But you are an egalitarian, and that’s the definition of feminism, so you are one. BOOM!
Just like you can’t say you believe that Jesus Christ is your savior and all that but say you aren’t a Christian!
Woohoo!
I didn’t say you had, lance. Since almost all the substance of almost all the posts I’ve seen of yours depend on that kind of wilful or negligent deceit, I shall no longer be responding to you.
ETA: Oh go on then, since we cross-posted.
An egalitarian believes also in equality regardless of race. A feminist can be (and many are) a racist. Boom. Woohoo. Good luck with your life…
I see what you’re getting at now. You want to distinguish egalitarians from a feminists because the latter leaves a sour taste in your mouth due to the fact that there is an extreme faction of feminists that can be fairly labeled as misandrists. Fair enough. You’re an egalitarian. By your definition, so am I.
On the other hand, when we’re talking about women’s equality issues, we are talking about a very specific type of egalitarianism, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, we’re not talking about religious or ethnic or sexual preference egalitarianism, are we? Feminism seems to be a perfectly valid word with which to describe precisely the type of egalitarianism we’re talking about. When we avoid the word because extremists wish to co-opt it for their own means, the terrorists win.
Yeah, you did.
Oh well.
Yes, you’re in over your head. You completely missed the point.
But hey, we’re all egalitarians. Cool. Now you can slowly start to chip away at the meaning of “egalitarian.”
Feminists are extremists. They didn’t ‘co-opt’ the word, they defined it. Egalitarianism as it applies to men and women (it’s telling, don’t you think, that you referred only to “women’s equality issues”? That’s the one-sided ‘equality’ which isn’t equality by any reasonable definition to which I’ve previously referred) can be described in many ways, of which ‘feminism’ is the least useful - it lumps you in unnecessarily with the bulk of feminists, who are extremists. That the word ‘feminism’ has now been co-opted, if you will (I wouldn’t, but that’s another story), by those who just tend to think that things shouldn’t be unfair (at least as far as the fair sex goes…) is at best unfortunate, at worst a deliberate attempt to whitewash what feminism mostly is and always has been.
There are always at least two ways to reach equality. Suppose Alice, Betty and Clara all have one apple each, while Andy, Bob and Chuck all have 3 apples each. We can create equality by dividing all the apples fairly, or by taking all the apples away from everyone. Both are equality - just standing for ‘equality’, even when you use the word in its realistic non-feminist sense, says nothing. Using it to mean ‘equality for women, who have less apples’ while ignoring the fact that the girls all have oranges, because the law insists and culture reinforces the boys giving their oranges to the girls - that’s not equality.
In the real world, consider the focus on the (mythical, but never mind) ‘wage gap’, while ignoring which sex spends most of the money. In working class households, it was commonplace that the working husband took his wage packet home unopened, so that his wife could make the household budgeting decisions, giving him his ‘pocket money’. Egalitarians look at the whole picture, without prejudice. Feminists endeavour to control the narrative and focus, to create a distorted picture, with an aim that is no sense related to ‘equality’.
You can align yourself with who you wish. There were plenty of proud, patriotic germans who didn’t murder anyone in the 30s and 40s. But being a member of the Nazi party, while advisable to avoid the wrath of the ‘extremist’ Party members, is nevertheless a shameful thing to admit to.
I feel I ought to forestall the whole ‘but we’re against all gender roles’ nonsense. Again, if you believe that men created gender roles to oppress women, then it isn’t about equality at all - it’s about demonising men. If you believe that nature/evolution got it wrong, then I can’t help you at all.
LOL. You just defined it, not them.
Enough already, dude. Like many labels, feminist means different things to different people, and that’s okay. Stop trying to insist that they all think alike. It’s pointless.
…I am not an extremist. I don’t demonise men because I am a man.
I don’t know what the heck you are talking about because it most certainly isn’t feminism.
But if you think that as a feminist I hold extreme views, please explain to me what extreme views I hold.
I find it rarely helps to take one post without the context of the others, but what a dull world it would be if we were all alike, eh?
Being a man doesn’t get in the way of demonising men. It’s rather a foolish suggestion to pretend otherwise.
If you’d read through my contributions to this thread, you’d be aware that I’m not calling you an extremist (if we are to take your post on trust - I always believe everything I read on the internet, perhaps you do too…). I’m saying you’re not a feminist (or that your use of the word is fundamentally meaningless - the result’s more or less the same either way).
How about you tell me your views? It would be a positive contribution to discussion (as opposed to the merely combative, partisan and unhelpful post you actually made). If you did that, we could all form an opinion as to whether any of your views are ‘extremist’. I put that word in detachment quotes because it applies to the vast bulk of feminists, which tends to weaken its meaning - when the extreme becomes mainstream, it doesn’t help to talk of extremism, but neither does it make the ethically unpalatable magically ethical.
Let’s suppose you’re using ‘feminist’ in the practically meaningless sense of ‘equality for women’. Already, you’re edging away from any meaningful centre (which would be equality for all). Of course, ‘extremists’ are those people more extreme than you, right? So somewhere there’s a detestable, despicable gender-bigot looking down her (or his) nose at the slightly more detestable, marginally more despicable gender-bigot ‘extremist’ next door. She (or he) merely spits at men, while her (or his!) neighbour shoots them. So you see, trying to wave away the issues with some waffle about extremists really isn’t helpful.
Neither you, nor any other ‘feminist’ claiming an interest in equality has done or said anything of value to the pursuit of equality here. Indeed, the defence of feminism, such as it is, has largely been personal attacks (and petty gotchas) directed at those challenging feminism (but not ‘extremist’ attacks, of course, which are by definition more extreme than anything you do. Or anyone does. There are no extremists! Boom, woohoo, to borrow an idiotic expression). Meanwhile, those feminists actively engaged in issues are detestable and despicable. That the rest of you see the value in joining the party doesn’t surprise me - I, along with other egalitarians, know only too well how easy it is for them to whip up a very damaging hate mob to deal with those who question their faith.
Do you even know what sort of equality you want? Equality of opportunity is a laudable goal. No, hang on, you can’t use ‘goal’ for something you’ve achieved already (even if that equality is of the one-sided variety). What’s being fought for now is equality of outcome. That can only be achieved through control, and can only be fully achieved through total control. All totalitarians are extremists. Ergo, feminists (no you’re not) are extremists (feel free to insist you are…)
I mean, come on, do you think we can’t see you just making up random self-serving crap to fit your pre-determined opinion?
I’m a feminist, and my feminism matches pretty closely to the feminism of my friends, family, and most feminists I read about. It doesn’t match at all LinusK’s or Jack of Words description of feminism.
Jews are unlikely to believe that Jew-critics have a more accurate picture of Judaism than Jews. Feminists are unlikely to believe that feminist-critics have a more accurate picture of feminism than feminists.
…you write a lot of words.
But brevity can be your friend.
You’ve declared that I am not a feminist based on, well absolutely nothing really. I’ve told you nothing about myself, you know nothing about my views nor my beliefs.
It is only after you declare categorically that I am not a feminist that you make a request for my “views.” But it doesn’t work that way. You can’t claim I’m not a feminist based on nothing: then ask me to explain myself…to which, if you keep to form, will result in you declaring that I am not a feminist regardless of what I say.
You don’t get to define feminism. You are a random anonymous voice on the internet, feminism has existed longer than you have been on the planet and you are not an authority on how the word is defined. So no, you are wrong. I am a feminist, and I do not hold extreme views. I do not demonise men.
You do realise you are talking about me here? And iiandyiiii, and lance strongarm and ddsun and almost everyone else you have engaged in this thread? We are feminists actively engaged in debating these issues with you. And you find us detestable and despicable? Really?
Jack of Words, the very first stickied thread in this forum addresses accusations of lying against other posters.
Your persistent accusations of “deceit” violate that rule.
You will stop that behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m a feminist who engages in at least one issue. My issue is the low number of women in STEM fields. I engage in outreach activity geared towards girls. Are you calling me detestable and despicable?
Wait juuuuust a minute here, LinusK: you’re quoting Janice Shaw Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute as an example of FEMINIST criticism of men’s relationship choices?!?
***BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! *** 
Oh golly, that was a good one. The LaHaye Institute in fact is a “thinktank” of the right-wing Christian antifeminist group Concerned Women for America. They are diehard social conservatives who hate feminism and feminist opposition to societally imposed traditional gender roles as much as, well, even more than LinusK does.
Consequently, of course, what Crouse and the CWA are saying has absolutely jackshit to do with any kind of feminist opinion or advocacy.
Classic own-goal there, LinusK. But thanks for the guffaw. 
Can you, more usefully, advise me how to address the deceitful behaviour of posters who, for example, “quote” other posters as saying something they have not remotely said?
Apparently I’m not permitted to say that you’re wrong on purpose or negligently. Yet those are the only options, it seems to me. Let’s see if I’m allowed to advise you to reread my post containing those words (hang on, would I be allowed to call you detestable and despicable even if I thought you were?). It seems to me the moderation of this discussion shares much with…let’s say ‘extremist’, if it will help…feminist fascination with censorship and the suppression of opposing views. I do, for the record, find censorship and the suppression of opposing views detestable and despicable. I also find ‘debate’ consisting almost entirely of purposeful or negligent [del]dece[/del] [del]fals[/del] [del]li[/del] error(?) to be detestable and/or despicable.
…I can’t quite tell exactly what you are trying to say here. As I said to you before, brevity can be your friend.
Do you find conversations with feminists like myself detestable and despicable or not? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Something that could be your friend would be to keep to the one question (for preference, one based on fact). I will ask you to reread the post in which I used the words ‘detestable’ and ‘despicable’ - at no point did I say you were. I asked you to suppose that there was, somewhere, a detestable, despicable gender-bigot. I’ve lost track of which of you has conceded that there are ‘extremists’ (though as noted, that’s not an objective measure - ‘extremist’ most often means ‘someone more extreme than me’, even though there’s bound to be someone less extreme who thinks the speaker is extreme). But there are despicable, detestable people. Can we agree on that? The moment I actually suggest that you are despicable and/or detestable, feel free to call me on it. The moment I suggest a “conversation” with you is detestable or despicable (where did you get that from??), do the same. I’m increasingly convinced a conversation with you is a waste of time, if that helps.
Brevity, by the way, is not always friendly. The whole ‘answer yes or no!’ approach, for example. That approach is another cheap stunt. Complex ideas are not always amenable to brevity, or yes/no answers. Limiting ones engagement with a topic to soundbites and simplistic binaries is most certainly not your friend. Unless you [general ‘you’, not personal ‘you’] are a despicable, detestable totalitarian ideologue, for example. Then, reshaping the arguments of people who disagree with you [g’y’,np’y’] and trying to goad them into behaviour that will silence them in any given forum (for example) is your [g’y’] friend but their despicable, detestable extremist behaviour.
…so thats a no then?
Well I think its a no, it really is hard to tell.
Anyway.
You stated that I am not a feminist.
How can you tell that I’m not a feminist when you have no idea what my personal thoughts and ideas are?
Things I’ve learned from this thread so far:
I am a feminist (apparently - you can check with lance).
Only feminists can say what a feminist is.
I can’t say what a feminist is (even though I’m a feminist).
Random strangers on the internet can’t say what feminism is.
Random strangers on the internet have to be told about feminism by…random strangers on the internet…who can’t say what feminism is…unless they can.
‘Feminism’ is now an utterly meaningless term, a development that only serves to shield despicable, detestable extremists (I regard shielding the detestable and despicable as both detestable and despicable, but I’m quirky like that).
Oh, and the rule about not insulting posters personally appears not to apply to lance strongarm (I haven’t learned why yet, but I bet you can guess what my guess is).
Ah, and there appears to be some confusion about what an accusation is but I think I’m not allowed to say who is confused. No, hang on, lance keeps saying I’m confused without getting modded, so it must be ok…in which case, tomndebb, you’re confused. (Oh! What if the special rules for lance also apply to that?)