Let me spell down my stance, because apperently no one here bothers to look at feminism beyond sterotypes of pop culture.

I admire women who live life on their own terms. I admire women of remarkable spirit. I admire women who have values and live according to them.

To me it is not about one thing. It is about the freedom of choice.

To some women it feels natural to stay at home and care for their children. Some of them I love and like. Some are wonderful women full of wisdom and strenght, some are lazy bimbos. All of whose choice I respect.

To some women those things feel unnatural. To some Femininity is about much more than being able to bear children and find a husband. Some want a great career, living life to the full and travelling the world. And are repulsed by an idea of being (solely) a sex object.

To say that one thing or another is more natural, to call those who think differently "illogical" when I can produce just as many examples to refute this statement as you can to support it, so dont even bother we will end up filling the entire forum, is vile. You can argue that you didnt say that "I dont have a choice", but it has been strongly implied that my choice is unnatural and therefor wrong.

The word "feminism" comes from one of the most beautiful words for a woman "femme".

Feminism really began as a term in France (feminisme) around the end of the 1800s. However, the principals behind this actual term - i.e., the struggle for equality - have been around since the beginning of the Western world. It came to the U.S. at the beginning of the 1900s via an article about a French Suffragist named Madeline Pelltier. But it didn't come into popular usage until the 1960s or 1970s. At that time, women's liberationist was actually the preferred term, but that started to get a bad name, so it was abandoned for feminism. Now, that has a bad name. However, what this example shows, and what I believe, is that the name is in many ways irrelevant because it's what's behind the name, i.e. equality, that is frightening to people. Equality commonly refers to the idea of equal treatment.
Therefore, we should stick with the name. Read the work of Nancy Cott for more on the history of the word.


Feminism is a discourse that involves various movements, theories, and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, advocate equality for women, and campaign for women's rights and interests.

It is not one thing "or" another, it is all things feminine.

Personally I believe in common sense and golden middle, but that is beside the point.

You say you are not feminists?

One of the strongest examples of feminist activism is an organization called Concerned Women for America. It was founded in 1979. by Beverly LaHaye, the wife of fundamentalist Baptist minister and Moral Majority co-founder Tim LaHaye, after she saw Barbara Walters interviewing Betty Friedan. Friedan made the claim that her views represented those of a great many American women. LaHaye jumped up and declared, "Betty Friedan doesn't speak for me and I bet she doesn't speak for the majority of women in this country."

Though CWA is a multi-issue organization, its "special role" in the Christian Right has been that of an exemplary foil to the women's movement: the good, pro-family, "spirit-controlled" women, who, in LaHaye's words, are "truly liberated" because they are "totally submissive" to their husbands. CWA activists, though they may appear to be showing dangerous signs of independence, are in fact doing the will of their husbands and their Christian duty to promote pro-family values.

They sure fit nicely into your "emasculating militant" mold. (and because some here cant recognize it, this was sarcasm).



This article originally appeared as a "First Person" column in the Emory Report on March 4, 1996

"How many times have you heard someone say, "I'm not a feminist, but . . . . ." Fill in the blank: I agree that men and women should earn equal pay . . . I believe that sexism still exists . . . I agree that women should have access to birth control, regardless of age or marital status and so on and so forth. I've heard it often enough to conclude that these days women in all walks of life may be engaged in the practice of feminism but many won't call themselves feminists. Why is that and does it matter?

According to Susan Faludi, author of Backlash, the fear and loathing of feminism has been a "perpetual viral condition" in our society. Its symptoms subside and then resurface periodically. The flare-ups, just like the one we seem to be experiencing now, always seem to be triggered by the perception that women have made some inroads in the pursuit of equal rights.

Some say feminism is outdated. Others say it just doesn't work for everyone. Some say we've become too political, too organizational, too theoretical -- that we've lost our grassroots functioning. Others would prefer picking and choosing their causes within the women's movement.

The truth is that feminism has been wrought with controversy and schisms since its inception. For me one of the best things about feminism has always been its elbow room for dissension and its embrace of open communication. We don't all look alike. Why should we all think alike? The bad thing, however, is that every time we disagree on something, someone says, "Look at those women. They just can't get along."

In my generation, known as the "second wave," we came to feminism as adults, perhaps through a personal experience that converted us, or via a long, organic process. We listened to each other's stories -- often very different, but usually with shared themes -- and experienced a kind of rebirth. Young women of today, on the other hand, were born into a feminism with many different, and often seemingly contradictory, images. Some learned from the media. Others learned from teachers, books, mothers and sisters. Some of them identify themselves as the "third wavers."

The second wave worked to pass, enforce, and restore legislation to prohibit sex discrimination on the job and in schools. They worked fiercely so that we women could have free control over our bodies and access to full reproductive care. The hard lesson is this: the work is not over. Older and younger generations of feminists are in the trenches together these days fighting to remove the threats to these basic freedoms. And many are joined in an effort to support women candidates for public office so we can increase the numbers of women in decision-making positions.

But even among these two groups that share a commitment to social change, there is plenty of tension. Why is that? I don't profess to know all the reasons, but judging from the conversations I've been a part of, it seems to me that much of the controversy lies in the perception of an identity. In the earlier days of the movement, before it was so large (yes, folks, contrary to what you hear, feminism still beckons and burgeons) and so diverse, the notion that there was a correct way to be or look like a feminist was much less common. Nevertheless, a narrow stereotype developed over the years. It was fueled by racism, homophobia and classism inside and outside of the movement and garnered favor by the press and the political right. Unfortunately it also gains strength from people who consider themselves feminists.

It is no surprise to me that so many of the younger women, born into these schisms and stereotypes, shunned the feminist label that we wear as the pride of our identity. Some, like the second wavers, are choosing to recast the concepts and broaden the boundaries. I think that's a good thing. Many of my friends who, like me, have always rejected the notion of a shared definition of feminism, recognize that these women are offering us more choices. Choice has always been the power of feminism.

But there are other women who just don't want to be part of a political movement. They don't want to be considered revolutionary, or God forbid, man-haters. (That's another interesting point: Feminists have been alternately accused of hating men and of wanting to be just like them!) Well, in terms of the changes needed to create a society where women can live a full, self-determined life, we may need to be revolutionary! As to man-hating, I quite honestly don't know any feminists who sit around engaged in idle male bashing. Most of us are too busy doing more important things. Neither do we wish we were men. On the contrary, we celebrate our womanhood.

So while I've never been exactly sure of how to construct modern feminism, I am fairly certain about what it means to me. For me, personally, feminism has been the proactive opposition to patriarchy and sexist oppression. It is my belief in and fight for women's full participation in society, our equal access to the same rights, privileges, pay and status that men have historically enjoyed. There is much more. But anything less is just not acceptable to me.

Maybe to the extent that institutions accommodate women's roles, to the extent that feminism challenges discrimination and exclusion of women, it's relatively easy for most women (and men) to embrace. Just don't call them all feminists. It's okay to call me one, though."