Replacing "Feminism"

[Sarkhaan]

Really? It isn't the problem of feminism that many women do not identify by the movement because they interpret it as being pro-woman rather than pro-equality?

How is that not a MAJOR issue for feminism?

Because the next thing comes along, and then the next thing, and then the next thing.

Yes. That's how things typically work. We find an issue, we correct it, and then we identify a new issue. Like how first it was women being treated as property, then it was the lack of a vote, then it was the right to work, then it was the right to bodily integrity, then it was equal pay for equal work. One thing comes along, then the next, then the next. That's a good thing. It's called "progress", I'm told.

The women who don't identify with feminism don't fail to identify with it because it's got "fem" in the title and they think that means it's only about women.

Actually, that seems to be PRECISELY the reason they are citing. Taylor Swift recently citied exactly that reasoning: "I don't really think about things as guys versus girls. I never have. I was raised by parents who brought me up to think if you work as hard as guys, you can go far in life".

Now, people in this thread will call her childish, ignorant, or even stupid. But what they won't realize is that this very grandstanding beatdown of those who misinterpret the term, along with their masturbatory exhalation for their own personal enlightenment, is exactly WHY women are turning away from feminism: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, Marissa Mayer ("Her objection seems to be mostly about style, which she summarizes as “militant drive and sort of the chip on the shoulder.” When thinking about women, “there’s more good that comes out of positive energy around that than negative energy.”"-Slate), Katy Perry....influential women are rejecting "feminism", and all feminists do is scream "THAT ISN'T WHAT THE WORD MEANS! READ A DICTIONARY!", ignoring that words change meaning, not everyone has the same working knowledge, and differing opinions don't inherently make one ignorant, dumb, evil, or stupid. They do nothing to change interpretations: in fact, they frequently back up those "misconceptions", alienating potential allies.

They don't identify with feminism for a variety for other reasons - the name's just an excuse. Remove that excuse and you get onto the next one.

It's usually related to not understanding what the goals of the movement are. Which is hugely tied to its name.

Changing the name to make it more clear that it's about equality more widely than just for women won't make them any more likely to support the movement. The only thing that would do that would be fundamentally changing the movement to be about something other than being pro-equality.

Really? I, personally, would be far more likely to join a group that is clearly dedicated to equality, rather than appearing to be in favor of an group gaining superiority over another (and given feminism's history, this interpretation is FAR from being misguided.)

[Cannot think of a name]

Because while we run around chasing some semantic nonsense someone will find some other piece of minutia to obfuscate the issue rather than deal with the clear and easy to understand problem.

Right. Because words are just words, right? Why are we concerned about calling black people "niggers"? It's just a semantic shift to "negro" or "colored" or "black", or "African-American", right? If I understand your argument, it is that words are entirely interchangeable,

Gonna stop you right there. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this particular instance, this particular 'confusion' is made up. I thought I had been clear on this matter.

and that our interpretations of them don't alter meaning.

If these things happened in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a point, but they don't.

I'm shocked to hear that gender relations and issues are "clear" or "easy to understand" at all. Here, I thought they were highly complex issues involving millions of individuals with thousands of years informing it. Perhaps 50 years of feminist theory should give way to a new version of the battle for gender equality. It's too bad people seem attached to the name (in your case, the most aggressive and at times outright rude I have memory of) rather than the spirit.

The concept, not the issue itself. Different things.

[Sarkhaan]

It's more "I might join if I knew what the movement was actually about".

Sort of like how if someone offered you a job on "Wall St.", and you had never heard of it before, you might think you were building walls. Seems stupid to those "in the know", and those who are ignorant become derided and written off (as seen in this thread, where "feminists" claim to not have the time to educate others).

Because if you're so directly obtuse as to not know that streets have names that are not descriptive, that you literally think it's a "Wall street," then you are making a concerted effort to not understand, which is not the same thing as being confused. And so it is with getting 'confused' about feminism.

You assume that everyone who misunderstands the term is "confused" and not confused. In doing so, one will alienate many possible supporters by implying that they are acting militantly, or at the very least in poor faith. One will then not clearly explain the terms and situations in what you claim is a "clear and simple" problem, leaving the other person still confused, and now insulted.

Now THAT is how we win over hearts and minds, amirite?

[Sarkhaan]

And when men stop being highly hostile to the gender equality issues raised by feminism, your criticism will have salience.

But what you're asking is stupid. It's all take, and no give with you. You want women to drop everything and do what you wish with no expectation of reciprocity. If men's rights groups want women to stop opposing them, then they should stop siding with reactionaries, or being ractionaries themselves. End of discussion.

What. The. Fuck.

It's all take and no give with ME?
You don't know me. Don't make that big of an assumption.

Men do not have a hive mind any more than women. Men are not "highly hostile" to "gender equality issues raised by feminism".

Try again. And try not to mutilate my argument while relying on the same bullshit stereotypes and generalizations feminism fights against.

[Sarkhaan]

And that's fair. But the language, in my opinion, masks that the issue being contested is less "masculinity", which in our language is generally set in opposition to "feminine", and more "patriarchy" (and, more specific, "this form of patriarchal hierarchy"). It masks that men suffer under this system, and misrepresents where the conflict is.

Only if you have an abysmally low expectation of the human brain's ability to process nuance. I expect people to understand that feminism is an appropriate term for a gender equality movement as long as women are the disproportianately disadvantaged gender, and that that in no way prevents this movement from being able to identify and ameliorate instances of gender roles hurting men. However, if some people can't look past the fem-prefix or think that men currently merit just as much priority in a gender equality movement, I'm not going to take their whining all that seriously.

Regardless of how verbosely some of these individuals go about their whining.

And, yet again, you decide that winning allies is less important than winning battles.

Who is going to help you win, I wonder.
I'm also curious why injustice towards women is worse than injustice towards men. Yes, all injustice merits equal priority: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

[Tahar Joblis]

And when men stop being highly hostile to the gender equality issues raised by feminism, your criticism will have salience.

When so-called "feminists" stop being highly hostile to gender equality issues that negatively impact men, your criticism of Sarkhaan's criticism could have salience.

But they aren't going to stop any time soon. Feminism does not police itself for misandry, and the presence of enthusiastic misandrists within the ranks has meant and will continue to mean that feminism as a movement will tend to ignore issues that negatively impact men; will in some cases even exacerbate or generate those issues.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because if you're so directly obtuse as to not know that streets have names that are not descriptive, that you literally think it's a "Wall street," then you are making a concerted effort to not understand, which is not the same thing as being confused. And so it is with getting 'confused' about feminism.

You assume that everyone who misunderstands the term is "confused" and not confused. In doing so, one will alienate many possible supporters by implying that they are acting militantly, or at the very least in poor faith. One will then not clearly explain the terms and situations in what you claim is a "clear and simple" problem, leaving the other person still confused, and now insulted.

Now THAT is how we win over hearts and minds, amirite?

You ever hear of a 'concern troll'?

The idea is to pretend to be all about 'the cause' but then create 'concern,' to sew in this idea that things just aren't right...

I'm sorry, but you can cry to the winds about this idea that if we just changed the name, if we just gave the men a block to play with too (and I'm saying this as a dude), then it would all be just fine, but it just stinks of concern trolling.

Frankly, I'm just not that willing to admit to being that stupid. I'm not that willing to admit to being that fucking needy that when trying to correct years of patriarchal society that you have to pat me on the head and say, "Don't worry...we'll fix the problems it causes for you, too, you delicate little flower." Maybe instead of wringing our hands and chasing our tail waiting for those who oppose this to change their tune from 'what about men?' to 'too much equality' or whatever other nonsense that we then have to re-re-brand we should stand up for ourselves and our own sense of personal intellect and go, "Excuse me, I'm not that stupid and quit trying to pretend that I am."

[Tahar Joblis]

Gonna stop you right there. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this particular instance, this particular 'confusion' is made up.

"Made up" by the behavior of so-called "feminists" who refuse to engage with issues of inequality which they do not see as negatively affecting women; who evaluate issues through a biased lens of presuming women must in all ways have it worse; and in some cases, are outright misandrist.

The fact of the matter is that the "fem" in "feminism" can and has been used as an excuse for refusing to deal with issues tied to gender equality; can and has been used as an excuse for saying men aren't allowed to use the label "feminist" to refer to themselves; can and has been used as an excuse for working narrowly to advance the interests of women in areas where women are not disadvantaged, e.g., child custody disputes and criminal sentencing.

[Sarkhaan]

Right. Because words are just words, right? Why are we concerned about calling black people "niggers"? It's just a semantic shift to "negro" or "colored" or "black", or "African-American", right? If I understand your argument, it is that words are entirely interchangeable,

Gonna stop you right there. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this particular instance, this particular 'confusion' is made up. I thought I had been clear on this matter.

And again, I argue that the "confusion" is not "confusion". It is confusion. Same as how one might call a black person "African-American", when they are indeed Haitian. That person could take the snippy "HOW DARE YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!" attitude that many have taken in this thread, convinced in their self-righteousness that they are truly enlightened and such a dullard is unworthy of their time. But then, no one learns anything, and both feel more strongly about their opinions.

Why is anyone who doesn't understand the term inherently someone deserving of your derision? It's hard to make friends and win battles with that attitude.

and that our interpretations of them don't alter meaning.

If these things happened in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a point, but they don't.

Except that sentence started with "If I understand your argument". I'm not sure how a sentence that starts with that phrase leads to you ascribing that argument to me...

I'm shocked to hear that gender relations and issues are "clear" or "easy to understand" at all. Here, I thought they were highly complex issues involving millions of individuals with thousands of years informing it. Perhaps 50 years of feminist theory should give way to a new version of the battle for gender equality. It's too bad people seem attached to the name (in your case, the most aggressive and at times outright rude I have memory of) rather than the spirit.

The concept, not the issue itself. Different things.

[/quote]I'd argue that the concept is more complex that you claim. But please, since it hasn't been discussed, what is the "clear" and "easy to understand" concept?

[Nadkor]

Because the next thing comes along, and then the next thing, and then the next thing.

Yes. That's how things typically work. We find an issue, we correct it, and then we identify a new issue. Like how first it was women being treated as property, then it was the lack of a vote, then it was the right to work, then it was the right to bodily integrity, then it was equal pay for equal work. One thing comes along, then the next, then the next. That's a good thing. It's called "progress", I'm told.

Clearly not what I'm talking about, but your apparent (deliberate or not) inability to realise this by looking at the context perhaps demonstrates precisely why you believe that women are incapable of understanding the word "feminism" in context.

Really? I, personally, would be far more likely to join a group that is clearly dedicated to equality, rather than appearing to be in favor of an group gaining superiority over another (and given feminism's history, this interpretation is FAR from being misguided.)

And if your concern with feminism is that it's got "fem" in the title, if you're so hung up on the name that you have problems with getting involved even once it's explained to you what the movement is about and why it's "fem", then you probably weren't that into it anyway and there are people of significantly more relevance and with significantly more interest that I could spend my time dealing with.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Only if you have an abysmally low expectation of the human brain's ability to process nuance. I expect people to understand that feminism is an appropriate term for a gender equality movement as long as women are the disproportianately disadvantaged gender, and that that in no way prevents this movement from being able to identify and ameliorate instances of gender roles hurting men. However, if some people can't look past the fem-prefix or think that men currently merit just as much priority in a gender equality movement, I'm not going to take their whining all that seriously.

Regardless of how verbosely some of these individuals go about their whining.

And, yet again, you decide that winning allies is less important than winning battles.

Who is going to help you win, I wonder.

Why on earth would feminists want allies that won't stop whining about the "fem" prefix and make their support entirely conditional on re-defining, re-labelling and changing the priorities of the movement? That sounds fucking awful.

I'm also curious why injustice towards women is worse than injustice towards men. Yes, all injustice merits equal priority: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

A facile and juvenile platitude often projected as an enlightened position to take. It's not. It's actually moronic. The thing is, if certain groups suffer disproportianate injustice, it simply makes sense to prioritize ameliorating the injustices perpetuated on that group. That is not the same thing as saying that other groups also don't suffer inconveniences, and that they merit no attention whatsoever - but to pretend that all groups suffer equally, and to allocate resources and time on such premises is dishonest, inefficient and stupid.

[Nadkor]

Why on earth would feminists want allies that won't stop whining about the "fem" prefix and make their support entirely conditional on re-defining, re-labelling and changing the priorities of the movement? That sounds fucking awful.

Precisely this.

[Cannot think of a name]

Gonna stop you right there. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that this particular instance, this particular 'confusion' is made up. I thought I had been clear on this matter.

And again, I argue that the "confusion" is not "confusion". It is confusion. Same as how one might call a black person "African-American", when they are indeed Haitian. That person could take the snippy "HOW DARE YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!" attitude that many have taken in this thread, convinced in their self-righteousness that they are truly enlightened and such a dullard is unworthy of their time. But then, no one learns anything, and both feel more strongly about their opinions.

Except that's really an unapplicable comparison. You can't just grab things that people might get wrong and go, "SEE!?! It's the same thing!"

Why is anyone who doesn't understand the term inherently someone deserving of your derision?

Because being directly obtuse is an annoying way to pretend to have an argument. When someone asks, "Why is it called feminism when it's about gender equality?" it's just not that hard to go, "Well look, it's two parties. Which one is unequal?" When you can trace most of the "but men have problems too!" issues as side effects of the patriarchy, unintended or otherwise, it becomes clear why it's called what it is. It's identifying the problem. I don't need the pat on the head to tell me I get to play too. I'm not that fragile.

It's hard to make friends and win battles with that attitude.

I have yet to be convinced that the architects of this confusion have any intention of being 'friends.' That's the thing, you or anyone else has yet to sell me that this 'confusion' is anything but made up.

If these things happened in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a point, but they don't.

Except that sentence started with "If I understand your argument". I'm not sure how a sentence that starts with that phrase leads to you ascribing that argument to me...

The concept, not the issue itself. Different things.

I'd argue that the concept is more complex that you claim. But please, since it hasn't been discussed, what is the "clear" and "easy to understand" concept?[/quote]
What part is confusing you?

[Sarkhaan]

Yes. That's how things typically work. We find an issue, we correct it, and then we identify a new issue. Like how first it was women being treated as property, then it was the lack of a vote, then it was the right to work, then it was the right to bodily integrity, then it was equal pay for equal work. One thing comes along, then the next, then the next. That's a good thing. It's called "progress", I'm told.

Clearly not what I'm talking about, but your apparent (deliberate or not) inability to realise this by looking at the context perhaps demonstrates precisely why you believe that women are incapable of understanding the word "feminism" in context.

I enjoy that use of "clearly". Yes, to yourself, it was perfectly clear. It must be MY misunderstanding and not YOUR lack of clarity. I also appreciate the assumption of militancy on my part for a simple misunderstanding. It's like your taking my argument against the use of "feminism" and the behavior of many feminists and using it right back on me.

I'm not sure where I said that "women" are "incapable" of understanding the word feminism in context.
Please, do quote that for me. I don't think I've said anything remotely close to that.


Actually, my argument would be more targeted at men no understanding it in context, but really, its that PEOPLE aren't getting it. Full stop. Men, women, trannys, queers...the term isn't clearly and accurately portraying the goals and aims of the movement, and when called out on this, it's assumed that we must be anti-feminist: hence your assumption that I even come close to thinking "women are incapable of understanding".

Really? I, personally, would be far more likely to join a group that is clearly dedicated to equality, rather than appearing to be in favor of an group gaining superiority over another (and given feminism's history, this interpretation is FAR from being misguided.)

And if your concern with feminism is that it's got "fem" in the title, if you're so hung up on the name that you have problems with getting involved even once it's explained to you what the movement is about and why it's "fem", then you probably weren't that into it anyway and there are people of significantly more relevance and with significantly more interest that I could spend my time dealing with.

[/quote]
I'm glad you assume I'm not involved in the movement. I fundraised for Planned Parenthood. I worked with the ACLU. But please, keep assuming that just because I propose a friggin' change in terminology, that I must be all out opposed to the movement.

Perhaps Marissa Mayer was right.

[EnragedMaldivians]

So, like I said, you do have absylmally low expectations of the human brain's ability to process nuance?

Your whole arguement basically boils down to you thinking that people are too stupid to understand the context of why feminism is an appropriate label for a gender equality movement.

So, again, what does feminism gain by trying to make allies that are either mind-boggingly stupid or, if they're indeed capable of grasping the relevant nuances, have self-serving priorities.

[Sarkhaan]

And, yet again, you decide that winning allies is less important than winning battles.

Who is going to help you win, I wonder.

Why on earth would feminists want allies that won't stop whining about the "fem" prefix and make their support entirely conditional on re-defining, re-labelling and changing the priorities of the movement? That sounds fucking awful.

I never argued for re-defining or changing the priorities of the movement. Ever. I'd love it if people could debate me, the person typing to you, and not the "me", anti-feminist who hasn't worked on women's rights campaigns who wants to use his manpenis to dictate what the female hivemind should do.

Alas, I chose to debate it on NS.

I'm also curious why injustice towards women is worse than injustice towards men. Yes, all injustice merits equal priority: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

A facile and juvenile platitude often projected as an enlightened position to take. It's not. It's actually moronic. The thing is, if certain groups suffer disproportianate injustice, it simply makes sense to prioritize ameliorating the injustices perpetuated on that group. That is not the same thing as saying that other groups also don't suffer inconveniences, and that they merit no attention whatsoever - but to pretend that all groups suffer equally, and to allocate resources and time on such premises is dishonest, inefficient and stupid.

[/quote]
In the end, it's individuals suffering: not classes, nor races, nor ethnicities, nor genders. Individuals. And that is wrong. Period. Matt Shephard being beaten and tied to a fence post, left to die, was not a crime against all gays. It was a crime against that man.

Just because one man has lost his arm does not mean that the man who has lost only a finger has not suffered a tragedy, nor should he remain silent. You're comparing tragedies, and that's a dangerous game.

[Choronzon]

I think rather than changing or replacing feminism people should learn what the fuck it actually is and educate themselves, rather than repeat the talking points and definitions laid down by such knowledgeable champions of women's rights like Rush Limbaugh.

[Ashmoria]

its annoying enough when people inside the various movements fight over semantics. we shouldn't have to put up with outsiders telling insiders what words they should use.

I'm an outsider?

News to me.

how many feminist organizations are you a member of and why aren't you bringing this question up there instead of here where it is useless?

[Aurora Novus]

*bashes his head against the wall violently*Oh my freaking God how many times do I have to remind people that feminism IS ABOUT EQUALITY!

Equality for whom? Feminism is much more than just "let's make everyone equal with one another". It's a movement which deals specifically with women's issues. That right there can be a reason why some would not identify as "Feminist". Fighting for women's rights does not automatically make one a Feminist. Further more, simply saying "it's about equality" is an extremely narrow view of Feminism. There is a lot more to it than that. Like any movement, it has claims about history and modern society which some people may take issue with and dispute. The people in the movement, even if the ideals may be sound, could behave in such a manner as to push away new people. I've encountered this plenty of times before, dealing with the near-religious dogmatism of some Feminists, and their inability to think outside of their ideological worldview, and volatile response when you challenge it. People may also disagree with the way in which Feminism goes about solving the issues it sees.


So, there are plenty of reasons to be opposed to Feminism, other than "You're an equality hating misogynist pig!!", as you imply with your misleading claim.

[Nadkor]

Clearly not what I'm talking about, but your apparent (deliberate or not) inability to realise this by looking at the context perhaps demonstrates precisely why you believe that women are incapable of understanding the word "feminism" in context.

I enjoy that use of "clearly". Yes, to yourself, it was perfectly clear. It must be MY misunderstanding and not YOUR lack of clarity. I also appreciate the assumption of militancy on my part for a simple misunderstanding. It's like your taking my argument against the use of "feminism" and the behavior of many feminists and using it right back on me.

I'm not sure where I said that "women" are "incapable" of understanding the word feminism in context.
Please, do quote that for me. I don't think I've said anything remotely close to that.

You have implied it throughout your attempts to make some kind of actual point that is anything beyond "yeah, but people won't understand what it means!!", despite the meaning being perfectly clear once the context is pointed out. CToaN and EnragedMaldivians have both also picked up on this.

If the context is explained it's perfectly clear why it's called feminism. If you think that women are incapable of understanding that then you think that women are incapable of understanding the word in context.

If someone outright refuses to accept that feminism isn't just about women then they have much bigger problems with feminism than the name. And, you know what? The problems they have with feminism won't disappear if we start using a different name.

Actually, my argument would be more targeted at men no understanding it in context, but really, its that PEOPLE aren't getting it. Full stop. Men, women, trannys, queers...the term isn't clearly and accurately portraying the goals and aims of the movement, and when called out on this, it's assumed that we must be anti-feminist: hence your assumption that I even come close to thinking "women are incapable of understanding".

We were talking specifically about women who didn't buy into feminism because it says "fem" in the name. Have you forgotten?

I'm glad you assume I'm not involved in the movement. I fundraised for Planned Parenthood. I worked with the ACLU. But please, keep assuming that just because I propose a friggin' change in terminology, that I must be all out opposed to the movement.

Perhaps Marissa Mayer was right.

Let me replace the paragraph you quoted with slightly clearer language:

And if a person's concern with feminism is that it's got "fem" in the title, if they're so hung up on the name that they have problems with getting involved even once it's explained to them what the movement is about and why it's "fem", then they probably weren't that into it anyway and there are people of significantly more relevance and with significantly more interest that I could spend my time dealing with.

If you feel that this still describes you and you don't like it? Tough shit.

[Nadkor]

I think rather than changing or replacing feminism people should learn what the fuck it actually is and educate themselves, rather than repeat the talking points and definitions laid down by such knowledgeable champions of women's rights like Rush Limbaugh.

This also.

[Nadkor]

Because being directly obtuse is an annoying way to pretend to have an argument. When someone asks, "Why is it called feminism when it's about gender equality?" it's just not that hard to go, "Well look, it's two parties. Which one is unequal?" When you can trace most of the "but men have problems too!" issues as side effects of the patriarchy, unintended or otherwise, it becomes clear why it's called what it is. It's identifying the problem. I don't need the pat on the head to tell me I get to play too. I'm not that fragile.

...

I have yet to be convinced that the architects of this confusion have any intention of being 'friends.' That's the thing, you or anyone else has yet to sell me that this 'confusion' is anything but made up.

And this.

[Sarkhaan]

So, like I said, you do have absylmally low expectations of the human brain's ability to process nuance?

Your whole arguement basically boils down to you thinking that people are too stupid to understand the context of why feminism is an appropriate label for a gender equality movement.

So, again, what does feminism gain by trying to make allies that are either mind-boggingly stupid or, if they're indeed capable of grasping the relevant nuances, have self-serving priorities.

No, it doesn't.
My argument boils down to "what is a word?"

Do words mean what we wish they would mean, do they mean what we individually think they mean, or do they mean what they mean based on context and actual usage or from other's individual understanding?

In my opinion, it is a mix of these: it's finding the middle ground where the image in my head most closely matches the image in someone else's head, resulting in understanding.

The issue with the word "feminism" is that, to those who are a part of the movement or have a good understanding of the movement, it means "equality". To those with less understanding, it means "female superiority". The problem becomes amplified when, as shown in this thread, people are so attached to the term that they are unwilling to talk to another person to have those images align. Additionally, there is a lot of baggage tied to the term "feminism": they have, at different times, been rabidly anti-male and just as rabidly anti-transgender. The ideals of third-wave feminism are great: equality and equity, regardless of sex, sexuality, gender, or gender presentation. The problem is what I described above: feminism to many does not mean this, and moreover, feminists have been unwilling, unable, or a combination of both, to sit down with potential allies and discuss this without coming off as condescending, rude, or otherwise degrading to the person to whom they are speaking.

I'm glad feminists are convinced that we can win without gaining any new allies. I'm thrilled that we have that confidence. However, without a word change or massive attitude shift, I don't see the movement being successful. Gay rights became successful when we gained straight allies. Black rights became successful with white allies. I'm not sure how feminism can create change without being able to convince more and more people that they these are a) issues and b) issues that need to be addressed for the good of all.

[Sarkhaan]

I'm an outsider?

News to me.

how many feminist organizations are you a member of and why aren't you bringing this question up there instead of here where it is useless?

Planned Parenthood, ACLU. Fundraised for both on the streets, and still give money to both organizations. Sadly, I am limited in funds, but there are a few others I'm considering giving to when I cancel my Environment California donation.

But I wasn't aware that what made one a "feminist" was joining a feminist organization. How sad for all those people who fought before there were such organizations that they weren't "real" feminists.

Why am I not bringing it up there? Because it isn't a fully fleshed out idea, nor do I have the time nor resources to bring it up to them.

Why am I bringing it up here? Because it is a topic I had interest in and wanted to debate. Why do we bring up anything here?

[Choronzon]

I'm glad feminists are convinced that we can win without gaining any new allies.

No one has said that.

What has been said is that we don't need to change the name to appease people who wouldn't join anyway, and that there has been a strategic, concentrated effort by certain kinds of people (In America we call them "Republicans") to make feminism a dirty word. There has been a deliberate attempt by some to make sure that when people think of the word "feminism" the only associations they make are all the negative ones. Because some people are terrified of what feminism represents. What it actually represents, not what they try to make it out to be either through political opportunism or ignorance.

In short I, and many others, refuse to discuss feminism on misogynist's terms. The solution is education, not acquiescence.