary, and that all should be able to work toward the life that suits them best without worrying about traditional gender roles.

It makes me sad to see women who are quick to say they're not a feminist, because they certainly benefit from feminism and I think they'd be rightly enraged if that went away. If they lost the right to vote, to have a bank account or own a home, to pursue whatever education interests them and work in that field, to choose whether/when/how to have children (RIP Roe v Wade), etc. I think a lot of women take a lot of these things for granted, but they exist because of feminism.

Sadly, I think the term 'feminism' has been successfully demonized in online spaces, to the point that many think it's the same as feminazi. In part this is because the most awful and vocal part of any movement draws a lot of negative attention, and subsequently those who are against equality for women can use feminazis as a boogeyman to denigrate the feminist movement.

"feminazi' is kinda like calling a woman a "female". Its use conveys a "I'm a sexist pig" message you do not seem to intend.
Better terms for women who believe that (cisgender) women are superior to men.
Feminine Supremacist
Feminine Chauvinist
Sexist Woman
Man-hater
Anti-feminist
F.A.R.T.
Sexist woman
Sexist pig
Some of these may covey other messages in their usage.

If feminism means equality, yes. If it means women are better than men, no. If it means women have been oppressed so now it is their turn, no.

What is it means men get systematically treated better so we need to put our finger on the scale?
- I don't understand your statement

If I'm speaking to stupid, sexist cromagnons, I'm a feminist; if I'm speaking to hedonistic, childish third wavers, I'm not.

haha, but hey - what's wrong with hedonism!? 😠
more seriously, why do you not identify as a feminist with third-wavers? What about third-wave feminism do you find problematic?
- The postmodern 'sex/gender is just performative' ('there's no natural essence to sex', basically) and the 'sex positive' and pro-prostitution/pornography parts, mostly. 🙃

Yes. Because we should strive to treat everyone equally

Id say yes, wouldn't give myself the label though, lots of crap online interactions have made me just want to never talk about politics with randoms ever again, its too mentally draining.

There's so many flavors of feminism, and some self described feminists have been pretty wack, I'm just gonna be an egalitarian.

Then according to commentators in this post you're a "sexist pig"
- The ratio says otherwise

My take on feminism is that it just means equal rights and equal treatment, so fuck yeah I'm a feminist.

I once had a physical therapist tell me she wasn't a feminist because she thought women couldn't be as physically capable as men when serving as soldiers

That argument has always seemed like a cop-out to me. The division there is with physical ability, not gender. Establish the physical requirements and call it a day. There are weak-ass men who have no business getting near fields like that; and strong-ass women who blow the physical requirements out of the water.

Overall, men will pull ahead in jobs that emphasize physical labor - that's fine. The flip side is also true, with other jobs favoring the anatomy and physiology of women. Aviation comes to mind. Especially if we're still in the context of military, size and weight both need to be LOW. So same spiel - establish the requirements as the job demands and call it a day; weight and size limits will tend to favor women.

In either case, marking it as men-only or women-only is fucking stupid; but the demands of a specific career field leaning into anatomical and psychologic advantages of one sex vs the other is fine so long as the numbers reflect the actual demands.

*This does come with the need for and oversight, though, as the potential for abusing a system like that is high in order to accomplish sexist goals.

There's something to be said for the mental side as well. Speaking as a surgical tech, the best techs I've worked with have consistently been women. I couldn't begin to tell you why, and I'm backing this on the tiny field of view I've had into this field, but anecdotally, women are just better. I get a similar impression looking to the nurses and doctors, but I don't have the expertise to really judge either of those.

Tldr, utilize people's strengths, but don't be a sexist asshole about it.

I've read that female surgeons have better outcomes and fewer complications than male counterparts:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2833145
It's possible that is just due to sexism, though - maybe fewer women have access to the educational and professional opportunities that translate to becoming surgeons, so the ones that make it are more skilled on average than men who don't have to overcome those challenges?
Either way, it conforms to your perspective.
re soldiers: I'm not even sure my PT had a clear sense of what was happening in the context, I think she was just repeating arguments her reactionary husband had made, which may not be based on anything true ... like, she presented it as though women who are not fit or physically equal to other male soldiers are being placed into units with men because of feminism, and this slows down and undermines the unit, ignoring the practical problems for ideological reasons like "equality". It's not clear to me this is actually happening in the military, though - I have doubts.
- Oh, right on! I've only worked at a few different hospitals, so the sample size of my anecdote is pretty tiny, but I've noticed two trends that seem to contribute:
  With newer surgeons, women are quicker to recognize when shit's getting out of their experience level, and ask for help from their seniors before an emergency unfolds. Men tend to dig themselves into a hole first, then call a senior for a rescue as an absolute last resort.
  With seasoned surgeons, women tend to be nicer to their team; men tend to be assholes. This is problematic if someone on the team is more timid - there have been instances where someone notices something like a hole in the surgeon's glove, but didn't say anything about it because they were afraid of inciting the surgeon's anger... and then the patient ends up with an infection. As the tech or nurse in the OR, you need to bold as fuck sometimes. I.e., when I was a couple years into this job, we were wrapping up a big open-belly case, surgeon starts closing while the nurse and I were doing our counts. Counts were no good - one of our lap sponges was unaccounted for. "Doc, stop closing, we're missing a sponge" ...he ignored me and kept closing... so I reach over with a pair of scissors and cut the needle off the suture he was using. He proceeds to lose his shit, we do a sweep of the abdomen, and sure as shit there's the missing lap. Then he doubles down and starts snapping about how lucky I was that it was in there. Both the nurse and I start chewing him out - literally doesn't matter if it's not in there, if your surg tech says there might be a retained sponge, you stop what you're doing and start looking for that sponge. Were I less blunt with that dude, he'd have finished that stitch and closed the cavity, so now the nurse has to chart that a cavity was closed with a wrong count, then legal gets involved. I literally saved that dude from some serious trouble, but he was too butthurt to be anything other than pissed.
  Anyway, women tend not to pull shut like that. Every time I've needed to call the room to a halt with a female surgeon, she's just been on board with addressing the problem. Men feel like I'm challenging them personally that they need to contest; women see it as a challenge to the entire team that we all collectively need to resolve.
  To be clear, most surgeons male or female just want what's best for the patient and don't put up a fight when I raise a concern... but when there is pushback, it's generally from a man.
  so the ones that make it are more skilled on average than men who don't have to overcome those challenges?
  Hadn't considered that, but you're probably right. Female doctors get a lot more stupid pushback. A year or so ago, I was in a thyroid case, doc was one of the younger women on the ENT crew. Also super small. ...and people treat her like a fucking child. Anyway, we had recently had issues with pathology following her orders, so once she was done taking specimens, she ran them down to pathology herself to make sure everything went smoothly... the lab tech who received them literally told her to 'go back to the OR and ask the surgeon to clarify the order' lol. She would have been 100% justified in exploding at that tech, but she didn't cuz she's actually a decent person. That kind of shit never happens to men. I've been called 'doctor' more times than I can count, despite the giant green "TECH" label hanging below my name tag. "Quite the promotion, sir, but if you're not trying to kill the patient you should probably bounce that question off of someone who knows what they're doing."

For me, feminism is egalitarianism, plain and simple. Yes, I am a feminist, and an egalitarian.

Yeah, I'm a feminist. I'm also a masculinist.

Basically, if there's not a good reason to prevent you from doing something, you shouldn't be fucking prevented from doing it.

Who or what you were born as, or what you identify as, in and of itself, is not a good fucking reason.

Motherfuckers that try to prevent other people from living their own lives because of their own assumptions need to fucking fuck off.

No harm, no foul.
Somehow ive decided to just live life by this mantra and its going OK so far. I don't have to understand or like anything that anyone's doing, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone its fine.

I do believe gender is a social construct that's becoming outdated. And that we shouldn't have nor woman nor men, at all.

Make of that what you want.

The gender binary is becoming outdated, but gender expression is an important part of personal identity. Gender isn't going away, the limiting cage of the pink/blue divide is.
- I have my doubts over that. I think expression without label restrictions is more free and organic.
  At the end a gender, any gender. Is a sum of behavioral characteristics. But there are too many characteristics that can be flip floped all over the place. And having those layers is oppressive towards people wanting to express outside that label expected set of characteristics. As much diverse layers as we want to create they will never be as infinite as the infinity of the behavioral human spectrum.
  On a more political side I sometimes fear that gender expression are used to create dominance groups. "We are Z gender, and I'm the Z gender representative so I get power all over these people". It's easier to dominate groups when they are categorized and segregated. I know is the main big thing about identity politics, which is somehow hot in some places left agenda. But I'm very against it. Only identity that matter to me is human and everything else it not segregable to me.

If feminism is defined as equal rights for all things that are not gender relevant I agree. But there are a lot of really good exception, where it makes sense that we acknowledge differences. Like pregnancy, physical differences and so on. In short everything that can be equal should be.

Yes, bc I support equality. That's it. That's all it means. I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated. I try not to be an asshole to others. I know sometimes I fail, but I don't go out of my way to do it. If somebody tells me I did something incorrect or hurtful, I don't get offended, I just try to do better in the future if I see them again.

I didn't know that supporting feminism was just supporting equality until I was an adult bc nobody ever taught me that. It's not really surprising to me that some people attach other meanings to the word (both positive and negative), or that some people are opposed to it because of whatever negative things they may have attached to it.

It is still very surprising to me that there are people who will openly admit they're just strongly opposed to equality. From my perspective, if you're opposed to equality, that means you're opposed to treating others as you would want them to treat you. You're intentionally being an asshole, and you kinda forfeit any expectations of respect from other people. I still believe you're entitled to the same rights as anyone else, but getting called out for being an asshole is not a violation of your rights. Equality means it's ok to be an asshole to another asshole. That is feminism to me.

what is striking to me is how your thinking about feminism is on the scale of your own experiences and interactions with people - i.e. feminism for you is about being an asshole or a nice person to people based on how they interact with you, but not based on their gender ... but what is missing from this is any social or structural awareness of how women are treated differently, not necessarily by individuals, but by policies and more subtle differences, like the absence of women in positions of power (as politicians for example).
Not that there is anything wrong about reflecting on the ways that bias manifests on the individual scale, it just feels so different from what I typically encounter as feminism (which is more about activism and furthering equal rights and so on).
- I think you're misunderstanding my point.
  Feminism isn't about being an asshole vs a nice person. It's about equality and it extends beyond gender.
  Why are women treated differently? Why aren't they given the same respect as everyone else? Why should anyone be denied an equal place in society based on things like race, class, gender etc.?
  My only point about assholes is that an individual who is truly opposed to equality, is simply an asshole. Even assholes opposed to equality are still entitled to the same rights as anyone else, but the consequences of being an asshole (people not respecting or associating with you because you acted like a disrespectful asshole) are not violations of your rights.

It means if you think women should have the same rights as men. I am a feminist.

I'd specifically think of myself as an anarchafeminist, so yes, I'd say I'm a feminist. Fuck bullshit gender division, and fuck anybody who thinks someone is less capable because of their genitals or the clothes they wear (or if those things "match" or not)

Yes, and I don't really feel the need to clarify or weaken that stance by carving a really specific definition or "but not this or that".

I'm a feminist, take that as you will.

I don't think so. Haven't really read feminist theory tho.

best time to plant a tree my friend

My politics are death to america and death to israel. Free Palestine and free the planet from US empire and centuries of European colonial domination.

Feminists have not done much materially on that front lets be honest.

Throwback to big name feminist Judith Butler on October 13 2023:

Judith was not the only big name feminist to hold such views following the magnificent al Aqsa Flood Operation.

I would say that the web of NED/USAID NGO's that represent the face of feminism today has been a very effective tool of empire. I dont want women CEOs and women drone pilots and women iof soldiers and women politicians in puppet governments. I am a woman who wants the end of colonial occupation and superexploitation.

You have a very developed viewpoint! Thank you for sharing it!
- 🫡
I am confused how this is controversial.
Comrade @Cowbee@lemmy.ml is this just upsetting the federated liberals or have I said something harmful?
- I'd say you're 70% right, 30% wrong. Liberal feminism has often been a tool of empire, correct, but Marxist feminism is a critical tool for the liberation of the oppressed. Liberal feminists like the early suffragettes were only fighting for the rights of white women, as an example. The way your comment is framed unfortunately erases the need for feminism more than it highlights the imperialists coopting the movement. There are feminists like bell hooks and Angela Davis, Alexandra Kollontai, Leslie Feinberg, etc that point out that it is by uniting the oppressed segments of society that we can all liberate together. Marxism needs feminism, and feminism needs Marxism.

I believe that I am, but I'm told that my definition is wrong.

For reference, my definition is:

Anybody who believes in equal rights for women.

that's about what my definition is too, what do you think other people think feminism means, why are you told your definition is wrong?

Feminism as often defined:

the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state. Is something I agree with support.

I wouldn't call myself a feminist because I think the word is basically broken. Too many people use it in a different way than this definition. Too many people think that if you are a feminist you have to agree with other things or you are not a feminist. I would describe myself as a humanist; I think.

I don't know if I like words being hijacked/appropriated by people with extreme views. The weird semantic shift for words like "feminist" (or "nazi" actually now that I think about it) points to a deficit in the education system in our countries.

'Feminist' is one of those terms that seems to have different definitions based on who you ask. I don't know what you call me but I'm a proponent of Equal Rights Amendment full-stop.

I mean, that definitely relates to feminism - but I sense hesitation, what definitions do you think people have, what definitions do you have? Which ones are more dominant, or are there more or less legitimate definitions?

I want to be, yeah. I suffer under patriarchy and want it to change. And I've tasted glimpses of places and times when women and men are safe and free and I want that for everyone all of the time.

But also I'm way too problematic to get to call myself part of the movement. I've got bad history and shitty ideas that I still need to resolve so my contributions to feminism are only things that I can do anonymously. If I notice anyone trying to figure me out irl, I obfuscate and let them settle on their first incorrect conclusion.

No.

And I got banned from Lemmygrad for saying that,
but I'll try iterating it again here hoping I won't be this time around.
Reasons ordered from strongest to weakest.

Gender exclusiveness is in the name.

I don't like any movement that has some form of exclusiviness in their name
other than nationality when they are indigenous to the land or ideology of the likeminded.
Any movement that has sex, age, sexual orientation,
but especially race in their name, immediately raises suspicions in me.
My country used to have a 50+ political party and while I don't think the general public
thought of them as anything other than that 'lovely little grandma and grandpa party',
my first thoughts went to banning the party for age discrimination.

The only thing I think that sets apart the feminist movement from other supremacist movements
is that I believe that humans have taken an evolutionary path that has resulted with fewer women
with dominant and mean personalities and
while I think current technology/economics would allow such thing to happen if
it were to run for several more generations, near future technology/economics won't.

And that makes this movement much less dangerous than
other supremacist movement that is far quicker to cheer on genocide.

Not agreeing with things feminists have said about themselves

Most of all, all the "If it weren't for us..." statements.

I fail to see how it was not inventions that changed society as a whole in most cases.
Household chores used to be a full time job.
Paper, ink and education was something only the rich could afford,
so forget about voting, including for men.
War has gotten more and more mechanic and even robotic,
so the draft has gotten rare as well.
Bank accounts stopped being a rich people only thing as well.

Other statement like "the Feminist movement is about equality between women and men."
to which I say
"Sure sure, and the Trump movement is about equality between Trumps and non-Trumps. That's why we needed more Trumps in leadership positions."

I consider there to be an imbalance demographic imbalance between the sexes,
and I consider this to be an issue on the relationship market,
and myself as a (perpless) victim of it, so it hits me personally.
I also consider this to be something that dropped power into women's hands
and I don't think leaders of the feminist movement would want to happily give up on that

This is the more controversial one that gets me banned.
Due to new technology, demographics skew towards more men
of adult age, so not counting the elderly or children.
For every ethnic group that would mean advantages for that group,
but when the demographic group is about the sexes,
the less there are of you, the more power you have.

If I were the only male, I'd be king of the world,
heterosexual women at my feet, protected and wanted by even the most powerful presidents.
I could exploit it to the fullest and powerful women could and would block other
women from ever coming near to me, physically or through manipulation.

This shortage gives women the power to exploit men.
And since it's a semi-permanent power, there's little anyone can do to mitigate the issue,
apart from society inventing new technologies that will balance or skew the scale to the other side,
which could happen in ten years or so.

"The universe doesn't entitle you to a girlfriend"
Then I would say that that IS a true statement,
but then I also am not entitled to an income,
a car, a house, food, water, electricity and other basic necessities,
but I do think that I am entitled to live in a society
that prioritizes to have these necessities in abundance supply.

I don't like these kind of statements that turn the political into the personal.
It's similar to the "You're on your own kid. Just get a job. Improve yourself" statements when someone loses their income and house.

"Women are not stock. They are human beings. Stop comparing our bodies to objects."
I say that employees and employers are also human beings.
There's a demand and supply of that too and yet again
I'd like to say that I'm entitled to live in a society
where unemployment is down to 0%,
so employers with jobs would be in full supply.
And if I'm the only male on the planet,
I would have no qualms saying that there's a shortage of supply in men.
There's an abundance of supply of men right now.
Just because women want relationships, and thus there being a demand for men,
does not mean that I think men or women are objects or livestock.

"It's not the quantity of women that's the issue, it's the quality of men"
I find that hard to believe since both men and women are each other's counterparts,
made from the same DNA cloth who evolved by procreating with each other.
So an insult to one sex in terms of quality can only be an insult to the other.
Unless you want to go the uhm... "other route"
you know the "What do you mean Karen when you say that there's more low-quality men these days?"
But I'll be disagreeing with racists on such statements or conclusions on such statements as well.

Quantity however is something that used to be balanced by nature,
where boys and men died more often from the plague, cholera and other diseases.
Most of us don't live in that kind of society anymore.
We have tamed the animal kingdom down to the virus and bacteria
and now men are in a significant abundance.

Issue #3 makes me doubt the authenticity of people supporting feminism.

I've seen the fat acceptance or body positivity movement implode almost overnight the moment Ozempic got popular.
Apparently, people weren't all that positive about their bodies the moment they could easily lose weight.
And I'm expecting to see the same with feminism once technologies that boost up the number of adult women becomes popular.

- ...And that's the reason why the feminist movement have TERFs.

I see feminism as a component of minimizing heirarchy and moving toward anarchy.

Instead of the liberal conception of rights, I would use equality of individual liberty and social solidarity regardless of gender or sex. Definitionally, I claim gender as performative and sex as related to procreative genitals. Maybe it's all just worbs, that is, political words without meaning.

Those in favor of heirarchy use "equality of outcome" as a bludgeon. Humans do not need "equality of outcome". We need autonomy to make choices about our lives. We need societies that take care of each other. Heirarchies such as patriarchy prevent making choices and taking care of each other.

As a bonus rant, the rube statement, "What is a woman?", can be answered with, "Who is pink for?". The provocateur wants to conflate gender and sex, but is too embarassed to come out and discuss genitals. A logical follow-up for the embarassed trap-setter could be, "Which genitals taste the best?". The point being don't entertain traps with anything but hostility.

I know posting is masturbatory, since I often fail to read replies. I'm sure your reply will be great and I will probably fail to read it. I'm still working on social solidarity.

“Ecofeminists examine the effect of gender categories in order to demonstrate the ways in which social norms exert unjust dominance over women and nature. The philosophy also contends that those norms lead to an incomplete view of the world, and its practitioners advocate an alternative worldview that values the earth as sacred, recognizes humanity’s dependency on the natural world, and embraces all life as valuable.” —https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecofeminism

Yes. Because it goes hand in hand with Cynicism, my main guiding philosophy:

Cynic: “an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence” —Merriam-Webster

The Cynics (notably Diogenes of Sinope) also advocated for sexual relations between relatives (such as brothers and sisters), since incest norms were socially imposed and thus "arbitrary" in the view of the Cynics.
Diogenes also died after eating a live octopus, which is amusing.
Either way, love Cynicism (incest aside and all), cheers!

I would say I am now. I wasnt a few years ago but after roe v wade being overturned, the subsequent shitshows, as well has government powercreep against rights I believe women should yield, turned me into a feminist. There are obviously issues that men face, but I believe women are most at risk of oppression under this current administration. Especially with how frequently the blatant fascist dog whistle of "traditional family values" is blown nowadays. Republicans are desperately trying to cram women back into the kitchen and domestic servitude.

My definition of feminism: a struggle historically led by women to dismantle the structures of power that let cis men hold privileges over other gender expressions

With that in mind, yes, I’m a feminist. I don’t buy into the “no gender” thing, because in the way some people frame it, it erases the lived realities of gender oppression that still exist. The aim should be to dismantle gender hierarchies without ignoring how they operate here and now. Stripped of its anti-oppression context, no gender rhetoric can be co-opted into TERF narratives that reduce womanhood to biology and genitalia and deny gender diversity

Stretching it a bit, I also see animal liberation as part of this struggle, since these same power structures keep female non-human animals in the role of breeders and providers, much like they do with humans

I believe that men, women and all other genders that people are constructing these days - whether real or fabricated, zero fucks - should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, they should have equal pay, should be given the same opportunities and should be treated with equal respect. If that makes me a feminist, then cool.

I also believe that the reason the term gets a bad rap sometimes is because of the general stage humanity finds itself in. Consider this, for hundreds and hundreds of years men had the upper hand and only very recently did we start this process of equalizing women.

I imagine society like a car going down the road, when you lose control in a turn, the knee-jerk reaction is to steer the other direction and for a brief moment there you're going way over to the other side before eventually correcting/ normalizing your course. Imho this is what happens with every new concept that gets introduced, there's an overreach before normality ensues.

It's even more pronounced with LGBTQ people. They were hidden, non existent in the eyes of society, and now we're at the parade stage. My prediction is that soon there will be no need for it.

I really don't feel the need to identify myself as any sort of -ism.

What matters more to me is how you act. It doesn't matter if someone identifies as a feminist if they don't act like one.

I think I do, but I'm probably not the best to evaluate my own behavior.

Anyway, since we're on the topic, it recently came to my attention that most top charts for media like music, films and online content is absolutely dominated by men. For no particular reason, it's just what people consume. I wonder why. Coming from a place that is seemingly more equal than most of the world, I'm surprised that the people here, even the women, are still consuming more content made by men than by women. So I set out to change my own consumption. Looking through my YouTube subscriptions I found that I myself was watching only content from men, so I started subscribing to more women doing content within my usual interests. I mean, I'm not looking for women doing things because they're women, but rather women doing things that everyone might do, but they just happen to be women. It's difficult. It feels like fighting against the algorithms just to find it, and I gotta say, a lot of the content made by women is still trying rying to get subscriptions based on the idea that everyone on the internet is a man. Seriously, women. When I'm searching for geeky stuff I'm not going to subscribe to your ass or breasts. Take that shit to OnlyFans or whatever. I actually want to hear or watch the topic from your perspective. And seriously, men.. please behave. It's so fucking cringe to read your lustful comments anytime a smart women dares present her face in any of the serious channels. I definitely understand why women upload less content if that's the feedback they get.

Well, I did manage to find some channels worth subscribing to, and at the moment I'm probably up to a third of my subscriptions being from women. I don't think I can push it much further without having to watch things that I have no interest in or which conflicts with any of my already mentioned points. I'll also have to acknowledge that there are differences in what topics interests men and women enough to post about or consume.

However, finally, I would suggest anyone who ever searches for something to sometimes get the woman to explain it to you instead of choosing the man every time.

Yes, although I really do have to question the capability of concern silos to effect change through society.

Women's rights are human rights. Lgbt rights are human rights. Worker rights are human rights.

The fight for human rights is a fight for us all. United we stand, divided we fall. And holeeeshit are we fucking falling right now.

I think people get too hung up on labels sometimes, but that said... If you're a feminist, then so am I. I don't think your PT's understanding was correct.

Yes. I think it's about thinking patriarchy is bad. Almost always that implies preferring equality; the manosphere dudes massively overblow the support for matriarchy. I'm honestly not sure if I would include equality in the definition or not, because of how little that distinction matters in practice.

I should also include that I think patriarchy is real (because anything else is flat-Earth tier, look at Afghanistan), and that many remnants of it still exist in the West. Sometimes people who oppose something they call feminism claim that there's not.

Lots of good comments here pointing out problems with feminism, but one that I think hasn't been mentioned enough in this thread that's also directly relevant to the OP is the harmful idea that "if you believe in gender equality, then you're a feminist by definition".

While the term "feminist" does signify a person who, at least ostensibly, is in favor of equal rights among genders, using that term also, necessarily, implies belief in the core dogma that is inseparable from the term itself (patriarchy theory, etc.). This creates a false dichotomy in which people feel that in order to support equal rights they must also buy into feminist dogma, and that's not at all the case.

Luckily, though, feminism doesn't have a monopoly on gender equality, and it's important to let people know that fact, both because of how incredibly misleading "feminism just means gender equality" is and because there are more useful, more egalitarian frameworks through which to view the push for equality.

No. This is the same argument as the "All Lives Matter" crowd using this as a cudgel against the "Black Lives Matter" movement. Women and gender non-conforming people are the ones most oppressed by the current system. Men also stand to gain from erasing it, but erasing the real unequal struggle does real harm.

The first wave was right. (equal legal rights)

The second wave had a good point. (reproductive rights and workplace discrimination)

The rest were just further attempted power grabs that don't even make the people they claim to represent happy. They tried to do what well meaning but ultimately misguided anti racism waves did by claiming gender shouldn't even be acknowledged aka "I don't even see the color." Which is it's own kind of bigotry.

Everyone should be allowed to fill the same role, but while a minority might be ecstatic in the corpo grinder, it made society worse for men and women more generally, and I don't see many women who enjoy being forced into the hunter gatherer role by the capitalists and the convenient femininists whose message they coopted to boost productivity by mandating ALL the poors make widgets for them if they want to subsist.

It hasn't been productive to raise women to believe it is essential that they defy gender norms as if it is their mission in life to do so. More than anyone else, modern feminists have culturally demeaned the role of being a wife and mother in society, which is ironic, since they seem dead set on making women fit the mold of the men they see as their oppressor.

Men and women are different, with different strengths and weaknesses and intrinsic desires. With overlap, there are things that make men happier and things that make women happier generally. We should have equality, but we've been trying to shoehorn both genders to be interchangable in any societal role en masse, and it's taken a massive toll on men and women in different ways.

Edit: Nevermind, everything is awesome, we did it!

I think second wave had more than a good point, it is arguably where the greatest gains occurred in terms of changes to pay gaps, access to education, entrance to the workforce, and so on. The 1970s in particular saw huge changes in women's rights, and the results were born out through the 80s and 90s.
I don't understand why you think anti-racism and understanding that gender cannot be understood without also taking into account the role race plays is so misguided, it seems entirely reasonable and demonstrated to me - we see this even with the way anti-trans panic is resulting in cis women of color being targeted in bathrooms - this demonstrates the ways femininity and the way "woman" as a social class and ideal is based around racial characteristics, with white women serving as a model for how women "should" look.
Either way, criticizing women entering the workplace and leaving the home was a second-wave thing anyway - and to be generous to you, while I think there are better ways to make the arguments you are making (i.e. there is some truth to your critiques - see Elizabeth Warren's Two Income Trap as an example of the argument you were making about women entering the workplace and not being that much better for it, in a sense), what I wonder is why you seem to make these arguments without being on the side of the feminists - i.e., why does it feel like you are critical of feminism as an outsider, and not someone who is wishing the movement did a better job of addressing injustices?
This has a profound effect on how I interpret and read your critique, as a critique that helps move the egalitarian movement forward is helpful, but as a critique that comes across as anti-feminist, it comes across that you have either not fully considered or just are not concerned about the situation women were in before they were able to enter the workplace and have more economic autonomy.
Sure, there might be real problems with the way feminists sometimes idealize masculinity as an ideal for women (a problem no doubt that comes from patriarchy: when men have the autonomy those feminist women are seeking, it's easier to emulate and assume a male role to achieve that autonomy than to upturn social norms - getting everyone else to take femininity seriously is a much harder task than emulating masculinity to be taken seriously), and there might be real problems with the ways capitalism has hijacked and exploited feminism for its own gains, but none of this is being put into context, none of this is comparing to what women's lives were like before feminism carved out these imperfect changes.
So I guess my question is - are you a feminist and invested in gender equality, or are you just making the anti-feminist arguments that you feel you can defend without being decried as overtly sexist?

I believe in balancing quotas and rebuilding social structures to be more inclusive. That's something that takes several generations to bear fruit.

Shaming or bullying anyone for what kind of body or privilege they were born into is where I draw the line.

edit: those who downvoted this are most welcome to reply this comment and explain their point. I'm open to discuss

I wrote here my honest opinion only to be mocked. Fuck you all, I'm not going to answer this online ever again.

And no, I wasn't sexist.

sorry I think we're lacking context here, is this an alt account? I don't see your opinion here 🤔
why were you mocked?

I'm an egalitarian. I believe women and women are, and should be treated, equal(ly).

The clue is in the name feminist. Feminism is about equality in the same way an advocate of masculinism is an advocate of equality.

That's unfortunately not how words work.
Get into etymology and you'd be surprised at the number of words whose current meanings are complete 180s from their historical definitions.
You can't just look at a word a decide what it means. Very few people use the word feminist to intend what you are claiming it means.
Suggesting they secretly intend your interpretation is mad, and claiming everyone except you is using the word wrong just means youre the one who has its definition wrong.
Why do you think feminism as an egalitarian movement is focused on women?

I'm a male vegan anarchist and reject every form of mistreatment based on immutable qualities like species, ethnicity, sex etc. At the same time women in my life have consistently broken my trust, which has left me with some generalized cynical views about them. I also believe that the west is at a point where women often receive preferential treatment in sectors like education and hiring, so advocating for them while men are left behind doesn't make much sense to me. I do not consider myself a feminist.

I wish I could give you like an award for writing the most Lemmy comment of all or something, lol
I'll write a more thoughtful response later, but in the meantime, thank you for sharing 🧡
EDIT:
more serious response time:
I was wondering why you believe women receive preferential treatment in hiring and education, what I have read is that empirically women are more likely to be turned down for jobs and they experience greater rates of unemployment and longer employment gaps than men (in the U.S.).
Do you mean you wouldn't advocate for women in employment and hiring based on your views, or just generally? Because there are still many stark disparities between men and women in the West (including pay, cost of healthcare, sexual violence rates, and so on).
It's surprising to me that you identify as an egalitarian and anarchist, but don't consider yourself a feminist - what do you think feminism is, if not a movement for gender equality?

Equal rights and opportunity sure.

Feminism to the extent that it is intrinisically sexist just no.

Neigsendoig and I are not. Proverbs 31:16-18 is the reason.

She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
You sure you copy-pasted the right verse number from whatever?
- Yeah, from Proverbs 31:10 on this chapter is describing what the author considers a "worthy woman".
  This is an odd passage. It seems to be encouraging the poor to drink to forget their poverty.
  6 Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul.
  7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
  Proverbs 31:6-7 WEB translation (public domain).

I feel like in a modern context, "feminism" is inapplicable. While there has never been a female US President, what does Barack Obama buy Blacks in America? Tokenist identity achievements have been disproven by an ineffective and lazy neoliberal elite in terms of advancing "where they came from." There are more prominent, professional, relevant women in the rightwing recasting of "having it all" over on the trad-wife side, which has been ironic since Phyllis Schlafly, but has never had a bad day, and isn't having one now...

This feels dismissive of feminism, and seems to miss the point by citing a bunch of examples that are anti-feminist. You're getting caught up in political drama and missing that this is a life philososophy that can underpin how any one person fundamentally treats others and that exists independently of current events. The question is, are you a feminist?