What is the boundary that distinguishes real "feminists" from "feminazis"?
The boundary of perception.Are they being perceived by someone who is making an informed judgement? Or are they being perceived by someone who doesn't have an ouce of understanding regarding what feminism is?A person with knowledge of feminism and of the word ‘nazi’ would never put them together. Feminism is fundamentally and most radically different from anything ‘nazi’.Do you see concentration camps where men are kept unfed, unclothed and murdered on a whim or by cold calculation?Do you see feminists preparing gas chambers or attacking Poland?The use of the word ‘nazi’ in this regard is irresponsible and frivolous. The word means something horrific. It is a gross injustice to call a feminist, a ‘nazi’.Now, the latter person might use the term ‘feminazi’ because they neither understand the full implication of the word ‘nazi’, nor do they really know what feminism is.Of course, if you think a little bit and read some feminist writing and some history, you will realise, there is nothing called feminazi.My question is, where is the boundary between the informed critic and the sexist with a fragile ego?
Do you believe feminists must accept the bad with the good when it comes to women being equal to men?
That word equal confuses people. Feminists don’t want to be the same as men, or identical to them. We recognize that all people, men and women, have flaws and talents, and we want women to be able to make the most of their talents on an equal playing field. Feminists stand for equality of opportunity, not identical results. It would be impossible for all people to be the same, and have equal outs=comes, even if we all had exactly the same opportunities. Some of us, men and women both, are stronger or faster than others. Some of us, men and women both, are better at math, or history or music, or dance. Some of us are more outgoing and some of us are shy, men and women both. What feminists want, is equality under the law, respect for who we are as people, regardless of our sex, and not to be limited by outmoded gender stereotypes. This means accepting the good with the bad, in terms of responsibility and consequences for our actions. But it also means having the opportunity to succeed at whatever we decide to put our minds to, without being held back by social mores that say certain jobs or skills are not available simply because we are women. I accept that 95% of women aren’t going to be able to physically compete with men for tasks that require brute strength, but how many jobs in our current economic system do?
What must be done to separate bad feminists from good ones?
I am confused by this question.“What must be done…” — By whom? How?“…to separate…” — Separate? Where? How?“… bad feminists from good ones?” — What, exactly, are “bad” and “good” feminists, and who gets to decide which is which?Feminists believe in equality of the sexes and solving the problems and injustices that inequality has created for women over the centuries. Reasonable people can disagree on how this might be done. Some people choose to go about this in ways others find unpleasant, illogical or unproductive. But one thing feminists believe is that women should be allowed to make their own choices of what to think and do.Or they should. If there are some who don’t, perhaps they are the bad feminists.But I still wouldn’t “separate” them, because I have to tolerate their choices.
Is it correct to state that someone who is not a feminist is a sexist, a misogynist, or anti-women, as Ani DiFranco is reputed to have said?
No. It just means they’re not a feminist or part of their group and their actions. Just because you don’t support a certain charity means you’re against the cause. You might not support them because of their faults, actions, lies, etc.I am for equal rights AND responsibilities so I am not a feminist or any “-ist/-ism”. As far as I am concerned, “You must be ready to receive whatever you are willing to dish out”.I dislike how Feminists operate (biased laws, hypocrisy, shame tactics, bigotry, screaming/shutting down conversation if it takes a path they don’t like, abuse of authority/laws/social norms, lack of courtesy/respect, making fun of victims since they don’t come under their classification, etc).Basically Feminism is a power movement and uses Marxist tactics - just read up on that and you will see the near ditto SOP. They just want more privileges and special treatment everywhere and none of the responsibilities.“When people have privilege; Equality seems like discrimination”P.S.: I know a lot of good people in my life (had a great fortune in that regard) - men and women - who chafe because of the biases present in today’s society and feminism is just insulting all of them by classifying one side as the perpetual helpless incompetent victim while the other side as the evil incarnate who have no emotions.
Do any other feminists feel embarrassed thanks to radical feminists?
Like I'm a feminist but I don't call myself one cuz I don't want people to think I'm one of those ridiculous feminists who hate men yet want women to be men...... I just call myself a normal human who supports equality for all. I believe that women of course should have an equal voice in politics and law and can hold any job a man can. and it's obvious that men and women are different and men are more apt for certain jobs that women are not. What I hate most about these feminists is their bate for transsexual women.... It's bad enough that they call themselves "womyn" but they hate transsexual women for some reason. I might have been born differently but I'm still a woman. and I'm a WOMAN and proud to be a woman, not a womyn (woman so ashamed of being a woman she has to call herself that to make herself feel special LOL) And I'm proud to be a woman and very happy that I live in an era where I can not only be the woman that I am, and at age 16, but to also have equality :)
Do you think the most radical feminists who support misandry make much more noise than those feminists who believe in true equality?
Do I think the feminists who support misandry make more noise than those who believe in equality?Define noise.I’d say the people labeled as “extreme” or “radical” (Julia’s answer distinguishes kinds of meanings for that) do tend to be loud; that’s part of being at the fringes. You get angry and desperate. Doesn’t matter if you’re absolutely right or your reasoning appears insane; your behavior will be outside the norm because no one seems to be listening.On the other hand, if “noise” can be described as the most constant reporting of ideas, interviews with certain people, essays from certain points of view, then the most “noise” is made by the norm; in this country, liberals (which includes slightly left to slightly right, based on the principles the country is based on — that ideas are important, that the majority should win, etc.) have most platforms and, annoying or soothing, their voices are mostly what’s heard.So radical feminism, socialist feminism, pro-life feminism, and so forth don’t get published much in mainstream journals; hardly even get quoted except for the usual token quotation the journals who still aspire to journalistic principles find necessary. They talk a lot about “radical” feminists (without recognizing that there are actual political differences among various branches of feminism that are both logical and legitimate) but don’t let them be primary sources. You might start thinking that socialism or anti-patriarchal activism or protective individualism might have a point, and then what?As I say whenever relevant, I’m a socialist feminist, and egalitarianism simply lacks ambition for what our society could truly be — which may be, but isn’t likely to be, the “true egalitarianism” you’re talking about.But I make very little noise in the great scheme of things, and in my experience, the echo chambers of mainstream feminism (the women who voted for Clinton and think shattering the glass ceiling is their most important political act, not to mention nurturing identity politics no matter how they divide us) are much larger and never soundproof.Thanks for asking me, Elliott.
Why do feminists dress flashy?
I just read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11569484/Sexual-harassment-Women-objectify-men.-But-wolf-whistling-is-criminal.html and was ENRAGED by it. I think feminists are confused by a logical fallacy of sorts. So, women are more often judged by their looks than men are. Because in society the media pushes this sort of behavior with ads in Cosmo, Vogue, Cover Girl, etc. And with men, there is similar stigma, while less aggressive it's still out there in magazines such as Men's Health, GQ and few others. So the problem is with men, we are told if we're confident, hard working and have good character we can get by in life. Whereas with women, they're told the same thing, but AT THE SAME TIME, women have it drilled into their heads that their looks will get them by in life. And they believe this, and behave this way, and men react to it(it's simple psychological/instinctive reactions, and make up and altered appearances are designed to cause these very reactions to work in the favor of the woman). It is arguable whether or not men are more visual than women, but there is statistical evidence to back up this claim with matters such as pornography, foreplay and romance novels.