Is "feminism" a dirty word in 2010?

(kinda long, sorry - if you skim it you'll probably get the gist of it and can jump in and respond.)

Sometimes I see (not necessarily on this messageboard) a surprising level of resistance to the term "feminism" and the ideas it espouses.

Did I miss something that has happened in the US over the past couple of decades? I don't get why people sometimes seen derisory or dismissive of the mere concept of feminism. What's particularly weird is that as far as I can tell, the results of the feminist movement are quite well entrenched in the US these days. Yes, there are still some gender discrimination issues in first-world countries, but we really have won most of the battles, and the trends are going in the right direction.

So I don't get why people sometimes use the word "feminism" itself with a sneer, or seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that there are some significant intellectual concepts and historical realities behind it. As far as I can tell, people do not get derided simply for saying they believe in civil rights. What is the difference? And why do young women write sentences like "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in [something that entails believing women and men should have equal rights.]" To me, that's like saying "I don't believe in gay rights, but I think it is totally wrong when gays are discriminated against." What?

I may be imagining things, and in fact I'm kind of hoping that you will all tell me that I am. But I am wondering if some things have happened to give "feminism" specifically a bad name, even though almost everyone agrees that gender equality is good.

Was it those evil political correctness types that made feminism a dirty word? (I don't hold with that kind of nonsense, believe me.) But if so, why the hate for feminists as opposed to everyone else? It seems to me that advocates for many oppressed factions (ethnic groups, disabled people, gays, etc.) have jumped rather too enthusiastically on the political correctness bandwagon. Why single out feminists as if the very idea of women's rights were a bad thing?

What does "feminism" mean to people these days? A bunch of shrill, self-indulgent women with no sense of proportion? If so, how did that happen? And how can I discuss gender equality without being equated with something so negative?

Just because a person holds heartfelt beliefs about civil rights does not mean they are a nutcase or have no sense of proportion. I would not assume that anyone who speaks out against discrimination toward gays or blacks or any other oppressed group should be pigeon-holed.

Please tell me I am flat-out imagining that people are antithetical to feminism as a notion. I'd prefer to think I'm too sensitive (and got my widdle feewings hurt when they said my ideas were "dumb" and "fatuous" at ...you know where I mean.)

I suppose in a way it's a victim of its own success in that successful young women, who see themselves as equal to their male counterparts in every way that matters don't really feel the need for that "baggage". I was an undergrad in a liberal arts type degree from 2000-2003 and feminism was considered boring, old hat by most of my female classmates. It was something we argued about quite a bit but as I say, for them at least, feminism had worked so well it seemed moot at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orbo

I suppose in a way it's a victim of its own success in that successful young women, who see themselves as equal to their male counterparts in every way that matters don't really feel the need for that "baggage". I was an undergrad in a liberal arts type degree from 2000-2003 and feminism was considered boring, old hat by most of my female classmates. It was something we argued about quite a bit but as I say, for them at least, feminism had worked so well it seemed moot at that point.

---

I think this is probably the viewpoint by many young women--that feminism has already done everything it needed to do--and I would say those young women are wrong. I was looking at a graph of income disparity by gender in a number of countries and I don't recall what it was for Ireland, but I know that it was a depressingly huge difference in the UK and the US. I'll have to see if I can find it again. It may have been on that Sociological Images blog. But that's just one easy to see instance of inequality. There are still so many outrageous examples of sexism I see every day, from gender coding on toys to the fact that men who cry are seen negatively.

I've wrestled with the term "feminist" myself simply because there are a lot of women out there who use it to mask their misandry, but I recently realized that just as Marsilia shouldn't abandon calling herself a Christian because there are bad or stupid people using that term, I shouldn't abandon feminism either. By being an example of what we believe in we're the best argument in its favor.

In a feminist group I'm a part of elsewhere on the 'net, there was a recent discussion of the backlash. It's a pretty common topic. Here are some bits from that:

Quote:

---

I have noticed a disturbing trend lately of men (and even women) who argue against the basic tenets of feminism (and claim that they're just against "feminazi male-bashers", or as one [female] poster put it "bra-burning fucking feminists"). This is extremely disturbing to me.

Has anyone else noticed this movement? How do you suggest we address this wave of sexist/misogynist apologist propaganda?

---

Quote:

---

By enlightening people that feminism is actually humanism. Bringing equality to both sexes, not just women. By pointing out the injustices of patriarchy in a mature fashion instead of going off on some anti-male tangent whenever inequality is found. By standing up for women's rights, while not trampling on men's. By not classifying others with the broad brush that causes those who don't understand to lump all feminists into the "feminazi, male bashing, bra burning, fucking feminist" category.

Only by not perpetuating that myth, and keeping our own sense of perspective, can we get past that image.

---

Quote:

---

I was with Seattleitedish and still am, but i want to note that in FK i was informed by a member (perhaps now ex) in a thread...that the word human itself is biased in use and meaning now...that seeking to create common ground around humanity and humanism is itself another oppressive process...i recoiled a bit for a moment....and was kind of incredulous. I can just let it go...or go dig up the thread. It was kind of amazing.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, the backlash is nothing new (check out Susan Faludi's book of that very name). It's been going on since women became a competitive force in economics and politics, spheres of influence one considered exclusively male.

But with a bad economy and a generally angry populace alienated from a political process that has clearly broken down at almost every level, the desire to "other" whole components of society and scapegoat them for the loss of what was an illusory security at best, has become more obvious.

Hate is on the rise, and women are clearly one target of it. I really appreciate Fathernature's reference to radio-demagogue Charles Coughlin. Poorly educated as most Americans are these days, especially as regards their own history, they are largely unaware that hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh are nothing new. Coughlin had plenty of company. There were also Gerald L.K. Smith, Westbrook Pegler and a hoard of lesser names blaming the very people being blamed now for all the ills of society, sometimes in an even more blatantly sexist, racist, anti-semitic way. History eventually washed out that particular sewer, but it wasn't quick or easy, and clearly it wasn't permanent.

One thing I don't get about this country and never will is why its citizens blame the victims for hard times instead of the perpetrators. If half the rage the teabaggers devote to gay people and immigrants were directed toward banks, they might actually be acting in their own class interests instead of thugging for The Man.

As for the new wave of hostility toward feminism, I'd look again to the underrated Ms. Faludi's prescient book "Stiffed," which describes in harrowing and compassionate detail the various failed coping strategies by which men have attempted to adapt to a society in which the old definitions of masculinity have largely unraveled and no new ones have arisen as yet to take their place. It's not the job of feminism to fix that, but feminism is certainly one of the targets of the rage and frustration it's generated among men who, once again, chooose to blame their fellow victims for a situation in which both suffer.

But then, I'm one of those old-fashioned big-H Humanists who still believes that regular folks of every type have more in common with one another than they do with the overlords of the system that exploits their differences.

I may get shot at here for saying this, but I'm old enough to believe that, yes, there really is a patriarchy, and a way of thinking that it imposes on everybody, but that in reality it consists of a couple of hundred old dudes who own everything in the world and dictate their ideas to everyone else. The biggest of all big lies they've managed to sell to men is that any man could have a place at that table if it weren't for all the women and minorities crowding them out. Fat chance, unless your last name has been in the Social Register for about five generations.

So how many women and minorities are there on the boards of directors of The Fortune Five Hundred corps? Last time I checked, it was around 4% of the total number.

But it's those feminists and affirmative action cases that have robbed The Angry White Man of his shot at the brass ring.

That's what thirty years of systematically dumbing down the educational system and ranting against public sector attempts to level the playing field have brought us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

What's particularly weird is that as far as I can tell, the results of the feminist movement are quite well entrenched in the US these days.

---

Heh. This is part of the reason. There are still all sorts of people that are invested in maintaining the status quo for gender roles whether they realize it or not. And so feminists become shrill harpies that hate men.

And of course, a lot of this noise is coming from the "Men's Rights" movement. They're small, but not insignificant. From what I can tell, they have one legitimate issue. Sometimes men get shafted WRT custody in family court. But the rest of it is whining about how "men are portrayed as idiots in the media, and therefore oppressed", "men have to sign up for selective service and women don't, and are therefore oppressed", "men get falsely accused of rape constantly, and are therefore oppressed". :roll: And unfortunately, even though men's rights groups aren't particularly mainstream, those ideas appear to be because I hear them from both men and women all the time.

Additionally, the media has a hand in this too. How many times have you heard the jokes that feminism amounts to women being offended by words like "manhole" or "chairman"?

Taumpy, good points. I think one of the saddest things about that turn of events is that the majority of feminists I know--because I don't hang with the misandrists--are promoting equality for both genders. Oppression of one gender limits us all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

...In a feminist group I'm a part of elsewhere on the 'net, there was a recent discussion of the backlash. It's a pretty common topic. Here are some bits from that:

---

Quote:

---

I may get shot at here for saying this, but I'm old enough to believe that, yes, there really is a patriarchy, and a way of thinking that it imposes on everybody, but that in reality it consists of a couple of hundred old dudes who own everything in the world and dictate their ideas to everyone else. The biggest of all big lies they've managed to sell to men is that any man could have a place at that table if it weren't for all the women and minorities crowding them out. Fat chance, unless your last name has been in the Social Register for about five generations.

So how many women and minorities are there on the boards of directors of The Fortune Five Hundred corps? Last time I checked, it was around 4% of the total number.

But it's those feminists and affirmative action cases that have robbed The Angry White Man of his shot at the brass ring.:

---

OK, I'm a middle aged white guy of Northern European ancestry. I am not however on the board of any Fortune Five Hundred corporations, and my last name is not in the Social Register. But I must have missed the memo that it is advances by women and minorities blocking me from these things. It's a little strange to be told that I've been brainwashed to believe this is true. (It's also strange to be told I've "...attempted to adapt to a society in which the old definitions of masculinity have largely unraveled and no new ones have arisen as yet to take their place.")

In my industry and location (biotech, Boston) I'm surrounded by women in positions of power. Many supervisory and higher positions are occupied by women, including my immmediate supervisor and the CEO of the company. I never really hear anyone talk about oppression or inequality. In fact when Lawrence Summers made his comments a couple of years ago about the supposed inability of women to compete at the higher levels of science I had to wonder what he was smoking...he must have never been inside an industry lab, or boardroom.

The feminist movement was over in America a long time ago, most of the women fighting in that movement (my mother) turned off the lights and went home. Now you're left with a radical feminist core of political action groups that are increasingly out of touch with anything their base would want done in the first place.

Which is assuming there's even a base group of women who have common enough beliefs that they'd group together. Which they won't because that doesn't exist anymore.

If you start up a pro-choice feminist group you're out of touch with your pro-life base.
If you start up an equal rights amendment feminist group you've just found the most retarded feminist group in the world (an equal rights amendment would destroy every feminist/women-only/pro-woman/men-only program in operation in the US)
If you start up a workers rights feminist group you're out of touch with your stay at home moms base and if you support all womens rights you'll have some of them arguing about if strippers and prostitutes should be included and if you do that then you'll lose your more modest/religious crowds.

Modern Feminism is a dated obsolete political organization and that's why people say it like its a dirty word. Besides, women don't care. They belong instead to Animal Rights Groups, Human Rights Groups, Abortion or Pro-life Groups, Gun Control Groups, Local Co-Ops, etc and etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

But that's just one easy to see instance of inequality. There are still so many outrageous examples of sexism I see every day, from gender coding on toys to the fact that men who cry are seen negatively.

---

I bring you proof of why modern feminism is done

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph

OK, I'm a middle aged white guy of Northern European ancestry. I am not however on the board of any Fortune Five Hundred corporations, and my last name is not in the Social Register. But I must have missed the memo that it is advances by women and minorities blocking me from these things. It's a little strange to be told that I've been brainwashed to believe this is true. (It's also strange to be told I've "...attempted to adapt to a society in which the old definitions of masculinity have largely unraveled and no new ones have arisen as yet to take their place.")

---

Yeah, I considered not including that bit but figured I wouldn't be entirely fair if I only showed feminist discussions I agreed with. Whenever I hear the term "patriarchy" I cringe, because I don't think there is one, nor has there ever been one. If women are suffering from inequality, it's not just because of men, but also because of the social pressures that other women put on them and the biological realities of reproduction and a million other things that have nothing to do with some evil male conspiracy. As one extreme example, female genital mutilation is something mothers do to their daughters and women look down on those who haven't had it done. Yes, it's to appeal to the ideals of males in their society but it's not a cut and dry situation. Blame "the patriarchy" all you like, but you're ignoring the reality of the world they live in.

Uh, whatever you may believe about the current state of the world, patriarchy does not refer to a "secret conspiracy" of any kind. If refers to a society in which the power is held in the hands of men. You aren't seriously arguing that never existed, are you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Uh, whatever you may believe about the current state of the world, patriarchy does not refer to a "secret conspiracy" of any kind. If refers to a society in which the power is held in the hands of men. You aren't seriously arguing that never existed, are you?

---

I'm referring to the patriarchy that's being referenced in the quote that Laughing Lagomorph was responding to: a few hundred men controlling the world and brainwashing other men into thinking the only reason they don't control the world is because of women and minorities. I don't believe such a thing exists or has ever existed.

The specific part in question:

Quote:

---

...yes, there really is a patriarchy, and a way of thinking that it imposes on everybody, but that in reality it consists of a couple of hundred old dudes who own everything in the world and dictate their ideas to everyone else. The biggest of all big lies they've managed to sell to men is that any man could have a place at that table if it weren't for all the women and minorities crowding them out.

---

If somebody's talking about patriarchy in the way you meant, yeah, that exists. But the idea of the Patriarchy as a specific organization pushing a brainwashing conspiracy is nuts.

Yes, feminism is considered a dirty word. The general attitude seems to be that if you notice inequality or speak up about things you find sexist then you are a Radical Crazy Feminazi with No Sense of Humor. (Or you're mentally ill. Or you have "daddy issues".)

It seems to be one of these issues that people just want to pretend is fixed, so that they don't have to worry about it. Double standards still exist, but we're supposed to pretend they don't.

I like this article.

Oh, thank you for finding that, Orual. I read it when it was new and loved it, but then forgot where it was.

ETA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomato Nation

If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

It seems to be one of these issues that people just want to pretend is fixed, so that they don't have to worry about it.

---

This could be said about a ton of ________isms. Some incremental progress is made, and people all of a sudden want to say "See? Our work is done here! Black people can sit anywhere they like on the bus, so now what are you whining about?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I'm referring to the patriarchy that's being referenced in the quote that Laughing Lagomorph was responding to: a few hundred men controlling the world and brainwashing other men into thinking the only reason they don't control the world is because of women and minorities. I don't believe such a thing exists or has ever existed.

---

That's not what the term "patriarchy" means in feminist theory, at least not in anything I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

That's not what the term "patriarchy" means in feminist theory, at least not in anything I've ever read.

---

Okay.

Now read what we were actually discussing and see that it was not a reference to feminist theory but a specific viewpoint that was expressed in a feminist community I'm a part of. Laughing Lagomorph took exception to that particular conspiracy theory. I was explaining that it is an unhelpful viewpoint and doesn't actually address reality.

Compare:

patriarchy n. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children. It may also refer to a system of government by males, and to the dominance of men in social or cultural systems.

The Patriarchy according to the quoted person: a conspiracy of a few hundred men who control the world and brainwash other men.

If I didn't make it entirely clear before in the last two posts on this topic: I was refuting a conspiracy theorist who used the term "the patriarchy" to refer to a syndicate of men ruling the world. Not the feminist theory of patriarchy. Because there are a number of people who express that particular skewed viewpoint, I am often on guard when I hear references to it until I see they're using the term correctly.

So "the Patriarchy" is "the Man" writ large, in this view?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday

So "the Patriarchy" is "the Man" writ large, in this view?

---

Yeah, exact same concept, really, except "the Patriarchy" refers specifically to men and usually in a feminist or LGBT context, whereas "the Man" is often used in the context of race or class.

Those Bilderberg bastards. You should all read the book, Them, by Jon Ronson.

Zuul, to clarify, my debates with my fellow students were along the lines of:

Me: "Feminism isn't a dirty word, without feminism you wouldn't be attending college. Feminism isn't about hating men, it is about gaining parity of esteem with them"

Them: "Yeah maybe in the '60s or something but now we're fine, stupid feminists, I think they're all lesbians anyway."

Me: "So you don't mind getting paid, on average, 25% less than me for the same work? Ok then.. nice talking to you."

Those Bilderberg bastards. You should all read the book, Them, by Jon Ronson.

Zuul, to clarify, my debates with my fellow students were along the lines of:

Me: "Feminism isn't a dirty word, without feminism you wouldn't be attending college. Feminism isn't about hating men, it is about gaining parity of esteem with them"

Them: "Yeah maybe in the '60s or something but now we're fine, stupid feminists, I think they're all lesbians anyway."

Me: "So you don't mind getting paid, on average, 25% less than me for the same work? Ok then.. nice talking to you."

Well I don't know if the point of feminism was to have you judge women for not wanting to fight the good fight anymore Orbo. Infact I'm pretty sure the point of feminism was so that one day they wouldn't need it in the first place.

And this gender gap you're going to harp on is a bad example.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orbo

Those Bilderberg bastards. You should all read the book, Them, by Jon Ronson.

Zuul, to clarify, my debates with my fellow students were along the lines of:

Me: "Feminism isn't a dirty word, without feminism you wouldn't be attending college. Feminism isn't about hating men, it is about gaining parity of esteem with them"

Them: "Yeah maybe in the '60s or something but now we're fine, stupid feminists, I think they're all lesbians anyway."

Me: "So you don't mind getting paid, on average, 25% less than me for the same work? Ok then.. nice talking to you."

---

Heh. Yeah, I've had far too many discussions along those lines. They see what feminism has done, but not what still needs doing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Heh. Yeah, I've had far too many discussions along those lines. They see what feminism has done, but not what still needs doing.

---

Please, your apparant 'existing sexism' is toys and men crying. Spare me your campaign.

Thanks for the thoughtful and illuminating posts, everyone. (I go off to bed, and leave you all to do the heavy lifting in the thread - a successful effort, I'd say.)

Hates, "apparent sexism" is stuff like this: a few years ago, I took a new job that involved, among other tasks, managing the accounts for an organization. My predecessor left everything in a scrambled mess, and when I said to one of the Board members, after a couple weeks on the job, "I'm having trouble sorting out the books, they are kind of confusing," he said, "Well, I know math is hard for you..." WTF? In order to get my degree, I had to pass graduate-level courses in microeconomics (with calculus, not the namby-pamby graph stuff), statistics, econometrics, and operations research. A bit of arithmetic is not exactly "hard for me."

If you can find a plausible reason why he would assume I was stupid at math other than my gender, I'm all ears (and no, we hadn't been talking about the subject for long, and he had not seen the books himself, so there were no concrete examples for him to draw on).

Oh, the battle for women's rights is not yet won. It is so much, much better in the developed world and I do believe that dinosaurs like the above-referenced Board members will die in the next few decades and not be replaced. It's delusional to think sexism has totally vanished, however. Beyond the first world, there is the global context. Women in poor countries are often horribly oppressed and have no choice in choosing a husband, bearing children, and other life choices.

Even some rich countries still have a long way to go - the Middle East is not exactly a bastion of women's rights. (Not to worry, of course - we enlightened Westerners will expand their options by taking away their choice of whether to veil, though! But I digress.)

I was thinking about this thread and of note: Hippy and Hippies are pretty well the butt of jokes now. So I think it is a generational thing. I saw a joke magnet that said "Hippies use other door" and realized that the idea of a feminist is fairly dated and belongs more to the 60s and 70s and that things really have changed a lot.

I doubt many young women would want to live in the world of the 70s and before but they also don't see the need to keep up the fight or just be angry all the time. We are suffering this badly in the environmental movement. Things are a lot better at least in appearance so it is hard to motivate the 20 year olds to join the fight. We are aging dinosaurs now.

Jim, I don't know when exactly it happened but activism is no longer en vogue amongst younger people. Sure there are plenty of younger activists but they tend to be in special interest groups more so. That is to say, younger people who have no apparent problems in their day-to-day lives seem not to find activism of any sort that interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aggie

Jim, I don't know when exactly it happened but activism is no longer en vogue amongst younger people. Sure there are plenty of younger activists but they tend to be in special interest groups more so. That is to say, younger people who have no apparent problems in their day-to-day lives seem not to find activism of any sort that interesting.

---

Yeah, a long time ago I heard a theory that there is a rebellious generation every second decade, with war or economic depression possibly causing a decade to be skipped. So, we had the Gay 90s, the Roaring Twenties, the Beat Forties, and the Sixties. So I had high hopes for the 80s ... then the 90s ... oh well, I guess that's one social theory that doesn't work any more. I suspect that if it ever had any validity at all, technological advances and globalization have altered society so much that the underlying dynamics don't hold any more.

A lot of people associate feminist as meaning women first. You may say that feminist means equal rights for all but they're focused on the fact that it says feminine right in the name. If you want people to believe that you truly are for equality of the sexes, you may have to not use the word feminism and its variants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

A lot of people associate feminist as meaning women first. You may say that feminist means equal rights for all but they're focused on the fact that it says feminine right in the name. If you want people to believe that you truly are for equality of the sexes, you may have to not use the word feminism and its variants.

---

The reason the word includes a reference to women is because women historically, and presently, constantly face sexism.

Acting like the word is the problem is misguided. The people who wish to maintain the existing patriarchy would invent reasons to protest the feminist movement no matter what it was called, and the brain-dead, credulous people who whine about feminism because they've been told to (along with those who benefit from the presently-existing system of male privilege) would be opposed to equality either way.

Besides which, it shouldn't be necessary to dissemble by pretending that the most of the work to be done to create gender equality doesn't involve guaranteeing the rights of women. Men just are not legitimately the oppressed class.

All I know is I live and work with people who do work for the equality of men and women who get pissed off if you call them feminists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

All I know is I live and work with people who do work for the equality of men and women who get pissed off if you call them feminists.

---

Okay, so you live and work with misguided people, who have bought into a ridiculous idea put forth by folks who are working hard at trying to ensure that male privilege continues unabated.

Yep, that's what they're doing all right. Hint: Just because they don't use the word feminist doesn't mean they're trying to destroy what it's done so far. Some people dislike the cultural connotation of the word and simply prefer to refer to such activities with more gender-inclusive terminology. We achieve nothing by getting hung up on word usage. I, personally, have no problem with using the word feminist and am more than happy to apply it to myself. Not everyone else is. And when people start talking about what feminism has achieved it can shut those people down when using words like equality or parity across genders does not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

Yep, that's what they're doing all right. Hint: Just because they don't use the word feminist doesn't mean they're trying to destroy what it's done so far.

---

I didn't say they did, so . . .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

A lot of people associate feminist as meaning women first. You may say that feminist means equal rights for all but they're focused on the fact that it says feminine right in the name. If you want people to believe that you truly are for equality of the sexes, you may have to not use the word feminism and its variants.

---

I dunno ... should gay rights activists call themselves "gender orientation activists?" so that they don't sound like they are trying to promote gays as having more rights than straights? I don't think so.

I think it has less to do with the fact that "feminism" actually refers to females and more to do with the fact that a lot of people, even if they won't admit it, don't like what gender equality represents. Once upon a time, feminists were known as "women's libbers" and THAT became a dirty phrase. Activists began using "feminism" as an alternative with less baggage, but clearly it has been tainted as well.

A similar, although not identical, situation exists with respect to blacks. First, they were "colored," which once upon a time was actually polite. Then, "negro" took over, only to be replaced by "black" which was superceded by "African American."

When any group has to worry so much about what they are called (because of the negative associations outsiders attribute to their label), they still have a discouragingly long way to go to achieve equality and respect.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I dunno ... should gay rights activists call themselves "gender orientation activists?" so that they don't sound like they are trying to promote gays as having more rights than straights? I don't think so.

---

Yes, they should! It's one of the reasons I like the Human Rights Campaign. I think that's a great approach to take, and it supports the belief that equal rights are not special rights.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

When any group has to worry so much about what they are called (because of the negative associations outsiders attribute to their label), they still have a discouragingly long way to go to achieve equality and respect.

---

THANK you. You are successful at saying what I wanted to, except in a sensible, dispassionate way.*

The fact of the matter is there are still various problems/inequalities between the sexes, and I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing them out, or admitting that I'm bothered by them.

[ANNOYING ANECDOTE TIME]

My sister and her husband have the same job, with the same general career goals (they are both physicians). The only difference is that my sister is a year ahead, because she's a bit older than he is. So he's in a fellowship, and she's trying to join a private practice. And she hears that they'll only hire her on part-time, because she's "just going to move away whenever Husband is ready to go into private practice." Because never mind the incredible academic rigor my sister put herself through, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars she spent on her education. Her career is just assumed to take second place to her husband's. When it's the same job. And she's professionally ahead of him.

My sister, after listening to this line of BS:

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/phot...95-572-241.jpg



*My way involves an annoying analogy about how I think all Muslims are terrorist suicide-bombers, and how Muslims who are not terrorists should start calling themselves "Boo-slims", so as to seperate themselves from the terrorists. It would be easier for me that way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I dunno ... should gay rights activists call themselves "gender orientation activists?" so that they don't sound like they are trying to promote gays as having more rights than straights? I don't think so.

---

Yeah, that's a great comparison, thank you.

Quote:

---

I think it has less to do with the fact that "feminism" actually refers to females and more to do with the fact that a lot of people, even if they won't admit it, don't like what gender equality represents. Once upon a time, feminists were known as "women's libbers" and THAT became a dirty phrase. Activists began using "feminism" as an alternative with less baggage, but clearly it has been tainted as well.

---

And "liberal", for another example. I don't think it does activists any good to continually retreat and apologize for their activism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

I don't think it does activists any good to continually retreat and apologize for their activism.

---

This just needs to be repeated. I completely agree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

Yes, they should! It's one of the reasons I like the Human Rights Campaign. I think that's a great approach to take, and it supports the belief that equal rights are not special rights.

---

Except that the HRC actually kind of sucks, but I see what you're saying as far as the name.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Except that the HRC actually kind of sucks, but I see what you're saying as far as the name.

---

Why so? Are they anti-trans?

Yeah, I hadn't heard about the HRC sucking. What's the dirt?

Well, their website could definitely use some help!

With all due respect, the term "human rights" has a generally accepted definition that is not synonymous with "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." Atrocities in Myanmar, political prisoners in Egypt, censorship in Zimbabwe -- THOSE are classic "human rights" issues. Of course, technically speaking, everything is about human rights, so it isn't in any way wrong to say that discrimination against gays is a violation of human rights. It most certainly is. But why hide your agenda - if you are working for the rights of gays and lesbians, you shouldn't be ashamed to say so. Also, let's say I buy into that approach, and I want to rent the office next door to the Human Rights Campaign, where my organization will focus on discrimination against women. What do I call my group - the "Human Rights Only With a Different Focus than the Group Next Door" organization?

http://www.asofterworld.com/clean/credit.jpg