Let's Discuss Feminism

I've often had difficulty defining myself as a 'feminist' exactly because of what has been said above: that it's more of 'an intellectual and emphatic experience' for me as a male. I fully support women's rights (be it abortion, equal rights, etc.), but I also have to accept that I'm at an advantage as a male and that I don't experience 'being' a woman on a day-to-day basis.

That said, I do find it interesting how there's a general avoidance to be labeled a feminist even among the most-liberal of circles. There's still a stigma attached to it. At my college, a student did a project where she went around the library asking other students what they felt about feminists and recording their responses. Most of the students had a negative opinion, mostly centered around their vague conception of what a feminist is or looks like. Some of these were women, which kind of shocked me. I can understand when men reject it, but when women shun it or even call themselves 'anti-feminists,' it boggles the mind.

I don't think the so-called 'feminazi' exists because I've never really encountered this 'hard-line' feminism in my day-to-day experiences. It's a label that's been concocted by the people who don't understand feminism, and given that feminism itself has different lines of thought (liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, etc.), it's a little more complicated than the untrue conclusion that it's 'women who hate men.'

I hope that was readable.

I believe a male can be feminist, certainly. At least I like to think of myself as one. As a white male, the chances of my facing any kind of prejudice or be imposed upon by ignorant racism or religiously-driven dogmatic exclusion or interference are very remote. Yet, it bothers me to no end to have to hear about or see it in action. I'm all for a woman's choice when it comes to her body...why? Because I'm all for anyone's choice when it comes to that. The idea that anyone seriously thinks they have a say in something like that is mindblowing. After laboring under the repugnant pious hypocrisy of the Bush administration, the idea of someone like McCain(who would love to see legislation that would create a nation of 'Vera Drakes')stepping up is extremely frightening.

When my wife and I were still dating, I would visit her on the campus of Douglass College at Rutgers. While I expected the entirely female school would be a unique environment to experience, the reality was a little more intense. As I would walk with her to the student center, the grounds were plastered(and sidewalks spray painted) with clarion calls for L.A.B.I.A., a long established activist organization. In one instance, as we approached on of the buildings, a young woman on a cell phone looked up and zeroed in on me, and, under her breath yet still audibly, hissed into the phone "Hold on, there's a man coming!"

Overall, the campus was quite beautiful and most were polite and friendly, but the vibe was still there. And, at least to me, quite distinct. Sure, it was a little intimidating, emotionally. Yet, truth be told, it was a bit exciting in the intellectual sense. Well, maybe exciting isn't the right word. A learning experience would probably be a better way to put it.

Having not had any prejudice or bigotry slung my way ever, even the slightest instance of it was a good enough dose to confirm what I pretty much already knew. Judge not lest you be judged. Tastlessly(I'm sure) I made a few jokes about feeling like Anne Frank to my wife and her firend, but inside I knew it was only 1/1,000,000th the degree.

On a side note, I'm always disgusted when I hear someone speak of "lesbians....mmmm yeah!" Too many(most?) young men would, of course, say there's nothing wrong with "lesbians". Not lesbianism, mind you.(Or homosexuality, for that matter!). The cultural concept of lesbians has become confused into the girl-girl porn crap in which milieu it is, relatively speaking, perfectly acceptable. Having lesbians able to marry in the real world? Wellllllll....that's another question entirely, right? I call bullshit on a culture that turns such a double standard into a fucking cultural trademark.

True, phsyically speaking, I will never experience many things a female would. Not being able to give birth personally is a serious loss for me and I'm sure when the time comes, it will be an inescapable factor in I and my wife's behavior during our pregnancy. Having gonads on the outside is, in my opinion, another raw deal. To be fair, there are things a female will never face that males do. Being saddled with a naturally occurring immaturity, for one. *Sigh* It's a cross to bear! (that was a sexist joke! )

ps Having decades of the word "feminist" used in the derogatory has gone miles toward making it difficult to see it as a non gender-specific term.

(This is muddled, I know...I'm in the middle of laundry while trying to juggle lunch and curtail the cat's imperative to destroy her crinkle tent.)

Yeah, I tend to think men calling themselves "feminists" is a bit presumptuous, even if you hold all the same beliefs. But then, feminism has become so decentralized that it hardly seems like more than a vague idea (or a straw man for mysogynists). I think at this point any woman capable of thinking for herself could be considered a "feminist", in that they want to have all the same rights as men, to control their own destiny, to be at least moderately self-sufficient, etc. It's one of those ideas that's permeated the culture, in theory if not practice. At this point it's more about trying to enforce the standards than blow people's minds with the radical idea of women doing more than birthin' babies.

I haven't ever thought of myself as a feminist, though I certainly share the opinions with the fellows on here who have. I think it was just a matter of looking at the term as being gender-specific (terribly sexist of me, I know).

In my life, I've known many strong, intelligent women. I married one of them. At my job, my department has more women than men. Without exception, these women are hard working, intelligent and ambitious. I respect them all.

I'd like to think that the principles of feminism are becoming reality. In my own personal life, it seems like that's what's happening. Granted, I live in a moderately sized city and work in educational journalism, so I'm not exactly out in the "real world."

I've asked a similar but extremely opposite question before, can a woman be a "machista"?

The answer to me is yes. So I guess yes a man can be a feminist even if that may sounds presumptuous.

I'm not sure you can build an analogy between the two words, though. Are you using "machista" to refer to a woman who believes in male superiority or are you using it to refer to a woman who has/aspires to traditionally masculine characteristics?

I don't think either of those quite works, since feminism doesn't (usually) involve notions of female superiority. It can, but as Sado mentioned, there are a lot of different types among the various waves, movements, etc. Most feminists don't argue for superiority, but rather equality via recognition, rights, respect, etc. that they perceive as being absent in some way. This is probably why there aren't many good analogies on the male side - we can't argue that men need additional recognition, rights, respect, etc. to achieve equality with women. If you argue for advantages for men, you're essentially arguing not for equality, but for additional superiority.

So, while I agree with you that a woman can be a "machista" (in either sense I mentioned), and a man can be a feminist, I'm not sure that you can get to that conclusion by way of comparison. Unless there's a definition of "machista" that I'm missing.

I'm not saying machista is the exact opposite to feminism, was just an extreme example of another discussion I've had.

And I mean machista in the sense of the superiority of the male, or roles males can do that women shouldn't even try to do.

I've always considered myself a feminist. Most girls, even in elementary school, have experiences to make them realize that, while they may not think there's any problem with being female, there are certainly plenty of people out there who think that the fact of their gender automatically dictates a number of things about them. It's entirely up to those girls and women how they choose to contend with those experiences. While I would suggest that a large majority of women probably have beliefs that could be labeled feminist, far from all of us choose to embrace the word. "Feminist" leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of some, because of its association with man-hating and humorlessness (fwiw, the overt feminists I know are almost all straight women and they all have incredible senses of humor).

I went through a phase in my early 20s where I rejected the word "feminist" as being too divisive a label, though I never let go of the beliefs I associated with it. In graduate school, I had the opportunity to work with a number of incredible feminist theorists and conduct research that lead me back to a conscious embrace of the label. I've come to see that, although we have made great strides in equality in many big ways, there is still a more subtle, more difficult to combat tendency in western culture to associate the feminine with weakness and foolishness, while maligning female-coded positive concepts (emotions and caring work, for example). I think that believing everything's hunky-dory because we can all go to college and work outside of the home (two of the central goals of the liberal feminist movement) now makes it even harder for those of us who want to point to the very real inequalities that still exist.

yt, you just provided my new desktop. Bless you.

edit - Yes, Cap, I do think that women could be machistas. Why they'd want to, I don't know, but, yeah, they could.

Gotcha. Yeah, I definitely think those women exist (someone has to make up that critical percentage of female viewership for Fox News ). But I think they automatically have to engage in self-hatred that I find kind of sad. I don't think male feminists have that same kind of built-in pathos, because it's not a requirement that you think women are better than you - just equal to you.

I'm sure it's more common for people of both genders to believe that there are some jobs that only men can do that women shouldn't even try to do, but I think, upon analysis, even the most extreme examples aren't universal. If we're talking about physical labor, there are certainly big, strong women who can hold their own with any man. The difference comes down not to gender, but to physical strength, and even if women are physically predisposed to having less upper-body strength, a driven woman can often overcome this predisposition. Plus, as the world becomes increasingly automated, physical inequality becomes less and less of an issue.

You're welcome!

Hey, Myn love Womyn too. That's my motto.

Are you a feminist if you consider both sexes equal? Always wondered that, given the word itself...

Well, I see a lot of guys in my school walking around with pink shirts that say "THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE". But why pink? That's sexist.

No, in reality, and before LisaNY gets here, I pretty much agree with feminists. I can't consider myself a feminist, because it would imply I actively do things. I'm not even political. I'm lazy. But I started listening to Le Tigre, which got me interested in feminism. That's sort of corny probably, but it's true.

And anyway, at the very least I'll defend feminists. Can feminism be exploited for hating men? Of course, so can Black Power in relation to white people. What does it matter? To deny that feminism isn't important is stupid, and to say that it shows sexism towards men do to an unfair balance proves that it needs to exist.

My father is blatantly sexist and that's part of the reason I got interested in the topic. I also hear the stupidest shit every day in college, such as "I don't think feminism is really necessary, because things are pretty much equal now".

The point of feminist movements isn't to show that women are equal to men. There's no catching up to do, and the notion that white man is the standard of success to measure up against is another reason why we NEED feminism. I can't answer what feminism is for in concrete because I imagine it means something different to every woman who takes part in it. But in a world where white men are still shown as the most powerful and important symbols in the world, I'd imagine feminism is not only important for identity but in the political sense.

I think both these feminist and masculist types are too polarizing to civil discourse. I consider myself an androgynist cuz I'm a sensible centrist like that.

That's what feminism means. Well to be clearer, feminists believe men and women should have equal rights - not that they are equal. Men and women are different on some things, and more similar on others. But the few differences there are shouldn't be used as a means to judge one sex as better than the other. And they certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for legislation (e.g., voting rights).

Worst mistake ever made was lettin them bitches get shod, un-pregnant, and outta the kitche.

No shit. Bitch didn't even leave me with a recipe for ice cubes.

Unfortunately, I know plenty of women who claim to be feminists, but who really just hate men, which isn't what feminism is, of course. One of them was even a Feminism studies professor I had in college, and there were some interesting debates in that classroom. As pointed out, feminism is, ideally, equality for both sexes. However, I've literally heard some women, claiming to be feminists, saying things like, "Screw the guys, it's OUR turn to keep them down for a while". Which - no. Feminism isn't "it's the guys turn to be screwed over, since it happened to us for so many years." One sex fucking over the other isn't the way to go about it. It's both sexes understanding and respecting each other, not holding each other back because "Oh, hey, it's THEIR turn to be held down now."

(Oh, and Dean? Shut the fuck up. You only called me out on here because I called you out on that stupid, sexist thread you started to introduce yourself on these forums. So don't go acting like you understand feminism just because you opted to post in this particular thread.)

I've always seen feminism as a desire for women to choose what it is they want to be and what they want to do with no fear of social stigmas or patronizing attitudes. If a woman chooses to work in a male dominated industry* (as Mrs H does) she should not have to run across misogynism and patronizing asses yet she still does. That is why we still have need of feminists. People may believe that all things are equal but it's more then equal pay or equal opportunity it also has to be equal treatment in the workforce.


*Conversely both genders should also be free to make the choice to stay at home to raise kids or tend the house. It is not, as I have heard it said, a step back for the feminist movement if a woman chooses that life if it is truly her choice.

Yes. My feelings on the issue are pretty much spot on with what you stated above. I’m not a woman, but I can certainly empathize with what they have to deal with on a daily basis, and our society’s harsh imposition and reinforcement of gender roles can be nothing short of oppressive at times. Same with the level of discourse that goes on in society with respect to women – usually consisting of really domineering, patriarchal, condescending bullshit that makes me want to strangle people. Between that and the objectification of women that I see all too often, I don’t feel that taking part in or condoning that behavior makes me a better person. Half of the time, the way other guys act towards women makes me think that they’re just doing it to remind themselves that there’s a dick between their legs, and it’s nauseating. Don’t get me started on porn, either.

They really haven’t, but then again I haven’t dealt with extreme man-hating types before. Most of my encounters have been decent discussions with really stoic, principled women. On the other hand, I can understand the outrage, just like I can understand how ethnic groups might harbor dislike for other groups based on past transgressions. I don’t think it’s fair for them to generalize, since I don’t nonchalantly partake in the behavior that they classify as inherently male and since making generalizations hurts their argument, but I can definitely see where they’re coming from more often than not.

Same. I’ve only dated one girl who could be described as subservient to men, and that didn’t last long. I prefer the company of women who would identify (to whatever extent) as feminists, because I find more interesting and compatible personality types in those groups.

Great post, Jake, and it's very similar to where I come down.

You hit on something important here that gets overlooked a lot. I think one of the goals of feminism that gets a little less mainstream play is a re-evaluation of gender in discourse. The initial goals of women's rights advocates were obvious and could be addressed through changes in legality - suffrage, equal opportunities in the workplace, some kind of way to regulate direct harrassment, etc. But there's still a general stigma against the feminine and some very real, very disturbing misogyny. You hear it in the way men talk about women when they aren't around, how they communicate with and about women in the semi-anonymous environment of the internet, etc.

I've had just a tiny bit of experience with extreme, man-hating feminists, and it was via the web, so I don't know how much that might have colored the experience. I read a blog post sometime last year on the inherent patriarchal overtones of marriage and felt compelled to participate, basically backing up some women who claimed that they felt their marriages were attempts to reclaim the word and redefine it on their own terms.

I was furiously slammed like I've never been slammed anywhere on the net. There was literally no argument I made, no matter how couched in qualifiers and friendly intentions, that wasn't met with utter bile. Remember that scene in Malcolm X where the white college student asks him what she could do to help, and he tells her "Nothing"? It was like that, but way more condescending and insulting. I don't usually get pissed about web stuff in real life, but I was actually angry and a little depressed for a few days after this, having never really encountered this sort of thing before and being a little shocked and disappointed that it existed.

One argument I've heard is that feminists of this stripe tend to use this tactic on men, because similar tactics of suppression are and have been used on women for centuries by men - that I'd crossed over into a women's space and was not welcome, just as they haven't been welcome in men's spaces over time. I suppose that's valid. But I'm not sure exactly how anyone's going to find the middle-ground with this type of extremist on either side.

It's sad how much the media coverage of the Clinton campaign has forced the idea of gender-based discourse back into my head, and I'd imagine it's the same with everyone else(judging from the 2008 Pres. Election thread). I've always tried to stress the importance of looking not just at the rights of certain people, but also how we discuss issues that affect said people(and all of us). After Obama's big speech on race, there was an outpouring of people saying "Oh, it's just words.", "He's all words.".

I normally balk at such dismissive statements, because the people who say these types of things seem to be forgetting how important words are in order to make some asinine, politically-charged point. Not only are people affected by what others say about them to an extent, but what they say about those people is a reflection of their character.

Plus they're refusing to acknowledge that talking about issues like racism, gender politics, etc. is the biggest step in the process of working on these issues, yet our country is fine with maintaining status quo by saying "Well, if we don't acknowledge them, maybe they'll just go away". We've now had to put up with several years of politicians who were against debate and compromise, hermetically sealed themselves in some sort of ego-bubble, and treated expression of opposing points of view as a punishable offense. Fuck that.

It's really hard to try and empathize with someone or discuss something with them and get nothing but venomous hatred in return. Regardless of the medium, it's a slap in the face for your efforts, and the realization of how detrimental their behavior and reactions are to making any progress on the issues that they so vehemently fight for doesn't help. So yeah, depressing.

I agree, but I try to comfort myself with the idea that said extremists are in the minority, and they're never really going to come around until they decide to behave rationally and drop the hateful bullshit. Comparing them to their polar opposite doesn't help, but extremists are really no better than the people that they fight against when they're unwilling to compromise or just want to lash out at everything that's contrary to their worldview.

Great posts by both Jake and Dave.
I mentioned my feminism professor in college, and first a little background on her situation, not that it made it okay:

She was originally from New Delhi, and the oppression towards women over there and at that time was unreal. She came to the U.S. in the late 60s or early 70s, right at the start of the big feminist movement - Roe vs. Wade, burn our bras, Gloria Steinem, etc. And it was a complete 180 for her - she got caught up in it to such an extreme that she wasn't willing to give any men any breaks from that point forward. By the time I took her class in 1985, she'd been brewing in it for over 10 years. You can understand how it happened to her, how she became like that, given her background and the complete opposite way of life when she arrived here. But she really had issues.

Which brings me to that point in your post, Dave. I'm sorry that that happened to you, when obviously you were trying to understand and participate. It would get like this in our classroom as well. The class was nearly all female, but we did have three guys who signed up and joined in. Three really good guys, who were trying to understand, trying to take part, were very open-minded, etc. And she just cut them zero slack. She pretty much would attack them to the point where they didn't feel they could participate in the discussion anymore.

Part of the way through the semester, I briefly dated one of the guys in our class. Which, somehow she found out, and brought it into the classroom, which was uncomfortable and unprofessional for all. Because she then really began attacking him more than the others. For example:

"Lisa, does John walk you to your dorm each night?"
"No - we get to his dorm first from the main campus, so I normally say goodbye to him there."
"He doesn't walk you back! You don't walk her back? Instead you leave her open to get raped or attacked by letting her walk to her room alone?"

Which - come on. It's a campus. Hundreds of girls walked by themselves after classes from the main campus to the dorms every day, and no one got raped for lack of a male escorting them home. It was just pointless, mindless attacks on the guys in the class. But, then again, as I said, she went overboard given everything she'd been through in New Delhi before she emmigrated here. Didn't make her behavior okay, but we tried to understand how she got that way.
Valid or not, it's not okay. Because you're correct, no middle ground will be reached if the views are so extreme on either side. Old tactics of supression that have been used on women are not okay to use on men in return. The middle ground is what needs to be reached. If they purposely close out well-meaning, open- and fair-minded guys from the process, simply because they're guys, it doesn't help them, nor does it show other men that it's okay to get on board with this.

Which is not to say that clear misogynists shouldn't be put in their place, but guys who have an open mind and an empathy for the situation shouldn't have the door slammed in their faces. Slamming down all guys is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I remember this. The problem, Dave, was that you stumbled right into the middle of an Empowerment Argument. They happen all of the time on feminist or women-centered message boards and blogs and they almost always go exactly like this -

Poster/Blogger A: Lengthy, strongly-worded post about how she finds stripper aerobics/motherhood/housework/marriage/the missionary position/knitting/taking her husband's name/participating in organized religion/having pierced nipples/the missionary position/buying expensive shoes empowering. She thinks that engaging in said activity is a feminist gesture.

Poster/Commenter B-G: Short responses which support A's argument. Much praise is heaped on women who choose to strip/have babies/clean their bathrooms/don the big white dress/get on their backs/make scarves/call themselves Mrs./go to temple every Friday night/put barbells through their girls/drop a paycheck on some Manolos. Occasionally, a carefully worded and extremely polite opinion to the contrary will be expressed and largely ignored.

Poster/Commenter H: Comes screaming into the forum/blog with a lengthy, strongly worded post about how the issue in question demeans the woman who embraces it and that engaging in any of the above activities demeans all women everywhere. If talking about marriage, will namecheck Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. If talking about sex, will namecheck Dworkin or MacKinnon. If talking about beauty, will mention female genital mutilation.

From here, the conversation descends into complete chaos. The original commenters will passionately defend the points made by the first post/blogger. Those who agree with Ms. H will come rushing out of the woodwork. The hyperbole will be off the charts. Wearing an engagement ring means that you are a tool of the patriarchy. Not respecting the personal decisions of others means that you're a tool, period. The links will be thick on the ground. At this point, if things get far enough out of hand, the feminist blogosphere will be notified of the fracas and still more posters will arrive, either to defend one side of the argument, or to extend olive branches and point out that it's not "our" place to call into question the choices of other women. Eventually, all those involved realize that free will is actually being discussed or forget what the problem was in the first place and will quietly slink away. Poster H probably makes the last comment in the thread.

Woe to the well-meaning feminist man who steps into the middle of this. Even if you're levelheaded, totally in the right, and nice as pie, you are still attempting to suggest what a woman should/shouldn't do with her life and how dare you presume, after generations of oppression, to think that...

blah blah blah. I think I threw myself into these little battles once or twice before I realized that I should never, ever do it again. I find not caring what a bunch of strangers on the internet think about the way I live my life very empowering.

Yeah, that conversation followed that format pretty closely (although I think the initial blog post was already anti-marriage, and the pros were actually responses).

In retrospect, it was kind of fascinating and frustrating in the same way that watching the intensely misogynist guys in In the Company of Men is fascinating and frustrating. I'd like to think that the 'Commenter H'es of that conversation would be scandalized by the comparison.

At the risk of kicking off an empowerment argument, I've never understood the reasoning behind this sort of belief.

*Putting on his willing to be wrong hat* I believe it usually has to do with accepting stereotypes/words/tropes willingly as a way of dismantling their negative power ie) black people taking back 'nigger' or having lawn jockeys in their front yard.

Well, I can't defend all of the activities listed, as I don't engage in all of them, but there are definitely ways in which a woman can consciously approach motherhood, marriage, and religious experience that can be feminist. Just because an institution has been part of the patriarchal arrangement doesn't mean that it can be repurposed and embraced by smart, mindful women (and men, too).

Crafting can also be a feminist gesture, as engaging in traditional women's handiwork is a great way to learn about women's history and think about one's foremothers. My grandmother knits, Dave's grandmother knits, and I knit. When I knit (esp. when I spent some time this winter learning how to knit the traditional Breton slippers that Dave's grandmother makes), I see it as a way to think about those women and show them respect by carrying on their tradition. Plus, when I make my own stuff, that means that some woman in a sweatshop halfway around the world isn't being paid a quarter to make my husband a hat. That's feminist.

From my perspective, this is pretty much true. It's also about not letting the damage done by the patriarchy in the past undermine the choices that can be made today. I'm not going to not marry my awesome husband and explore all of the possibilities of marriage just because marriage has been used to oppress women in the past. I'm not going to not have a child just because, 50 years ago, that's all that would have been expected of me.

Nicely put, Zooey.

I'm thinking it's a way of turning preconceived notions about feminism on its head in a bit of (sometimes unintentional) deconstruction.

It seems a more obvious feminist move to be anti-stripper than to engage in anything stripper-related (aerobics included). It seems a more obvious feminist move to remain single and independent rather than to marry. It seems a more obvious feminist move to refrain from mainstream religions, which are often patriarchal in origin and/or practice.

By going in exactly the opposite direction and making a good argument for why, perhaps, it's more feminist to engage in stripper aerobics, to marry, and to be religious, one might level the field and help to create a more universal, inclusive notion of feminism (and, of course, defend one's own interest in stripper aerobics, marriage, and religion in the process). Obviously, the effectiveness of these stances always depends on the specific traditionally anti-feminist act being defended and the strength of the argument. It would probably take a more gifted debater to make a case for stripper aerobics than for, say, an embrace of religion or marriage, since both of the latter can exist in many forms, and the basis for stripper aerobics relies on an industry that invariably involve a bunch of horny guys objectifying women.

Very interesting read, nice points made. Thanks to everyone posting so far, this has been very educational. The few debates I have been in involving this subject have been very light and respectful. So I've never seen some of the deeper arguments/counterarguments mentioned 1st hand.

In my experience, I have met as many women who looked at Feminism as women being somehow Greater than men as women who just want equality. And shouldn't anyone for equality between the sexes be a feminist? Can we all just be humanists then? And for every disadvantage a woman has, they do have some pretty nice advantages too; child custody cases, and the fact if I'm in my house naked and a woman looks in-I go to jail, yet if shes in her house naked and I look in-I go to jail. Just some food for thought.

...what?

Yeah, that part is pretty nuts.

I don't want to make any baseless assertions about the number of feminists who believe in female superiority, but I've encountered some women like that. (very few, but a buddy of mine married one, so I find it pretty infuriating) The important thing to remember is that her beliefs didn't make her an asshole...she was an asshole who adopted a certain set of beliefs, then misapplied them.

Gotcha. Having the upper hand in a child custody battle makes up for millennia of sexism, sexual violence, intellectual and emotional oppression, and deprivation. I'll go tell NOW to disband post haste.

Seriously - what?

Hmm. What kind of neighborhood do you live in where this is such a concern? More importantly, why are you undressing in front of open windows?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._by_everything

Not to mention the gender-based biases that lead to the advantage.

No, no, no I'm not saying it's a reason to get antagonistic to me or to stop trying to help a good cause, I'm just saying not everything connecting to women is a disadvantage. Sorry if I bothered or offended you. And where I live, we're pretty much a rhinestone in the bible belt, so... But seriously I've held a door open for a woman with groceries and had her look at me like I punched her and say "What you think a WOMAN can't open her own doors" Some feminists are hurting more than they help I think.

Ladies and gentlemen, our "Commenter H".

I endorse feminist Goals — especially the sex-positive ones! — but I'd hesitate to call myself a feminist on account of different philosophical worldviews. Specifically, the intermeshing of feminism and horrible post-modern ideas ... essentially, I've generalized the intellectual idea of feminism, and it's a domain filled with jargon-spewing post structuralists. This view, and the resulting reluctance towards self-described feminism — I can't stand postmodern art, let alone the theories! — can probably be attributed to my encounters with a sort "hard-line" feminist.

Awesome.

Can't call myself one, won't call myself one. Humanist, equalist, and believe in equal rights and equal responsibilities. For everyone, woman and man.

Sadly enough, at this point is the idea of tolerance and equality even compatible with the USA and the Christian belief structure? I live less than 300 miles from the church in Jesus Camp, and It's scary as hell.

See? See? H always shows up! Though the approach is kind of backwards this time...

A lot of modern feminist thought is vehemently anti-postmodernist, though. As I've heard it framed, just as women were starting to get their voices heard, get female authors recognized, etc., along comes postmodernism with its Death of the Author and tells everyone that an individual's voice isn't that important.

It's probably a challenge for some to reconcile the fragmented nature of postmodernism with political mindsets like feminism and Marxism that are all about overarching narratives (or "meta-narratives" as Lyotard called them). I'm way more on the postmodern side of things - those narratives may be there, but they may be a matter of perspective in any given case. It doesn't always come down to gender or economics, but it often does. Since it seems silly to me to attribute all of the world's problems to a single source, I don't really have a problem with the postmodern idea that feminist, Marxist, post-colonialist, etc. readings of the world are all just micro-narratives.

Certainly, there are feminist postmodernists and postmodern feminists, but the two aren't really closely aligned enough for you to have to be cautious around one because of a dislike of the other.

Dave's operating on this whole other plane of understanding superseding our own. We were gonna use this thread as an opportunity for rape and cooking jokes but DaveB had to be all smart and shit.