Comments on: Why “feminism”?

By: FAQ: Why "feminism" and not just "humanism"? Or "equalism"? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary? « Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:09:57 +0000

[...] Andrea Rubenstein (Official Shrub.com Blog): Why “feminism”? [...]

By: Sour Duck

Sour Duck — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:13:24 +0000

I think alot of people are drawn to Humanism because it appears to be all-inclusive. For me, at least, it holds the initial lure of getting everyone on board, so to speak.

Interesting piece.

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:50:44 +0000

” To reject feminism is to cease honouring our feminist foremothers who did everything from win us the vote to help to get legislation passed that broadened the definition of rape to include married couples. To reject feminism, especially now with such a virulent anti-feminist atmosphere that has succeeded in passing off lies about feminism and equality as truths, would be to admit feminism has failed.”

Absolutely. I think it even goes one beyond that in that (rejecting or ignoring feminism in favor of adopting some new term or joining a more “non-stereotyped” one) positions itself to really not expose male privilege and sexism with the force that it should. i don’t know, it seems like softening the blow or something…to go out of the way to really not “offend” someone…saying “hey, it’s not that feminism i’m here to talk about…it’s something you haven’t heard of and it’s much more simple!” One thing I really don’t like about going the humanist/equalist route is that you don’t get to, like you said, pay respect to those that paved the way but also to critically think about why the Rushes and Leykises of the world have maligned feminism, how readily it was taken in by the audience and how the term has such meaning.

Reminds me of when the prof would start out asking all the students to quickly write down what words like “gender” “feminism” and “sexism” meant at the beginning of the course…and then seeing the definitions near the end. the “journey” with the word is as important as anything.

By: BetaCandy

BetaCandy — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:31:26 +0000

I didn’t embrace the term feminism (for the very arguments you present and counter) until I was in my 20’s and Rush Limpballs started his “feminazi” campaign of ridicule. That’s what made me start using the term – I didn’t want anyone thinking I avoided the term out of concern that some idiot talk show host might think I’m a wackjob.

Later, I realized the same point you make here about needing to respect the roots of the movement (however flawed) and demonstrate our continuing support of the goal (and recognition that we’re not there yet).

I would add that there is another trait that distinguishes misogyny/sexism from all the other “-isms”: it applies to a little over half the species, and spans every other -ism. It includes members of every race, class, religion, type of homelife, sexual orientation, disability status, mothers, non-mothers… that’s enough different types of people to try to protect and/or bring together. Throw in all the other -isms and it turns into a 17 ring circus.

It’s not like feminism denies the other movements or ignores when our interests overlap theirs. I think there’s a need for discreet movements in the struggle for equality. For example, I don’t think that every oppressed race suffers the exact same batch of iniquities, and lumping them all into one movement would likely leave someone without solutions.