# On Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801 "2015-11-06T14:04:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/141 "2015-11-11T17:53:48Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > AA serves all of these purposes. And in case it’s not clear, I have no problems with this practice. If half the pop is male, we should want college campuses to reflect this. Even if standards for “merit” (gasp!) have to be adjusted for them. Who wants a society that has a huge undereducated, economically marginalized underclass? Not me. > > The question, though, is why do so many young white males persist in thinking they–and they alone–do not benefit from diversity hiring/admissions? Does seeing the value in admitting less academically-competitive males make it harder for white men to condemn AA for blacks and others? I would think so. That could be uncomfortable. > > Might it even force them to reassess their assumptions of inferiority and the standards we use to measure merit? Yup, this too. No one really believes women are smarter than men, and yet we do see women kicking more ass in school. How do we explain this? Is it possible grades and test scores aren’t the end-all be-all they have been cracked up to be? > > Can white males continue to push for a “return to” meritocracy, when doing so might result in them being relegated to the bottom of the economic hierarchy? No doubt this is an interesting question. The court cases we saw decades ago challenging AA on race, we very well might see directed at men. What will be the response then I wonder? Actually, [boys do fine](http://blog.prepscholar.com/what-is-the-average-sat-score) on test scores: 499 to 495 on reading, and 530 to 499 on math. It’s on grading that boys fall behind. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/142 "2015-11-11T17:54:03Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Thirded. > (With one exception: I agree with Morgan’s underlying thesis that “the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” I disagree with her misandric application of it.) Help! Help!!..I’m being oppres… Ah, nevermind… ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/143 "2015-11-11T18:05:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > me or most of the feminists I know. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, and neither do the feminists I know.[…]No, and neither do all the feminists I know, and the vast majority of feminists I’ve ever even heard of.[…]Imost feminists I know would. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > the feminism that I know and practice, and the feminism of the feminists I know > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > most of the feminists I know and read about. What’s the plan? Run around a bit and try to sound like a crowd? > [@Miller](#): > > Interesting how the OP can’t discuss issues about men’s rights without framing it as an attack on feminism. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that his interest in these issues extends only so far as they can be used to criticize a philosophy he doesn’t like, and absent that context, he doesn’t care about these issues at all. Oh MMMiller, are you suggesting he shouldn’t be allowed to criticise your philosophy? Have you applied a critical eye to it? Why would anybody need an additional reason to criticise? The discussion, by the way, is titled ‘On Feminism’, so he’s not _really_ framing a discussion on men’s issues at all, is he? You’re framing criticism as an issues…issue, because you don’t like the criticism - and you’ve evinced no care for the issues either. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Tell me this, **Jack** , would you be equally as likely to go around telling atheists what their policies, beliefs and leaders are while at once dismissing their thoughts on the matter? > > Just wondering because it seems that your prefered form of argument is to presume that you already know the answer while implying that everyone else is lying to you about their’s. My prefered [sic] form of argument is to ask questions, which I’ve repeated in vain - one of which was in the post you just quoted (you ignored the question). The other was repeated in a slightly earlier post. All the mainstream feminists have ignored them. I’ll post them again later I expect. But to answer your question, the analogy with religion that other feminist posters have raised and on which I have expanded, works better than atheism. I’m equally as likely to criticise any other religion - to challenge, for example, the catholic church (based on their beliefs _and_ the actions of ‘fringe’ individuals protected and excused by the mainstream). Atheism is not a belief system (but at least ‘You’re not a feminist? I bet you’d attack atheists!’ is more novel than ‘YNAF? I bet you’re a racist anti-semitic misandrist baby-eater’). It’s hard to argue with atheism, eh? If only feminism wasn’t so…problematic. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/144 "2015-11-11T18:07:39Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > But to answer your question, the analogy with religion that other feminist posters have raised and on which I have expanded, works better than atheism. I’m equally as likely to criticise any other religion - to challenge, for example, the catholic church (based on their beliefs _and_ the actions of ‘fringe’ individuals protected and excused by the mainstream). Atheism is not a belief system (but at least ‘You’re not a feminist? I bet you’d attack atheists!’ is more novel than ‘YNAF? I bet you’re a racist anti-semitic misandrist baby-eater’). It’s hard to argue with atheism, eh? If only feminism wasn’t so…problematic. You’re not criticizing (or not just criticizing) – you’re telling us that what we believe _isn’t feminism_. That’s very different, and akin to telling Jews that what they believe isn’t Judaism. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/145 "2015-11-11T18:23:26Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > As a self-identifying mainstream feminist, I strongly condemn this misandric extremist position. > As a self-identifying mainstream feminist, I strongly condemn this misandric extremist position. > As a self-identifying mainstream feminist, I strongly condemn this misandric extremist position. > As a self-identifying mainstream feminist, I strongly con… Wait! Is she calling all men dicks?! > Happy?.. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll second all this. And yet nobody (and it’s the same nobodies as the earlier thread) wants to back up ‘extremist’ with anything other than bald assertion. The word you want there is ‘foundational’, or somesuch. The positions that are entrenched not only in women’s studies courses but also pervasive in academia. The positions that educated a generation of activists and which fuel the ‘third wave’ of women’s warriors. The positions that underpin the entire philosophy, which is why I keep you’re saying you’re _not_ feminist. You’re an egalitarian, if you wish, if equality is what really motivates you, but by claiming to be a feminist while rejecting its principles you merely shield the bigots and promote inequality. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/146 "2015-11-11T18:26:03Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Oh MMMiller, are you suggesting he shouldn’t be allowed to criticise your philosophy? Have you applied a critical eye to it? Why would anybody need an additional reason to criticise? The discussion, by the way, is titled ‘On Feminism’, so he’s not _really_ framing a discussion on men’s issues at all, is he? You’re framing criticism as an issues…issue, because you don’t like the criticism - and you’ve evinced no care for the issues either. I’m not really sure what to do with this conflagration of fantasy and incoherence. The half of it that’s comprehensible doesn’t bear any resemblance to anything I’ve said, and the other half doesn’t bear any resemblance to anything at all. “You’re framing criticism as an issues issue,” is already pretty high on my list of “Favorite Verbal Flailings.” But I do like that little moan you make when you say my name. You’re not the first guy I’ve had the effect on. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/147 "2015-11-11T18:33:54Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Actually, [boys do fine](http://blog.prepscholar.com/what-is-the-average-sat-score) on test scores: 499 to 495 on reading, and 530 to 499 on math. It’s on grading that boys fall behind. Okay, and yes? This doesn’t answer my question. Can you take a stab at it? It’s worth pointing out that boys with the highest test scores probably gravitate to schools like MIT, Ga Tech, and other STEM schools where male admissions is higher than average. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/148 "2015-11-11T18:35:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re not criticizing (or not just criticizing) – you’re telling us that what we believe _isn’t feminism_. That’s very different, and akin to telling Jews that what they believe isn’t Judaism. I’ve just done it again, before seeing this. I’m not aware of extremist jews, though I’d suppose ultra-orthodox jews would dare to tell other jews what judaism is. If I met some self-identifying jews who declared they were atheists who ate pork, I might well tell them that what they believe isn’t judaism. Someone overestimates the magical properties of ‘self-identifying’… I like ‘akin’, by the way, it doesn’t get enough outings, it seems to me. Shame it’s not actually pertinent here. There is value in your post though - we learn that once again, feminists seek to elevate a largely economic political philosophy to the status of a religion. It’s that priesthood scam you’re after, isn’t it? ‘You must do what we say, without criticism, for as long as we can think of things you can do to benefit us, and woe betide the heretic or heathen! Now, deposit your sacrifices here and remember to read the memos!’ ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/149 "2015-11-11T18:47:16Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > And yet nobody (and it’s the same nobodies as the earlier thread) wants to back up ‘extremist’ with anything other than bald assertion. We keep backing up “extremist” with “misandrist”. We feel comfortable with the definition of terms. You simply can’t/won’t accept them. Perhaps it’s you who is failing to define your expectations. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > The positions that are entrenched not only in women’s studies courses but also pervasive in academia. The positions that educated a generation of activists and which fuel the ‘third wave’ of women’s warriors. Baby and bathwater. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > The positions that underpin the entire philosophy, which is why I keep you’re saying you’re _not_ feminist. You’re an egalitarian, if you wish, if equality is what really motivates you, but by claiming to be a feminist while rejecting its principles you merely shield the bigots and promote inequality. If I tell you that I was raised both an atheist and (ethnically) a Jew, would you put either claim into question at the expense of the other? Is my atheism undermined by the fact that I have participated in both religious and ethnic/traditional ceremonies? If not, then why can I not be both an egalitarian (in the general humanitarian sense) and a feminist (in a gender equality sense)? Does one undermine the other? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/150 "2015-11-11T18:49:33Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I’ve just done it again, before seeing this. I’m not aware of extremist jews, though I’d suppose ultra-orthodox jews would dare to tell other jews what judaism is. If I met some self-identifying jews who declared they were atheists who ate pork, I might well tell them that what they believe isn’t judaism. Someone overestimates the magical properties of ‘self-identifying’… You’ve answered my question as I was asking it. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/151 "2015-11-11T19:01:05Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > The positions that are entrenched not only in women’s studies courses but also pervasive in academia. The positions that educated a generation of activists and which fuel the ‘third wave’ of women’s warriors. For the record-- the women quoted by **Linus** are decidedly “second-wave.” None of them are younger than 74; half of them are dead. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/152 "2015-11-11T19:04:37Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I’ve just done it again, before seeing this. I’m not aware of extremist jews, though I’d suppose ultra-orthodox jews would dare to tell other jews what judaism is. If I met some self-identifying jews who declared they were atheists who ate pork, I might well tell them that what they believe isn’t judaism. Someone overestimates the magical properties of ‘self-identifying’… > > I like ‘akin’, by the way, it doesn’t get enough outings, it seems to me. Shame it’s not actually pertinent here. There is value in your post though - we learn that once again, feminists seek to elevate a largely economic political philosophy to the status of a religion. It’s that priesthood scam you’re after, isn’t it? ‘You must do what we say, without criticism, for as long as we can think of things you can do to benefit us, and woe betide the heretic or heathen! Now, deposit your sacrifices here and remember to read the memos!’ I don’t think you understand what I mean. If you were a feminist, it’d be similar to a orthodox Jew telling other Jews what real Judaism is. But you’re not a feminist – in fact, you oppose feminism. So you’re akin to an opponent of Judaism telling Jews what real Judaism is. It has nothing to do with religion – feel free to substitute any non-religious ideology. We can try “egalitarian” – you telling feminists that we aren’t feminists, and what real feminism consists of, is akin to an opponent of egalitarianism telling egalitarians that their beliefs are not real egalitarianism. Whatever you call your beliefs – if someone who claimed to be an opponent of your system (Jackism, perhaps, if not egalitarianism) – I doubt you would be persuaded of anything if this Jackism/egalitarianism opponent told you that your beliefs were not real Jackism or real egalitarianism. And you can feel free to criticize – criticize and challenge away. There hasn’t been much of that, though, except for the version of feminism that none of the feminists in this thread follow. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/153 "2015-11-11T20:34:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > We keep backing up “extremist” with “misandrist”. We feel comfortable with the definition of terms. You simply can’t/won’t accept them. Perhaps it’s you who is failing to define your expectations. And I am comfortable with my use of ‘extremist’ to mean the bulk of feminists, and most especially those feminists whose activism affects the world (as opposed to those feminists who sit on SDMB saying ‘but I’m a feminist, so you should stop talking about it’. I don’t buy the ambitious assertion that half a dozen (give or take nineteen) random internet ‘feminists’ have any claim to be mainstream, let alone that their ‘mainstream’ defines the movement. The history, the actions and activists, the impacts and inequalities, these define the movement. If you want to keep claiming that the acknowledged ‘bad’ of your treasured ‘good’ is barely there, just a withering rump, a fringe, a few bad apples, then will one of you _please_ at least _attempt_ to demonstrate that? Otherwise it’s just partisan chanting like football hooligans. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Baby and bathwater. Luckily, when we pull the plug, egalitarianism saves the baby. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > If I tell you that I was raised both an atheist and (ethnically) a Jew, would you put either claim into question at the expense of the other? Is my atheism undermined by the fact that I have participated in both religious and ethnic/traditional ceremonies? If not, then why can I not be both an egalitarian (in the general humanitarian sense) and a feminist (in a gender equality sense)? Does one undermine the other? If you’re an atheist, I don’t think it’s contentious to say you’re not a Jew. Whether you were or not seems irrelevant, why did you bring it up? As to your question, it’s been covered. An egalitarian covers the old ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, leaving ‘feminism’ as a word to mean racist egalitarian, or such. Well, more properly, sexist egalitarian (though both are clearly oxymoronic). Feminism isn’t built on gender equality, it’s built on “If women are to have more it must be taken from men” (didn’t catch her name, she was a self-identifying representative of women appearing on BBC Radio 4). Feminism isnt a word for gender equality. > [@Gyrate](#): > > someone claiming to be a\*\* professional \*\*wordsmith. My bolding. If you want quality, cough up the dough (see what I did there?) > [@Peremensoe](#): > > For the record-- the women quoted by **Linus** are decidedly “second-wave.” None of them are younger than 74; half of them are dead. Yes, they’re the ones who claimed that the first wave were the suffragists, so their hatred had some credibility to cloak it. They’re the ones whose words inspire the third wave, who know now to pretend - like the British National Party trying to pass themselves off as a politicalians when they just agitate skinheads to race hate. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think you understand what I mean. I’m not sure you do, and if you keep trying to elaborate on a flawed analogy, nobody will > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you were a feminist, it’d be similar to a orthodox Jew telling other Jews what real Judaism is. But you’re not a feminist – in fact, you oppose feminism. So you’re akin to an opponent of Judaism telling Jews what real Judaism is. I’m akin to a critic of judaism, which is not a perfect philosophy (though considerably more popular and significantly less flawed than feminism). Again (since I never said I was like an orthodox jew), I am like someone telling an atheist pork-eater that they’re not a jew, even if they say the magic words ‘self-identified’. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And you can feel free to criticize – criticize and challenge away. There hasn’t been much of that, though, except for the version of feminism that none of the feminists in this thread follow. There have been questions, which I keep repeating. Here’s one of them again: What would constitute ‘equality’ for you now? When will feminism be finished? Or is it more like Judaism - it explains the world eternal: Men bad, woman good, and so feminism will always need to oppress men. (To be fair, the most I’ve ever heard a feminist call for is 4,000 years of female rule, to ‘equal’ the oppression all men have dealt to all women with their toxic rapiness - that’s still 4 times more ambitious than Hitler…) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/154 "2015-11-11T21:38:20Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > As to your question, it’s been covered. An egalitarian covers the old ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, leaving ‘feminism’ as a word to mean racist egalitarian, or such. Well, more properly, sexist egalitarian (though both are clearly oxymoronic). Feminism isn’t built on gender equality, it’s built on “If women are to have more it must be taken from men” (didn’t catch her name, she was a self-identifying representative of women appearing on BBC Radio 4). Feminism isnt a word for gender equality. Your love of words doesn’t entitle you to create your own definitions for them, Jack. Here’s how [Oxford](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism) defines “feminism”: > [@](#): > > Definition of feminism in English: > noun > > The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic **equality to men**. [Mirriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism) does not disagree. I’m done playing this tiresome game with you, Jack. You’ve nothing to offer but fatuous pedantry on subjects you know nothing about. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/155 "2015-11-11T21:56:38Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Thirded Fourth. Except I don’t think she’s saying that all men are dicks. The phrase implies some Freudian identity construction. I’d need to be more familiar with her work to be certain. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/156 "2015-11-11T22:02:14Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > For the record-- the women quoted by **Linus** are decidedly “second-wave.” None of them are younger than 74; half of them are dead. And they are something like .0000000000000002 percent of all women (my math may be slightly off). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/157 "2015-11-11T22:03:25Z")
Dictionaries are about as irrelevant as they can possibly be in this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/158 "2015-11-11T22:05:32Z")
> [@andros](#): > > (With one exception: I agree with Morgan’s underlying thesis that “the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” Class hatred is never right. It’s the problem in the first place, not the solution. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/159 "2015-11-11T23:13:17Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > If you’re an atheist, I don’t think it’s contentious to say you’re not a Jew. Whether you were or not seems irrelevant, why did you bring it up? “Jew” is an ethnicity as well as a religion (as **Quicksilver** mentions), so this could indeed be contentious. > [@](#): > > As to your question, it’s been covered. An egalitarian covers the old ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, leaving ‘feminism’ as a word to mean racist egalitarian, or such. Well, more properly, sexist egalitarian (though both are clearly oxymoronic). Feminism isn’t built on gender equality, it’s built on “If women are to have more it must be taken from men” (didn’t catch her name, she was a self-identifying representative of women appearing on BBC Radio 4). Feminism isnt a word for gender equality. This is what you believe, but many of us believe that “feminism” covers the “old dictionary definition of ‘feminism’”. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure you do, and if you keep trying to elaborate on a flawed analogy, nobody will If multiple people tell me that they’re not understanding me, I’ll certainly re-evaluate how I’m communicating. If it’s just you, then I feel okay about it. > [@](#): > > I’m akin to a critic of judaism, which is not a perfect philosophy (though considerably more popular and significantly less flawed than feminism). Again (since I never said I was like an orthodox jew), I am like someone telling an atheist pork-eater that they’re not a jew, even if they say the magic words ‘self-identified’. Not just “someone”, but ‘someone who opposes Judaism and believes it is a bad thing for humanity’ – Jews are unlikely to consider the opinion of such a person valuable as to who is actually a Jew. If you had no problem whatsoever with feminism, then I would certainly consider your opinion on what actually constitutes feminism much more strongly than for someone (you) who strongly opposes feminism and feels it is a very bad thing. > [@](#): > > There have been questions, which I keep repeating. Here’s one of them again: > > What would constitute ‘equality’ for you now? When will feminism be finished? When women and men are treated equally by law and by society – including control over one’s body, equal career choices, roughly equal representation and equal opportunity at all levels of business and government, and many other aspects. Not that feminism would be “finished” at that point – feminism and other egalitarian philosophies will always be necessary to prevent any backsliding into past inequalities (or future inequalities). EDIT: No idea where that “u” at the top came from. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/160 "2015-11-12T02:22:10Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > Fourth. Except I don’t think she’s saying that all men are dicks. The phrase implies some Freudian identity construction. I’d need to be more familiar with her work to be certain. I was kidding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=9)