@ossobuco,
Quote:You and I are different in that I call myself a feminist. I take it by recent talk I am a long time softie.
Your takes reflect mine, maybe harder, but you get to not be a feminist, as that is a freak female word, some promulgated man hating shrews club.
Please. Get over fear of the word feminist.
I understand you perfectly, osso. And whether to call myself a feminist is an issue I've considered and wrestled with. It's a term I think would be both accurate and inaccurate in referring to me, depending on one's conception of a "feminist".
"Feminist", as used by some people, including several in this thread, has become synonymous with some sort of man-hating shrew. It's become an insult, a put-down, a dirty word to call someone--a female someone. "Feminists" are members of a suspect group--a subversive group--to several posters here.
It's not unlike the way people use the word "Liberal" to disparage someone, and I'm not sure I'd call myself "a liberal" although I've been called that in political threads at A2K. It's not that I'm not liberal in my thinking, it's just that I think of myself as a Democrat, and that's far more accurate in terms of my political/social leanings--not all Democrats are equally liberal, but I unfailingly find myself in agreement with the Democratic party platform issues and positions, and rather unfailingly vote Democratic, and that's been true all of my adult life. So, when someone else calls me a "liberal", I consider it a term revealing their bias, but not particularly accurate about my own.
I don't know if you saw my earlier post in this thread
http://able2know.org/topic/245743-33#post-5679756
You and I are pretty much of the same vintage. People like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were pretty much the first, and last, feminists to influence my thinking in a significant way. I surfed on that particular second wave of feminism. For me, it was all about advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men--about equal societal opportunity for women--both back then and now. Except, by now, we've conquered many of those obstacles--which were essentially civil rights battles--and firm gender roles have blurred, giving women much greater opportunities. We still face issues of concern to women, that do require advocacy, but my personal concerns now are more humanistic, and I do identify myself as a humanist.
Feminism, in my mind, has always been roughly divided into philosophical/academic feminists, who mostly write and lecture on gender issues, and social/activist feminists who are the organizers and grassroots political activists, and who feel they are part of a movement actively working to bring about change.
I have rarely paid any attention to philosophical/academic feminists --I've always found them rather boring, if I read them at all--and I've never thought they had much real-life impact on any social/political/economic changes or thinking--they may make for controversial discussion, with their provocative ideas, but not much else. Yet that group, particularly the most radical among them, seems to be most quoted as representative of "feminism", particularly by people who want to attack feminism and who want to use "feminists" as a scapegoat for the evils of modern man.
I haven't got the foggiest idea of the names of the best known people in that academic/philosophical feminist group, nor do I know what they are saying or writing these days, nor do I care. Feminism is now divided into so many philosophical camps, and such diversity of views and interests, none of them could truly be said to represent feminism as a whole--so to call someone a "feminist" or for someone to describe themselves as a "feminist" these days is next to meaningless without a great deal of clarification, and documentation, for why the term is appropriate, and which camp of feminism they represent. Feminism is now very much a conglomerate--not a unified group--and they're not all heading in the same direction. And I really don't feel like I'm part of that conglomerate, or that I participate in it in any way.
I still retain some interest in social activism for women, but not to the extent that I join groups, go to meetings, or send money to N.O.W. I do perk up my ears on issues of importance to women, issues involving unfair or discriminatory treatment of women, issues involving reproductive rights, issues involving women's health and welfare, issues involving women as caretakers, etc. And I'm very happy when I see women in positions of power and influence, like Sen. Claire McCaskill, or Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, focusing national and congressional attention on issues important to women, such as sexual assaults on college campuses and in the military, and I think people like that are the most influential activists for women. I'm also glad that groups like NOW have been in full support of LGBT rights--because it shows that their concerns aren't just for women, and also because the men's rights groups generally fail to include gay or bi-sexual men in their agenda.
As I said in my earlier post, I linked to above, I've never viewed feminism in terms of a gender battle, I've always seen it as a reactionary vs progressive struggle as woman simply moved forward to take their equal place socially/politically/economically in our society. And to a large extent we have accomplished that--but not entirely, and there are still issues to be addressed. But I think we've made enough strides and gains so that a formal movement--designated as "feminism" may no longer be necessary. And enough like-minded men now share the same goals for female equality and equity that we do, so "feminist" is no longer even a term referring to a woman with a particular point of view.
So, I don't know that I do have fear of the term "feminist", osso. I'm not sure that particular shoe fits me. Maybe it did in the 1960's and 1970's, but I think my feet have grown since then. I'm not sure I even care for today's style of shoes.
Aren't they adorable?
