gatekeepers of a label like "Feminism" and ruthlessly denigrated and mocked those who would argue for a more inclusive label on things like heterosexual PIV sex (i.e. 'trauma bonding with the oppressor') or "The Patriarchy" or censorship or women who like to wear bikinis or whatever-it-is...

it's silly for them to turn around and complain that now "the word has been turned into something associated with intolerance and negativity".

Um, yeah! Which is exactly what the sex positive and 3rd wavers have been saying, as you make fun of them and belittle their opinions.

It's like the objections to "sex positive" followed by "...that implies that others are sex negative, and no one is sex negative!" ...followed by a 3 page position paper on why sex is a horrible, terrible, oppressive institution that should be avoided at all costs.

In my opinion, if you are X you get to define what X means at point Y in time provided that those who align with X generally agree and support that definition of what X is.

Feminism IS a word ORIGINALLY aligned with the ideas of equality in opportunity and freedom from traditional roles and the freedom to pursue one's own sexuality without the burden of existing roles or admonition.

I think it is why I consider myself a feminist at all. Who could argue against the idea of equality for women without sounding excruciatingly stupid?

However, it is not a word I feel married to. As it stands, the current definition of feminism is defined by, as you say, advocacy rather than equality.

Where it mentions equality is in equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity. For a host of both logical reasons and reasons of simple admiration of the idea of freedom of choice, I cannot get with this plank of the current feminist platform.

It buries itself in a particularly paradoxical concept, that adult women are strong and don't need help or coercion to make their own decisions, and at the same time cannot legitimately consent to sex with a man, implying an inherent weakness of mind which negates the original (and I believe CORRECT) assertion. That modern feminism states that "you are free to choose anything, so long as you make the right choice" reduces women to children, and all in the interest of resisting a "patriarchy", not mentioning the fact that "matriarchy", should it exist, is a concept equally as odious.

Like I said, it isn't a word that I feel married to. I think it is a label used (at least by me) as shorthand for a system of philosophical principles:

1. Equality between the sexes with regard to opportunity, even if outcomes do not reflect the equality of opportunity.
2. Individuals, regardless of gender, should not be disqualified from any vocation or avocation provided they show the skill required to perform the work and should be paid equally for equal work.
3. Freedom to choose a role for oneself even if it goes against traditional gender roles.
4. Working for the acceptance of this equality, and all that it must, by definition, entail amongst the population at large.
5. Punishing those who engage in brutality, violence, or discrimination against those of another gender to the fullest extent the law permits.

Note that these are in no particular order, and note that this set of principles does not single out women in particular. On some level, feminism as a label, at least from my standpoint, is code for "humanism" while at the same time acknowledging the current state of tilt in its lack of realization.

The point being that if feminism does not embrace these principles, I will gladly stop using that label in favor of one which better reflects underlying principles. If modern "2nd wave" feminism, or whatever it's properly called, feels comfortable assuming the label for what is, as you stated, advocacy by, of, and ultimately only for women (and a rather intellectually dishonest form of advocacy, I'll add), then I cannot legitimately call myself a feminist. As I said, they have the right to define their own terms. Right now, they own it, and they are welcome to define it in any way that suits them.

Until a more sensible brand of feminism comes along which underscores the idea that none of us are truly free unless we all are, humanist suits me just fine. I completely understand Marissa's trepidation with regard to using the term to self-identify given what modern feminism is. I hold nothing negative to her decision.

1) At which point are we responsible for our outcomes? Boys graduate from high school in smaller numbers, with poorer grades, and are more likely to be medicated for behavioral problems than girls. Does this represent a deficit of opportunity or a deficit of outcomes?

2) What are your thoughts about the lack of men in college? What are your thoughts about the disproportionate number of men who die on the job? The number of men who are incarcerated? The male-only draft? Clearly, these reflect inequalities in our society, right? Feminism is (and in my view should be) silent about these issues. The national organization of Women describes feminism as "equality for women". I think that "equality for men" is an equally valid goal, but I don't expect the NOW to create it.

Let me ask this in another way; are you a feminist because you believe in equality for men, or are you a feminist who ALSO believes in equality for men? If the former, you are in the minority of feminists, making your view irrelevant. If the latter, I think your policy priorities are going to be irreconcilably conflicted. "More scholarships for girls? Yay!, But what about boys? More scholarships for them! Yay!"

I dislike "humanist". How does one effectively advocate for *everything*. I think the optimum situation is population "A" advocating for their interests and population "B" advocating for theirs. The result is a kind of macro-negotiation which eventually reaches an appropriate equilibrium. I don't currently see two parties at this negotiation. I see one party who uses a lot of their energies proactively attacking potential counterparts.

I may fail because I'm not entirely sure what is driving them, so my answers may lack relevancy to your interests. Just putting that up front to prevent as much disappointment as there might be.

Equality for men? Equality for women? Those two phrases don't even make sense except in the Orwellian sense. Equality is... equality. If women are equal to men, then by corollary men must be equal to women. It either is the condition of both or the condition of neither. So making a distinction between wanting equality for men or for women has no meaning. When achieved for one it is achieved for the other.

This was the once stated goal of feminism. By realizing the freedom of women, you do, by corollary, realize the freedom of men from the very same role system which may benefit them in some sense, but offer no alternatives, and be damned the outliers who don't want those roles.

My problem with the word these days is that equality is so far afield of what is being suggested that the original meaning of the word is lost. This is the feminist I am, the once and future feminist, certainly not what passes for it now. I'm sure there are those who would denounce me as some MRA type for daring stand against dogmatic radical anti-choice sex-averse feminism that seems to dominate the modern definition.

Just FYI, ultimately humanism is what we strive for. You can't have extreme advocacy in perpetuity and ever get to equilibrium. The best you get is a highly underdamped system that spends nanoseconds at the equilibrium point before it swings wildly in the other direction. A society perpetually hobbled by gender backlash of one form or another. Humanism may point to everything, but then again, everything originates with the individual. Ultimately, it is freedom for the individual to make the choices in life free of expectation of gender, race, creed or other largely superficial construct and have the equal opportunity to realize an outcome (not a guarantee to a specific one) which is what defines the word humanism in my mind.

So. I've effectively evaded your two questions up front... until now.

That I will answer in the following manner. You may consider it evasive, but it is the only answer I could come up with.

You can never guarantee outcomes. You can only guarantee opportunities. Right now, at least from the standpoint of education, we are experimenting (stupidly) with the former. You can't experiment with the former without introducing disequity in the latter.

The laundry list of educational problems with boys and men is a direct result of this artificial manipulation of outcomes, where the answer most useful to students of all types is establishing equality of opportunity. Sure, you may find that outcomes are not equal. But there are a PILE of reasons for that, including the reinforcement of traditional roles by forces outside of the educational system, disinterest or differing interest, socioeconomic class, parental expectations, and on and on which have precisely DICK to do with gender and are centered around individual situations and tastes. Of course, right now, that sort of thing is the last thing our educational system wants to deal with, the messiness of an individual. All they seem to be equipped with is the educational equivalent of sledgehammers when the problem requires a lighter, more deft touch than that.

There are also the other outcomes you mentioned. If more women took hazardous jobs, they'd die on the job just like men do. As I understand it, the pay (used to overcome the negative of the aforementioned hazard) is very good. If a woman wants to trade a long life for better pay and the possibility of an early death, then there is no problem. If they don't, does that mean that this statistic is any more meaningful? So women aren't choosing high hazard work. Are you suggesting that merely having the opportunity is not enough?

And the whole men incarcerated thing is more amorphous than a gender difference considering that the preponderance of people in jail in general these days are non-violent drug offenders who, with any kind of decent and sensible drug policy, wouldn't be there in the first place. This would radically change the landscape of who is or isn't in prison. If there was appreciable difference after that, perhaps we'd have an issue. Let's correct the prison-industrial complex thing first, then we can come back to it.

The draft I'm with you on. When I say equality of opportunity, going along with that is an equality of responsibility. There is nothing keeping women legitimately from combat. Many women have complained about how they are still not granted equality on the battlefield. Equality means equality in the not-so-good things too, does it not?

To address your final point, I too see one party who uses a lot of their energies proactively attacking. But I don't think it is potential counterparts they are attacking. To be a counterpart means that they should be of common goal. Since when are advocacy and equality common goals? I have never been under the misapprehension that modern feminism is interested in the slightest in equality. They see equality feminists like me as precisely anathema to their goals of advocacy.

Hope this helps.

My observation of human nature is this; if you put two kids in front of a single cookie and tell them to share it fairly, the one breaking it in half will do a conscientious job making as equal shares. If you do the same with two groups of kids, one will walk away with the whole cookie, unless the other group demands fairness.

Humanism breaks down at the macro-scale. "We" will always try to exploit "them", and they will reciprocate. Because of that, feminism needs a counterbalance within the democratic party.

On the left side of american society, we have feminists who want the whole cookie, negotiating with feminists who want fairness too. In that ecosystem, where's the equilibrium point going to settle? I'd prefer an underdamped system to one in which the needle never reaches zero.

I understand a lot of the social psychology; unconsciously, we define ourselves by what we oppose. Republicans represent the top-down, don't question authority, appeal to tradition etc, strongly associated with male leadership. Therefore there's a strong desire within us to represent the opposite. From a pragmatic electoral perspective, this carries a big downside. Married women vote more like men than like single women. Perhaps they see their fortunes tied more intimately to the economic interests of their husbands, than to their own social interests. For whatever reason, when women marry they adopt the voting patterns of their husbands.

We accept the paradigm of being anti-man at our peril, and when laughter is the response to the observation that dangerous jobs pay more than safe ones, that's exactly what it is.

I agree with your point about overemphasis on outcomes. Men and women make their own choices for their own reasons. As groups, they tend to choose in predictable ways. To a degree* those choices have unavoidable consequences, and the pay gap vs the early death gap are two of those consequences. Looking at the outcomes only neglects the reality that individual autonomy created them.

When I look at education, it is apparent that we don't have equality of opportunity. For one example, young men graduating from high school have far fewer, and less well-funded scholarship options available to them than young women, but it really doesn't matter all that much, because the grades they've gotten from their predominately female teachers has been worse than their female peers, despite having better test scores.

* some outcomes are not a result of choices. Boys in school don't choose to get poor grades, thus requiring them to take dangerous jobs to earn an adequate living.

I don't think it breaks down at the macro scale so much as humans seem to have an innate need to identify with groups more quickly than as individuals. I've always been a bit of a loner and not much of a joiner, so I tend to identify as an individual first before a member of a group. I am fully aware that this puts me in the minority. If people identified more as individuals first than as group members first, I think we'd see more deference to humanism on the whole.

I have the same kind of problem with your other statement, we define ourselves by what we oppose. Again, I find myself in the reverse here. I am opposed to things but I don't lead with that, in general, and don't define myself in that manner. That is, again just me.

If this truly is how most people think, no wonder I find myself so out of phase with the current reality.

That said, being opposed to something, it does not follow that you are necessarily for anything, being for something really forces you to be explicit about what it is you are for. Again, I believe if people defined themselves by what they are for, we could go a long way to preventing misunderstanding. It's one of the issues I have with modern feminism, in that it spends a lot of time telling people what it is against, but it doesn't ever explicitly give us the "for", and there is an end-game to any movement, an end result which represents the "for". So we are left to wonder about the "for". In the absence of a clear statement of the "for", and the fact that goalposts for inclusivity move around nearly as fast as you can run after them, you start to wonder if anyone really knows what it is all about, or if it it's about anything specific at all.

Hifiguy, J. concurs in full.

The whole Sarah Palin thing should be a wake up call. If people don't understand there's an alternative to the Dworkanite inflammatory nonsense on the left, phony feminists like Palin are going to continue to lure women into voting against their own best interests.

(good article BTW).

One is that the radical hate filled feminists (fringe but vocal) have so successfully tainted the word that many sane and happy women want not part of it. They see the anti-sex, anti-male, rape-obsessed (as in everything men do is rape in some way) nutjobs and automatically want to be distanced from them.

Either that or she sees herself as a successful leader and business person. Not as a successful female leader and businesswoman. Adding the qualifier female/woman to it kind of denigrates her success since it implies her gender rather than her talent had a role in it.

hence no one voice defines them and declaring others to not be real feminists.

"Feminism isn't one thing, if you say you're a feminist, then you're a feminist. Unless you're a bro-minist, or a faux-minist, or dress provocatively, party too much or work in the sex trade, in which case, I get to determine the doctrine, decide which of your views, attitudes or mannerisms disqualify you."

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised when this has unintended consequences.

And it varies from one to another, but always revolves around a general core principle of whatever is convenient to the advocacy at that moment.

I really don't have much of a problem with anything in that quote. So feminism isn't one thing? Fine. Is it two things? Four? Nine? How many things is it?

And if I say I am a feminist, and that means that I am a feminist, unless I am a bro-minist or a faux-minist or whatever, and you get to determine the doctrine and decide why I am disqualified, please by all means ELUCIDATE. If I am a bro-minist (whatever the fuck that means) and I think that might be a bad thing to be, certainly, having these principles and doctrines laid out for those of us interested in supporting our female compatriots might serve as a useful guide to the attitudes expected of a feminist.

So what is the problem with actually DETERMINING THE DOCTRINE? Lay it out. Stop moving the goalposts. Say emphatically and directly WHAT FEMINISM MEANS in as much detail you can stomach. Right now at this moment in time. Put it down in print, decide any leftover issues, and stick with the result. Then let everyone, in the full view of what feminism actually is, even if it is so at a point in time, decide for themselves if they want anything to do with it. It would save quite a bit of time and trouble if those of us "bro-minists" or whatever could just see what was expected of them to see whether or not feminist is a label we choose to wear. Oh, it wouldn't be that we don't support the cause, per se, but it would save us a lot of time if we don't measure up to whatever the bar is at the moment to quit wasting "real" feminists' time with having to deconstruct our failings because we wrongly claimed the label.

allows them to support radical statements when they care to but also distance themselves from those statements when called out on it.

Rad-fem: Kill all men!
A: brilliant satire!
B: love it!
C: OMG I wish we could!

Sane person: wait, did you really call for killing all men?

A,B,C in unison: feminism is a broad tent and there are many forms of feminists. We don't necessarily support everything every feminist has ever said. So please don't lump us all in together.

However it does present a certain conundrum for them.

They are not telling us in any concrete way what feminists they do support, which planks of the feminist platform are dear and to which they take issue, or even what the basic tenets and principles are. To be a movement, you have to throw your hat in somewhere common. However, to do so would concretize the movement into agreed upon principles, which can be an impediment to some forms of advocacy, specifically like the one you describe.

Personally, I've got no real problems with the idea of advocacy, in and of itself. What I have a problem with is if you won't just come out and say precisely for what it is you are advocating.

For example, some radical feminists have pushed forward the idea that all sex is rape, primarily using the reasoning that in a "patriarchy", women are incapable of giving legitimate consent, therefore, by definition, any time sex has occurred, rape has occurred even if the woman initiates it or responds in the affirmative to an advance. That would be defined as consent, which as they go off at length to say, in a patriarchy, this is not possible. Some have gone further saying that the mere indulgence, even in the mind, of male sexuality is oppressive (the ubiquitous male gaze and other such nonsense).

But what is the advocacy from that statement? Is the statement meant to advocate the idea that all men are rapists who have had sex? By corollary, is the suggestion being made that those who haven't may have thought about it, and thus must be assumed to be? To the extreme some embrace, that all men are rapists because all male expression of sexuality is oppressive in some way, shape, or form?

Maybe this is the argument as put forth, but advocacy is about advocating for something.

If we take this on its face, what is the mandate from this statement? What action follows? Incarceration of all men at birth? If rape is a crime, and all men are rapists, then all men should be punished according to the legal proscription for the commission of said crime.

Logically, this is the advocacy. It follows from the linkage from sex to rape to crime. In fact, no linkage is required, all are the SAME THING according to this line of reasoning.

However, you will never hear that this is the advocacy.

Moreover, if someone actually DID come out and say that "yes, this is exactly what we want", most well-reasoned and sane people, male and female alike, would run screaming from whoever that was for fear of being sucked into their particular no-zone hell dimension. Others might stick around for a bit of terrifying amusement.

And, let me make this clear, I do believe that when someone says "that's NOT what we're advocating" in regards to something like this, that is PRECISELY TRUE.

OK. Fair enough.

Then the question remains, what ARE you advocating for through such principles and statements? What is your end goal? Just tell us so we can understand better. Otherwise, how can we, in good conscience and with willing and open arms EMBRACE IT?

And I think that's just it. I don't think feminists understand feminism anymore. It's ballooned into a sketchy set of principles surrounded by a haze of vitriol and rancor that sense, reason, and most importantly, purpose can no longer penetrate. How precisely the fuck are they going to explain it rationally and cogently to anyone else? How can you advocate for the end of sexism, when all you speak is precisely sexist? How can you advocate for equality when you bristle at its mention? How can you engage reasonable people to your cause, when you refuse to see or speak reason yourself?

She does not want to class her employees as 'oppressed' and 'privileged'. That would be divisive.

despite all the important work they've done for "Feminism", cough.