What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'?

Do you know what these terms actually mean?

I decided to create this thread in response to another recent thread on ATS which is discussing sexism, misogyny, and internet assholes.

That thread can be found here, and a worthwhile thread it is :

Sexism, Misogyny and the rise and rise and rise of the internet asshole....

Over the course of the thread I've noticed references to feminism, and the quite disparaging term 'feminazi'. There seems to be an ongoing campaign to denigrate feminism and the achievements of feminism, and this sort of thinking appears to be a reactionary way of undermining the gains women have made particularly from the 1850s to this period. These days when one references feminism, the reaction seems to be skewed in the minds of some to be something like this;



Men of the ilk of Pat Robertson seem to be threatened by the gains women have made, and rather than address the issues raised, they prefer to demonise, belittle, and obfuscate the real issue.

So what is a feminist?

According to wikipedia, a feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.' Now that wasn't too difficult, was it? Does anybody feel challenged by the idea that women should be treated equally, and have the same rights as men? Technically, if you agree with this statement, you are a feminist.

What is feminism?

Ok, we've established that feminists don't have to be 'bra burning witch lesbians who advocate the downfall of capitalism' (although these people too can be feminists), so what is feminism? Wikipedia informs us:

en.wikipedia.org...

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Now again I shall ask the question, does anybody have a problem with women having equal opportunities?

Why did feminism come about?

There are huge amounts of information on the internet about the history of feminism. It's such a big topic that there are now courses at university one can take in women's studies, and this didn't happen for no reason. Rather than try to ineptly summarise such an enormous topic, I'll again utilise wikipedia's summation, and if anyone has further interest a simple search on Google will provide far more useful information than anything I could personally do.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Women's movement (also known as the women's liberation, or feminism) refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence, all of which fall under the label of feminism. The movement's priorities vary among nations and communities and range from opposition to female genital mutilation in one country to opposition to the glass ceiling in another.

Feminism began in the western world in the late 19th century and has gone through three waves. First-wave feminism was oriented around the station of middle- or upper-class white women and involved suffrage and political equality. Second-wave feminism attempted to further combat social and cultural inequalities. Third-wave feminism is continuing to address the financial, social and cultural inequalities and includes renewed campaigning for greater influence of women in politics and media. In reaction to political activism, feminists have also had to maintain focus on women's reproductive rights.

What is a feminazi?

It seems that the relatively simple meaning of feminism has become obfuscated and a feminist becomes a 'feminazi', a term coined by Rush Limbaugh.



According to Limbaugh:

mediamatters.org...

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year, and some feminists almost seem to celebrate that figure. There are not many of them, but they deserve to be called feminazis.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. They don't need men in order to be happy. They certainly don't want males to be able to exercise any control over them. Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women's emancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being precluded from the ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper, inferior role. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn't matter, it's an unviable tissue mass.

Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness. [The Way Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, pages 194-195]

Seriously, can anyone take this joker seriously? Do people believe that there are women out there who have the mission to have as many abortions as they physically can in order to gain more power, and because men are not necessary? Whatever one's views on abortion, does anybody believe that any women would uphold abortion as a sacrament for some religion designed to gain power, and to reduce men so much so as to be insignificant?

I think it's important to know where certain terms come from before freely throwing them around (as I've seen this term freely used in other threads on ATS). I think a feminazi is simply a figment of the twisted and unhealthy mind of Rush Limbaugh, a man paid very well to spout extremist positions. I wonder if Limbaugh believes anything he says, or simply is a paid talking head?

Are you a feminist?

So if we look at the definition of what a feminist is again;

A feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.'



I ask you the question again, are you a feminist? I know I am.

a reply to: cuckooold

A feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.'

It should read: " A feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women—and men."

That's the tricky part about this whole equality thing—it involves everyone. Feminism, by your definition, leaves out half the world.

a reply to: cuckooold

One would think any man in modern times would be a feminist. I know I am. Sadly these are too many men like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson. If you wanna take a trip into that world check out a Men's Rights website. The least militant, most reasonable ones are still pretty sad. They tend to blame all modern problems on feminism

a reply to: cuckooold

I believe in equality for all. Sure don't need a label for it, though.
A lot of modern feminists don't seem to be about equality at all.

I think feminism, at least in Western societies, is mostly obsolete. While there are still ways in which women are disadvantaged, it doesn't help that feminists would look to improve this in approaching the situation as many currently do. Instead of focusing on equality for women, and the oppression of the patriarchy, people should instead be taking an egalitarian approach, whereby they focus on equality for all people, instead of focusing on one sex. Why? Because everyone is disadvantaged in one way or another, and it doesn't help to blame everything on the patriarchy and scream how bad women have it, and that men are of a higher privilege in the world. And this, i believe, is where people confuse traditional feminists with radical ones.

The term 'feminazi' denotes the radical feminists who prescribe to the ideologies of patriarchy and white male privilege, among other theoretical frameworks. Everyone, no matter their gender, race, ethnicity or sex, have personal histories which may make them disadvantaged in and of themselves. It is futile to purport that white men are automatically born with privilege when one doesn't know their personal livelihood. For example, a man of African nationality could be born into a wealthy family and have more privilege than a man of Caucasian nationality who is born into a poor family.

But, where am i going with this? I suppose that feminism is mostly obsolete in that women in Western countries have much the same rights as men. I find it is better now, to instead shift focus towards egalitarianism, and march for the equality for all people; not just women. That said, feminism is still deeply needed in other parts of the world.

And as for the term itself, and why many confuse it with radicals, it can be argued that as with any movement, feminism has been largely overshadowed by radicals, and is now seen by many to mean 'man-hating'.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: cuckooold

A feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.'

It should read: " A feminist is someone who 'advocates or supports the rights and equality of women—and men."

That's the tricky part about this whole equality thing—it involves everyone. Feminism, by your definition, leaves out half the world.

Read the definition again please. "rights and EQUALITY of women". There needs be something 'other' to be equal to.

You imply the assumption, oft repeated, that women want domination over men. This is not the case and I can only assume that it's a projection on the part of those who cannot imagine a world that is cooperative rather then hierarchical.

If you read scholars on the subject, history has seen matricarchial societies (pre=historic) and patriarchical. Evolution isn't a pendulum swinging back and forth - it's a continually emerging system.

Two sources, Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and The Blade" and Leonard Shlain's "The Alphabet vs the Goddess: The Conflict between Word and Image." Both wonderful and thought provoking works on the subject of cultural evolution and the shift from matricarchy to patriarchy.

Dr. Eisler proposes a Partnership Society that she and her husband David Loye actively promote.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Read the definition again please. "rights and EQUALITY of women". There needs be something 'other' to be equal to.

You imply the assumption, oft repeated, that women want domination over men. This is not the case and I can only assume that it's a projection on the part of those who cannot imagine a world that is cooperative rather then hierarchical.

No I will not read it again. By your definition, feminism is concerned with the rights of women. Take a man being treated unequally, and his rights taken away—what insight does feminism offer to this supposedly equal human being?

I don't think I implied that. No gender wants dominion over another gender. The thought is impossible. Certain individuals, perhaps.

If you read scholars on the subject, history has seen matricarchial societies (pre=historic) and patriarchical. Evolution isn't a pendulum swinging back and forth - it's a continually emerging system.

Not according to anthropology. But I will look into those books. Thank you for the suggestion.

a reply to: daaskapital

A rich black can be better off than a poor white but if you hold all variables constant except skin color, it's better to be white in America.

Woman are still not equal to men in America or any western nation. There's many factors but just the lack of equal pay is enough to prove it.

I agree that we should focus on equal rights for everyone but how would you suggest we do that? Most people think everyone is perfectly equal already so I don't see how it's doable. The only feasible means is by working to raise up disadvantaged groups.

Thank you so much for explaining what this notion, "Feminazism" was all about..that's actually quite important, and I would have never dreamed it would have originated with the likes of Rush Limbaugh..

Feminists already got what they wanted, they have their equality now. Now they just want MORE and turn into "Feminazis" these are the men haters who think they are always being gawked at and want us eradicated.

The movement is over they just want it all now, what kind of equality do women not have that the average feminist needs or wants??? They prove over and over again they want to be above men and want special privelages.

Men know there are no real feminists left in the world, they've already converted to the other cult!

a reply to: daaskapital

I believe equality includes getting rid of the filth on the TV and in the movie theaters..removing the Internet filth and pollution would be a relief as well, thereby furthering the egalitarian/equality agenda..

originally posted by: jheated5
Feminists already got what they wanted, they have their equality now. Now they just want MORE and turn into "Feminazis" these are the men haters who think they are always being gawked at and want us eradicated.

The movement is over they just want it all now, what kind of equality do women not have that the average feminist needs or wants??? They prove over and over again they want to be above men and want special privelages.

Men know there are no real feminists left in the world, they've already converted to the other cult!

Equality might include eradicating snuff porn films and things of that nature.. it might include eradicating prostitution and pimphood in the U.S... Egalitarianism might include reaching beyond American borders to other nations such as E.Europe, and eradicating sexual trafficking of women and children in that part of the world and others. The journey for women has actually, only just recently begun.. merely a couple of centuries ago..

You're talking about crimes, so what if there are prostitutes? Those are women just trying to make a living. You're trying to use crime as justification here, I'm talking about rights. I have the right to be a victim of a crime to, I truly don't understand what you're getting at.

a reply to: jheated5

So you think you're likely to be made a sex slave as a man?

a reply to: cuckooold

A feminist is someone who wants someone to pay for something that they are not guilty of.

It's a PC issue. A great way to impose a label on a party (that has never been oppressed) /sarcasm

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: jheated5

So you think you're likely to be made a sex slave as a man?

Do you believe that it doesn't happen ever?

I believe in the full equality and humanity of everyone regardless of their race or gender, or whatever.

But I refuse to wear the label "feminist" because it is divisive, as are all labels, intentionally or otherwise.

Can't we all just be human, accept we are all different, and embrace it rather than hate, exploit and destroy each other instead? Oh wait, that IS being human. Isn't human nature a bitch?

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: jheated5

So you think you're likely to be made a sex slave as a man?

I think you would be surprised. Its not just women who are trafficked. And women are often arrested and main conspirators in such evils.

a reply to: cuckooold

Why are we using Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson to critique feminism? There are already several outspoken feminist voices who critique the third wave movement without erecting straw people as the only existing arguments. It's like when someone critiques or offers another view point on something and a third waver will then say ... oh so you're wanting to defend rape apologists? As if there is only two options, rape apologia or subscription to third wave feminism. There is several more options.

I'm a feminist, fairly well read on the subject, and I can admit there are some serious issues with the way third wave feminism conducts itself and even more serious issues with some of its more prevalent theories. For a movement that decries dichotomies third wave feminism sure does subscribe to an awful lot of them for example. This is actually a debate which happens quite efficiently within academia, but to bring it up on a web board, twitter, or tumbler results in the classic 'so you must be a sexist and / or racist' squid ink going everywhere. Or the parroting of 'feminism = ???' arguments. So many people say feminism is equality but when you try and pin them down on what that means, they have no idea for the most part. In theory it should be quite difficult to say that statement without a definition for it. Go figure.

Oddly enough a lot of people have worked out you can believe in equality without subscribing to larger ideologies or movements, and that puts them off the third wave movement since so much of it requires immediate acceptance of a pile of presuppositions. Even if those presuppositions are correct, trying to discuss them with third wavers is like being the demon mid-exorcism going, 'hang on, who is this Christ guy? Never heard of him!'

Third wave feminism isn't so much a movement as a static object that drowns out conversation in public spaces. I'm still a feminist, but I tend to spend more of my time explaining how feminists can disagree with one another than anything else. Once we remove the 'feminism =' argument and replace it with the reality of, 'you can be a feminist without being a third wave clone' ... funny things start to happen.