If the majority of people I have encountered who call themselves feminists belong to a specific mindset - I have every reason to believe that is indeed what feminism is.
Someone coming along and saying, "Well, we might be in the minority, but they`re the wrong ones! Feminism is really this and this. They`re not really feminists." ... Why should I change my understanding of that word over to the meaning it carries for that minority? They are, ultimately, the minority. Their definition of the word carries less weight than how it is understood and practiced by the majority.

No, that is what I understand feminism to be. I do not think of women caring about world equality when I hear the word. Instead, I think of women giving themselves a pat on the back for getting back at men.

Your "feminism" is something I could possibly support. Only that is not what feminism means to me, nor is it what every woman I have encountered so far in real life seemed to believe feminism was. If you want me to think of "feminism" as something good, then try figuring out how to actually make it into something good outside of the select few "true" believers.

Tell them that, because they certainly thought they were. Who is right now? This is a self given title - not something you can test via science.

Well, basically men always used to be the people who DO things. Warriors? Men. Doctors? Men. Astronauts, scientists, inventors? The vast majority were men. Women had the option of letting the men do the heavy lifting, while sharing in the spoils. Wisely, they took it.

If there is any record of Caesar conquering Gaul and Mrs. Caesar saying oh no honey, please leave those nice Gauls alone, I've never seen it.

Basically you're applying 2008 assumptions to huge swathes of human history and it doesn't make sense.

Really? A little history for you my friend.

Gloria Steinem: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

Marilyn French: "All men are rapists, and that's all they are."

Andrea Dworkin: "Sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that one without the imminent possibility of the other is unthinkable and impossible."

Roseanne Barr, on reading that a Utah housewife stabbed her husband 37 times: "I admire her restraint."

Andrea Dworkin again: "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

Entirely representative quotes, not taken out of context, from some of the leading feminist thinkers of modern times (except Roseanne Barr who's just an obnoxious cow.)

lol, so if you started a ´Nyororin´ movement and I would copy your name, and do things in your name etc but would do totally different things you would not have approved and would have never done you would still considered me ´nyororin´.

besides, how come you automaticly assume the majority of the feminists are like the ones you encountered? why even say the majority of all feminists are like what you said worldwide and that the ones others described

what do you know about feminists all over(especially eastern europe) that are fighting for abortion rights? or simple things like equal pay etc a lot of women worldwide are still struggling and don´t have the basic rights which we have in Japan and the Netherlands......you live in Japan, just take a look at the countries surrounding you. there is another world outside most parts of the ´west´ where women don´t have simple rights.

here in the Netherlands, feminists only demand equal things regarding certain jobs that can be done by both male and female but are still dominated by males, which has a lot to do with certain aspects of ´discrimination´.

I know where just talking about a ´word´ and I don´t wanna dismiss your personal experience with some foolish broads but please don´t let that blind you from everything else around you. don´t forget about the feminists who really do fight for the rightious cause in many other parts of the world. I think they are the majority. from China to Mali.

Actually, you have taken some quotes out of context.

Let me break this down.


Gloria Steinem: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

I agree. No women actually needs a man at all. In modern society, women can make their own money. They don't need to have a partner as they are perfectly able to sustain themselves on their own. They do not need a man to support them.

Marilyn French: "All men are rapists, and that's all they are."

The full quote is actually 'Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.' She did not mean physically raping someone. In any case, I don't agree with this statement, and although she was a 'feminist' she was a radical one, she was not a speaker of the organisation, she just wrote novels.

Andrea Dworkin: 'Sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that one without the imminent possibility of the other is unthinkable and impossible.'

She's a radical feminist. They are minority of feminists that are extremist, I have already said I do not agree with what they believe. I am defending feminists here, not radical feminists.

Roseanne Barr, on reading that a Utah housewife stabbed her husband 37 times: "I admire her restraint."

That's an awful thing to say. If she did in fact say that then it's inexcusable, but does not represent the feminist group. You could also call her a radical feminist because of her extreme views.

Yeah, Dworkin was a radical feminist all right. And David Duke is a radical racist.

Miss Misa, I'm sorry but if that reply was intended to rebut my argument, it seems to have had the opposite effect. You've confirmed the intent and malice of three of the four quotes, and your support for the first one was lame. Just imagine the hue and cry if a man said, "All women are useless!"


Again, I'm all in favor of equal rights (and responsibilities) for women. In fact, I consider it an urgent priority. But feminism has less to do with this noble goal with each passing year, and I oppose it.

I don't understand how anyone can be against feminism? It's such a complex and vast realm of discussion and thought that to be against ALL of it means you're either ignorant of it's history and importance with regard to women's rights today or you're a male chauvinist.

Feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feminism is a discourse that involves various movements, theories, and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, advocate equality for women, and campaign for women's rights and interests. According to some, the history of feminism can be divided into three waves. The first wave was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the second was in the 1960s and 1970s and the third extends from the 1990s to the present. Feminist theory emerged from these feminist movements. It manifests through a variety of disciplines such as feminist geography, feminist history and feminist literary criticism.

Feminism has altered predominant perspectives in a wide range of areas within Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for women's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination.

During much of its history, most feminist movements and theories had leaders who were predominantly middle-class white women from Western Europe and North America. However, at least since Sojourner Truth's 1851 speech to American feminists, women of other races have proposed alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa, the Caribbean, parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia. Since that time, women in former European colonies and the Third World have proposed "Post-colonial" and "Third World" feminisms. Some Postcolonial feminists, such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty, are critical of Western feminism for being ethnocentric. Black feminists, such as Angela Davis and Alice Walker, share this view.

Since the 1980s Standpoint feminists argued that feminism should examine how women's experience of inequality relates to that of racism, homophobia, classism and colonization. In the late 1980s and 1990s postmodern feminists argued that gender roles are socially constructed, and that it is impossible to generalize women's experiences across cultures and histories....

No man needs a woman either, but in the end who would want to die alone and crusty. Its called a mutual understanding. The natural law of life: reproduction.

Okay, the societies have given females freedom and how do they act? They act just like males. Fantasising about men, famous people and all that.

The female world population is greater than the male. We may think naughty thoughts of our counterpart sisters, the females, but in the end it boils down to logical thinking. We know to give respect to receive respect.

Some crimes are committed over female influence, but then again her thinking is nasty, she must have had one dry vagina. Its a good extreme view to study but not to follow.

Female Jail awaits that thinking.

Note: I have not chosen sides, I have generalised my points. It the end it boils down to mutual understanding.

You are meant to study these views and draw a mutual conclusion out of them, not follow them.

Everyone deservers respect and quality, not matter of gender. Nobody escapes the law of nature, that's about it.

I never said a man needs a women either. The statement is not 'men are useless' the statement is that women do not need a man. The same as a man does not need a women. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

All those quotes were from radical feminists. I was not defending radical feminism, yet all those quotes came from radical feminists, so really it had no relevance to what I was defending and that was what I was trying to tell you.

There is nothing wrong with having a partner. There is nothing wrong with being alone. Everyone has different ideas of what they want life to be like. The point in feminism is to give people that choice. Many people do not want children. Many people would be happy to be without a partner. I couldn't care either way, and now I have that choice because I'm able to sustain myself without the support of a man, because in my country I am able to get a well paying job. It was not always like that.

Let me clarify what I think. I do not support radical feminism. As I have already said, judging feminists by radical feminists is like judging muslims by extremist muslim terrorists. They both say and do terrible things by twisting existing beliefs. I support any kind of feminism that promotes equality. I do not support the idea that women are better than men. I support equal pay and equal rights - some of which do not exist for women in some countries today. Feminism is not a bad thing, unless it is extremist, but I can assure you those are the minority, just as all extremists are the minority. There are bad apples within every organisation.

Coming back at me with quotes from radical feminists is pointless, I've already said I do not support radical feminism. That isn't the only type of feminism, nor is it the biggest, and if you are inclined to believe so then I can't think of any other way to describe you but ignorant.

You obviously have no understanding of feminism or you are using classic strawman tactics.

Also how does pulling a few quotes from self-proclaimed feminists make an argument? (Roseanne Barr? She's as much an authority on feminist thought as the Ku Klux Klan is an authoritative thought on American national identity)

As for Misa's support for the first one... how is that lame? I agree with it also. Perhaps you don't understand the context in which she is saying it or do you really believe that a women's identity and self worth is dependant on a man?

Ronin and Misa,
I appreciate that you don't endorse radical feminism. I'm glad to hear that.

However these are not simply "unrepresentative voices." These are some of the best known spokeswomen for feminism in the world. You ask any educated person to name a feminist and the names Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem will come up. You may not like it, I certainly don't, but they are the leading voices of the movement. Their words are taught in every "women's studies" course in every university in America. They are opinion shapers.

Have their opinions caused damage? Let's answer that question with a question:

In your view, who commits domestic violence more? Men or women?

It is impossible to answer that question with a lot of accuracy. Domestic violence is a very sensative issue, and it's a type of violence which commonly goes unreported.

Whether you consider them representative voices or not... feminism is not a religion and these women do not have the same role that say Jesus does with Christians. Any recognition these women get comes from their contribution to the feminist discourse rather than what they say is what is believed. I've not studied Womens studies or Feminism to any great depth but I imagine it to be the same as it is in the field of International Relations. You have folks like Francis Fukuyama, Sam Huntington, Edward Said who are all contributers to the field even though they all completely disagree with each other on many things.

Ronin, you're certainly right that feminism is probably a broad church. But you're confusing a movement with a field. Anthropology is a field; feminism is a movement, a particular point of view on anthropology (as well as sociology, among others).

There may well be feminists out there who don't believe women can claim to have been oppressed, and are in favor of equality of responsibilities as well as of rights. But I'm not aware of any.

MissMisa, I see you didn't take my bait on domestic violence ;) I'll leave it alone for now.

As a broad movement what aspect of it do you disagree with?

Whether I agree or disagree with some of the specifics which some feminists advocate. As far as I'm concerned, the overall goal of feminism is to promote women as equally deserving of the rights and freedoms that men have.

Just read the blog! Interesting stuff.

I can imagine anti-social LBH (Loser back home) types harbouring resentment towards feminism in the West and being attracted to Japanese society in which gender roles are perhaps (I've never been to Japan) more emphasised and where sexist attitudes could perhaps better thrive.

(Please note- I'm NOT saying that the more emphasised gender roles in Japan makes it an inherently sexist society.)

You stupidity belials your vision.

You need to get your knickers off the twist and calm your manners down. My post was not an attack, but simply a mirror image of those theorems. You may not believe in those theories but you do incline in supporting them as you are a female.

You have not lived in a suppressed environment to truly understand the thinking or pain that these women went though. To you feminism is just a luxury, something you can have passive pride on without truly knowing its purpose - just because you're female.

You trying to direct your attacking post towards me does little to support your cause. You see, you are not showing me understand and respect, so my choice here is to simply return that favour.

If you truly wish to understand both sides you must be open to both points of view.

All your ignorance has said is "Look, I am a modern girl and I want equality". You have quality, you have freedom and what's more it does not really effect you as you're not a working woman.

Now, if you had to get your big arse off your seat and visited a third world country you may realise why women are treated as vessels. I am not saying its right, but I am saying that they have to do it in order to prosper.

You see, you have a choice in this country but in many countries around the world that choice does not exist. It is not because women are suppressed, it is because they are raised in that cycle and therefore have to live within that cycle to prosper.

If your father earned £150 a month at his work place do you think you would actually have much of a choice but to help your family.

Your bigotry is beyond compare, you try to understand your fellow sisters but you have no such experience.

Do you see where these women come from and how modernisation of a social group changed their views and opinions.

Wow.

You're attacking her for views she doesn't even hold and have gone on to build a strawman.

And are you attempting to justify the oppression of women in third world societies by saying that it's necessary? I'm talking honour killings, female circumcision etc.

Obviously things like environment (social and natural) have to be taken into account but to suggest that feminism is null and void because the way in which it's applied in one society is not practical in another is kinda stupid.

Hey you, get a pair of tits and a vagina and go touch yourself.

Feminism was developed in a developed country.
Nothing like that is taken into account in today's ages.

Around the industrial era society became more civilised, women had the opportunity and bang! they received justice.

Well done to those women, they deserved it because I can only imagine how much they suffered.

As for now thought that's not really the case.

Those third world country victims you just mentioned were part of an extremist society.

All I said was its necessary to stay at home and do the chores if your father/husband earns minor money a month.

I have no idea where you got the rest though.

What's not really the case? Are you saying that discussion of feminist thought should not occur because according to you, it is no longer relevant?

Fair enough... gender roles might be necessary in some parts of the world but in many societies the line between necessity and perpetuation of male dominance is blurry. Though I don't understand why you brought it up if it wasn't to discredit feminism or Misa. (Which of course if you did... would be totally stupid as it's taking the discussion completely out of the context it's in)

I brought it up because people needs to evaluate their views par to condition. You have a student talking about feminism like she's the mother Terresa of feminism.

Feminism is not as relevant in this era as there's always a way to solve that issue or a person to see.

I am harsh in everything I do, if you don't like it you can piss off, nothing will change that.

Anyway, wtf, back to topic, don't try to sound smart when you're simply picking on random subjects.

My post was blatant attack on Misa, so I don't see why a white knight in shining armour needs to get involve or tell people it was an attack.

You got a cock, she doesn't need your help, therefore piss off.

As far as I'm concerned, Feminism is relevant in this era as gender roles and expectations still exist throughout the world and within Western society. Feminism may not primarily concern itself with the same issues today as they were 100, 50 or even 20 years ago, but in my opinion there will always be a need for feminism as long as the differences between men and women are pronounced beyond the obvious biological and physical ones.

Your post was a blatant attack on Misa and you're telling me to get back to topic?

As for Knight in shining armour? I'm sure Misa can speak for herself when she comes back online. I'm doing this because I'M taking issue with YOU are saying.

By the way... I'm male and consider myself a feminist.

I am sorry, but, seriously, how the fuck am I meant to take you seriously?

what would you consider the United States during the feminist era last century? u know the place where apartheid ruled and racism was at the order of the day.

hell Brittain/most of W-Europe weren´t exactly great societies last century dude.

everything slowly started to change after ww2....but some could still label them ´extremist´ societies.

know your history homie.

Our sperm populated your nation, so what are you trying to pick on.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

Being a feminist isn't being pro-female. It's simply about recognising that woman deserve the same rights and privileges men do.

If that makes you happy, anyway, you support your own cause, good on you. I wont bash your good intentions.

A male feminist still makes me chuckle though.

lol, what is my nation?

great way to ignore your own foolish arguments btw.

My argument is directed at Misa, and Misa only. I do not need cocks in this argument, mine will suffice.

Plus, why would I bother giving a sophisticated reply, waste of my time. I am ignoring you, not the argument.

Male feminists ftw.

Back in the day, I considered myself a feminist, dude and all. I did that for about the better portion of the day, before realizing I was wasting my time believing that women should have equal rights just as men do because they're a woman.

Should women get equal treatment in every aspect of life, just as men do. Absolutely, the answer's obvious. Should women victimize themselves extremely under ordinary circumstances in order to get to that point by? Hell no, it defeats the point of what feminism was created to do, which is create equal rights for everyone. Sure, Aristotle states that in order to get an uneven situation back into equilibrium, one needs to apply more force to the uneven side, but women have been doing that for years and we're still at a standstill.

The rest of my post was not aimed at you. Sorry, I should have made that clear.

The other two paragraphs were aimed at other people who kept repeating the same thing over and over at me, and not understanding my actual views.

I am not just some whiney little bitch who thinks everything in the world is bad and that my life is so terrible because I'm a women. Not once have I ever expressed that view so I really have no idea where the 'All your ignorance has said is "Look, I am a modern girl and I want equality". You have quality, you have freedom and what's more it does not really effect you as you're not a working woman.' has really come from. I've acknowledged the fact that I now have a choice over what I do, and I am grateful to past feminists because I have that choice, just like black people are grateful to Martin Luther King for helping giving them a choice. I don't have pride for something I haven't done. I am grateful, but not proud for something that is not my achievement.

Being blunt is all well and good, but when it becomes insulting I tend not to take it seriously.

Okie dokie, sorry if the other the replies after that seemed like attacks.
These 'males' trying to understand you only riled my sarcasm.

Anyway, you got a clear head on your shoulders, just a misunderstanding.

It's fine Bureda, don't worry about it.

I know, I am Bureda. I am just picking 'Aww' points. :D

I'm for multiculturalism and I'm not in a specific racial minority. I'm also for gay rights but I'm not gay.

What is so weird about being a feminist but not being a woman?

You're an idiot.

I think one of the problems people have with 'feminists' is that "in the field", there so many old mean hags that are mad at men and life in general. All movements have radicals though.


That being said, feminism is great, and has been very necessary for alot of great improvements in society. I think most people are "feminists" in some sense today. Unless you're not for equality, but hey..

Also there is nothing wrong with being a male feminist. Just like Ronin said.

Interesting response. I hope you'll post this comment on the blog as well.

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread any more than just asking questions because I feared that it would devolve into what it has -- a shouting match, insults being thrown around, and other nonsense.

I'll just comment briefly with the following points.

1) I have found the following definitions of feminism:
-- the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men (New Oxford English Dictionary)
-- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men (dictionary.com)
-- Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. (American Heritage Dictionary)
-- a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women (WordNet)
-- A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality. (Wiktionary)
-- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (Mirriam-Webster's)

I see nothing in those definitions nor in any other legitimate source which refers to hatred of men, matriarchy, or any of the other characterizations of feminism made by those who have identified as anti-feminist on this forum.

Being anti-feminist thus means to be against a doctrine, theory, or movement which supports equality of both sexes. Like racism or homophobia, anti-feminism can be manifested in many different ways, both overt and more subtle. It can be expressed in one's politics, language, or world view.

Those stating that they are opposed to sexual discrimination yet are proudly anti-feminist makes as much sense to me as those who claim to be against racial discrimination yet oppose the American civil rights movement. One cannot be for equality and be anti-feminist at the same time, no matter how one tries to twist it.

2) The word "radical" has several different meanings. It often is used with a negative connotation, but consider some of the definitions provided by the New Oxford Dictionary:

1 (esp. of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.
• forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples.
• characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.
2 advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist.
• (of a measure or policy) following or based on such principles.
3 of or relating to the root of something, in particular

Also consider this definition from Wikipedia:

Radical feminism is a "current" within feminism that focuses on patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships producing what radical feminists claim is a "male supremacy" that oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and to overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and what they see as male oppression of women, and calls for a radical reordering of society. Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.

Now, of course, one may agree or disagree with the constructs of this strand of feminism, and in fact, there has been debate about radical feminism within the feminist community. However, there is nothing in radical feminism which states that women are inherently better than men, that patriarchy should be replaced with matriarchy, or any of the other false characteristics that have been assigned to it. It is radical in that it seeks to overthrow patriarchy and radically reorganize society, but it does not advocate hatred or replacing one oppressive system with another.

Both Dworkin and MacKinnon as well as other radical feminists are often misquoted. The misquotes are either taken out of context or pulled out of thin air. Usually these misquotes come with no citations or any indication of where it was taken from.

3) I'm sorry that one woman on this forum had some negative experiences with women who looked down upon her work (raising children and being a homemaker are indeed work). And I'm sorry that these experiences helped lead her to identify as an anti-feminist. Feminism is giving women -- and men -- choices in their lives to do and be who they want. Still, we cannot ignore the fact that domestic work (child rearing, housekeeping, etc.) are overwhelmingly expected to be done by women and not men, and that when men help -- if they help at all -- it is almost always done to a lesser degree than the women, even if the women are working outside of the home. I am not stating this to be the case with the aforementioned woman, but just that overall it is something in society that cannot be ignored.

My view of feminism can be summed up by this simple quote: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Full equality and respect in all facets of human existence.

I'll leave you all to it then.

It isn`t the "goal" of feminism that is the issue - it`s the method taken to reach these goals.
I dropped out of the discussion when it dissolved into insult tossing - but I have yet to see anyone on here who said they were anti-feminist who was actually against the textbook definition of the movement. (ie. rights for women, etc.)
Instead, all those against it are against the actions taken to attempt to reach those ideals.

No matter how wonderful the core ideas are, if the followers are doing awful things - the movement is not going to look good. Even if it is pushing toward a truly good and respectable goal.

As a random example, let us say there is a group for eliminating car accidents. That is an all around positive goal, yes? But let us say that while two thirds of the group goes around trying to actively prevent accidents and spread information, the remaining much more vocal third decides that harassing people when they try to get in their cars or breaking those cars is a valid tactic. Yes, it does reduce the number of accidents - but there is obviously something wrong with those tactics. Even if that is the minority and the rest of the group doesn`t agree with their actions - unless they step up and actively try to stop those using the guerrilla tactics, they are indirectly supporting them and allowing them to be thought of as part of their group.

That`s the problem I have with feminism. Sure, it may be "radical" feminism that is a problem - but I don`t see any "regular" feminists stepping up and trying to stop them. They either turn a blind eye or say "Well, if it works!".

I may think that women deserve equality, but I`m not going to support a group that is willing to just let things go when it comes to women. Equality is the good with the bad - you can`t bash men (validly) if they are doing something discriminatory to women, then turn around and pretend that it`s okay (Or pretend not to even see it) if a woman does something similar to a man. That simply is not equal.

Two wrongs do not make a right.