Our Shared Shelf discussion

I like how you explained your opinion. I am exactly of your opinion the term feminism just doesn't fit to its definition. As I've written in other threads, going towards the term equalism allows for gender to be defined as non-binary.

Ryan wrote: "Thank you, I was worried I was the only one who felt this way."

Don't worry man. We are all intelligent adults here. When you speak your mind and back it with reasoning there's nothing wrong with it. If anyone chooses to argue with you, let him/her state their reasoning and we can all learn from it with an open mind.

Now I'm not against your idea and it really does makes sense. But for a group to relabel themselves takes a lot of effort and work. Even for normal organizations, any changes to their trademark will have to go through plenty of planning, proposals, discussions and decision making (unless its wholly owned by one guy and the owner decides to change it on a whim). Feminism however, isn't a property. It is a belief and a dream of equality. It might have started out prioritizing women, but in our modern society, it has evolved to include men as well. To those that strongly believe in feminism would rally under any name as long as the method and agenda is the same.

I would like to quote an incident which has happened in the past. Some of you might remember the Quran burning controversy a couple years back which incited rage from the Islamic community with threats of killing and revenge to protect their faith. And during that incident, a journalist interviewed the Dalai Lama of Tibet, and asked him, "how would you feel if someone burned your holy scriptures?"

The Dalai Lama replied "Nothing. I would do nothing because what they burned was a book with words on it. My religion and my faith is strong within me. And it isn't so fragile that you can harm my faith by burning a book."

A name is nothing more then a name. But the actions and agenda are what's most important.

I know that most feminists do see the term as referring to equality. I also understand that a name is nothing more than a name.

However, I think if a more inclusive term would be used, more people would be attracted to the idea. There wouldn't be feminists and menimists discussing who is more correct.

Hmm, I'm agree and disagree with you.

In fact, "feminism" can't be only for the women today. I'm "feminist" and I want equality between men, women, homosexuals and more. This fight can be called "equality".
But, in our societies, some of men are a "bad" vision about women (I'm French, and sorry if my vocabulary is limited). For example, sexual agressions in street, metro, and family is a feminism problem. Equality can't be the unique answer here ! Women have to fight herself against all of that (with men who understand, of course), and I think it's not only a problem of gender but a real problem about the vision of the women in society. In this fact, we have to keep the name "feminism". If not, I'm effraid about the consequences.

Mellylfue wrote: "or example, sexual agressions in street, metro, and family is a feminism problem. Equality can't be the unique answer here !

Women are not the only victims of sexual agression. Men are also victims.

Yes, of course. But there are more women victims than men victims. And I don't think that men are victims because they are think like an object, which everyone can use. Women are considered by some people like this.
Rape is a rape, and I dont' want make a "level" between. But, you can't say that rape is more a problem for women than men.

Besides, a rape in a man is considered by the society more serious than a rape in a woman. We have just to look the legislation or punitions in medias.

Ryan wrote: "Thank you, I was worried I was the only one who felt this way."

Your post was so well expressed, thanks for writing it. Really interesting reading. I agree with what you've said about the problems that come with the word feminism and its roots, and of course for feminism to succeed it needs to be co-operative and inclusive. At the same time I cringe at the idea of changing that label because of the history that comes with it, the struggle and achievements that have taken place under that banner. If we change the name are we leaving that all behind, or distancing ourselves from it somehow? Or perhaps that change is inevitable because of the kind of thinking that you've expressed here, and movements like HeForShe, and wider social changes that are happening.

I wonder whether this issue will be affected by change in the perception of gender that is happening at the moment, thinking of the popularity of people like Conchita Wurst or Ruby Rose, or Laverne Cox or Caitlyn Jenner, or Jaden Smith being in the Louis Vitton ad campaign for women's wear. If you get rid of that 1950s TV idea of what it means to be a "man" or a "woman", then at some point does that mean that the legal and social boundaries have to come down too? If you can't just look at a person's outward appearance and judge which gender box they go in, do the boxes becomes irrelevant?

I've got a lovely utopian future in mind where gender isn't a thing any more, and sexuality doesn't have labels, and we're all just happy individuals feeling free to be ourselves. Bit optimistic maybe?? :)

I see your point but I will tell you why I think changing the name is wrong.
Feminism is a movement as you said. But feminism exists because of the violence men have taken against women for thousands and thousands of years. Feminism though, is an inclusive movement. Just because there are lot of people who have conflict with the word feminism doesn't mean we must stop calling it feminism. People who are aware of the problem should try to make others understand the movement, its implications and the role of it in society. If the name and not the research, moral, actions, thought is what is going to be be based feminism about. We are done here.
What I mean is, let's focus on understanding why does feminism exist, what's its role, and how feminism will help to build a better society. Let's focus on the lessons we can get from the debate around feminism.
And one more thing: we, men have a lot dig to start getting rid of weights that only we have put on ourselves for thousands of years. To make it more simple and basing this assertion on pure observation of human life: people with problems and traumas tend to take it on others. Well, I believe the incapacity of men to deal with our emotions and our conflicts throughout history has taken its toll on women.
Let's focus on the things that matter and not distract ourselves with "the word is not correct" or things like that.
For the rest, I understood all you said and I think it was an interesting reflexion.

Rachel wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Thank you, I was worried I was the only one who felt this way."

Your post was so well expressed, thanks for writing it. Really interesting reading. I agree with what you've said about..."

I totally agree that abandoning the name feminism takes away a lot of history associated with the suffragettes and feminists before us. They're achievements are not invalid and I read recently in an article by Srilatha Batliwala that almost none of the changes in gender and women's rights would have occurred without women's movements and feminism. It's not a dirty word so I fail to understand why there is such a need to change it.

Feminism does not equal women or women only. It is the feminine qualities that are stigmatised in society, that apply to both men and women, that it aims to reform. Men's issues are entirely inclusive in feminism so why the need to change it? Father's often lose child custody cases to the mother of the child because it is the norm or stereotype for women to stay at home and look after the children. Men go to war and die in war more than women because women are seen as too weak or fragile to match up to their macho counterparts. These feminist issues directly affect men which is why feminism, not equalism, is still valid and necessary as a name.

And we can't forget that just because women can vote and have rights in the Global North doesn't mean it's the same in the Global South. There are so many places in the world where women do not have the same rights as men and we simply look over them. It's about seeing the bigger picture and realising feminism is just as important now as it was when the suffragettes began the movement.

Changing the name of the movement almost renders the initial title and purpose of the movement useless. It's like we don't have a use for feminism anymore and it makes me so sad. Thousands, even millions, of girls can't go to school because they become child brides and thousands of boys are taught to use a firearm and be a fighter all because of stereotypes associated with feminine qualities.

HeForShe is not about changing the name to equalism, it is about making men feel involved in feminism and seeing the reason for it's existence and the need for it.

However, using the word feminism seems, to me, to be about fighting for gender equality. It doesn't take in the other problem areas such as equal rights for different religions, ethnicities and sexualities. I know that this is where some people will say, that's why we have the term intersectional feminism. Why do we have to stick to this term, even though we are trying to include fields other than gender.

The well-known suffragettes and feminists are usually white women. I think it's wrong that it is thought that if the term evolves to another, people will forget what these women have done.

Women who fought against e.g. apartheid or slavery are not considered different to the men who fought against it. Abolitionists didn't expect people to keep using that term, even though they also were for equal rights. Some of these people also died for their opinions.

I don't see any mention of feminism being a dirty word. I don't like the name HeForShe as it insinuates that women are still victims and men are here to help women become free. As I said before, I know a lot of people don't put a lot of meaning onto words, however there are several people that think words can convey a lot of meaning.

" I move to have feminism changed to Equalism in this new world that we all live in and in doing so i believe this will result in much less confusion among men who feel left out in a modern society where the issue is so complex isolating the term to one sex is counterproductive to its cause. "

This is a wonderful idea. I love how you say the term feminism is counterproductive to its cause. How true!

Kodak wrote: "As long as you don't think I'm lesser than you because I describe myself as a feminist"

Kodak, I certainly don't think you're lesser than me. I'm happy to have the chance to discuss these kind of topics here.

This gonna be short cause I'm on my phone.

When Neil Armstrong said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," did all women of the world felt left out?

Interesting notion, and I can see it would be an effective way of not scaring men off for such a silly reason. However, if we were to come to a consensus of how to re-name feminism (which I think would take a very long time, more than such a task seems worth to me) then I wouldn't go for "equalism". We already have a group that has called themselves "equalists" and (no offense to anyone who associates themselves with said "equalists") for the most part their movement consists of saying you're for equal treatment and opportunities, but that seems to be where it ends. Also, from a historical viewpoint, I can't think of anything noteworthy they have achieved, let alone through direct action (as opposed to a bureaucratic approach).

My main point is that if we were to re-name ourselves to equalists, then I'd imagine these said "equalists" would either resent us for comparing them to feminists (when many of them still hold anti-feminist views) or they would do the complete opposite; they would try to make former feminists think more like them, maybe not necessarily in terms of the meaning of equality, but more so in the sense that they would resent us for taking direct action. After all, when feminists take action, it is in most cases the "equalists", "egalitarianists" or "humanists" who decide to go into great detail about how wrong said feminists were. So, in summary, I think the moderate "equalists" would either resent us or deradicalise us, neither of which being a good thing in my opinion. If you want to name feminism differently then that's fine, we still hold the same principles. However, I think it's an especially silly idea to try to make all feminists come to the same consensus in terms of what to name this new feminism. Finally, you have to wonder: what will it all have been for? Just to appease some men who are frightened by the fact a movement for equality has "fem" in it and can't seem to be bothered with finding out what this movement actually advocates? To me, that doesn't really seem worth the effort (or risk, about which I went into detail earlier).

But this is all just my opinion. What's yours?

I don't think there's any compelling reason to change the name/term 'feminism'.

First of all, we wouldn't be redefining feminism, just changing the name. Then it's just like all the words that we change every 10 years because whatever we used to call it is no longer considered acceptable. Like how mentally disabled people used to be called feebleminded then idiots then retards then intellectually disabled etc.

Second of all, I think Tim is right. The men who complain about feminism having 'fem' in it either hasn't bothered finding out what the movement's actually about, or they're just using it as a lazy excuse to oppose it.
Instead of actually addressing the issues that feminists advocate or oppose, they just complain about the word to derail the argument.

Thanks for this thread. I've myself done a lot of thinking over this. My common observation is even a man who will say he is for gender-equality will hesitate in saying he is a feminist.

As has been rightly pointed out, feminism started out as a women's movement and therefore the term feminism was unifying for women fighting against patriarchy. But times have changed and it is not women against patriarchs anymore, rather a pro-equality programme.

In order for men to feel welcome, I also feel the need to re-name the movement. It will not take away anything from the feminism. Feminism will always be celebrated. But looking forward, names such as "He For She" which make feel men welcome should be IMHO explored.

As a guy, I've always been happy to call myself a feminist, but yeah, equality is what it's all about. Pure and simple.

Using a different word than feminism for me goes against part of what feminism stands for. Feminism is a movement not only to gain equality for men and women but equality of feminine and masculine qualities. Using the term feminism highlights the fact that it is feminine traits, in both women and men, that have been historically marginalized, and frequently oppressed.

To give a parallel example, it is similar to the controversial use of the of the empowerment phrase and overall movement "Black Lives Matter." Some in the US at least have retaliated against the movement saying "All Lives Matter," as if a recognition of the value of Black life somehow threatens the value of others lives. In doing so, these counter-activists miss the point of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" entirely by failing to notice that its point is not to minimize the value of other's lives but to point out the way that culturally/legally/politically the lives of Black men and women have been afforded less value.

Anti-feminists and pseudo-men's rights activists make the same mistake. While I agree that an effort needs to be made to include as many people as possible in the movement, changing the name feminism undermines the real need to lift up feminine qualities as equal to masculine qualities, and not just women as equal to men.

(oh and BTW there is a term for this: "Cultural Feminism")

Kodak wrote: "How about not 'renaming', but branching out? For those who feel uncomfortable with the term feminism? A thought, perhaps?

Personally, I believe in evolution, physically and mentally. And of words,..."

You seem to be thinking on the same lines as me. Branching out was what I was thinking about. Just how, I've not figured out yet.

Also, the person who pointed to "black lives matter", I agree that "all lives matter" detracts from the core issue. My position however is, if inclusion is the aim then why not take into account men's point of view?

We don't have to change the term to include men. Ever since the feminist movement started, men have been part of it and HeForShe is making the invitation even more clear.

Also, there are plenty of men who identify as feminists without being bothered about the word. If other men refuse to promote equality because of a word, they're probably not that passionate about it to begin with.

Totally with you there Astrid.

Ashwin, I guess it depends on what it was changed to, but any change, in my humble opinion, would likely reinstate the historical system of oppression of feminine qualities because it would not be able to recognize in the same way that cultural marginalization femininity and the almost deification of masculinity that is so problematic.

Also, pertaining to this thread in general and to Astrid's other point, one book suggestion might be "Voice Male: The Untold Story of the Profeminist Men's Movement"

I do agree that it's unfair for us to insinuate that the movement excludes men when they are an essential part of it. Without male feminists, the cause is practically pointless. However, I don't believe that the term "feminism" implies this. The way I see it, the term "equalism" might clarify what we as feminists stand for, but it wouldn't change as much in the long run if we put our energy into campaigning for this name change and not into our vision for the future.

If you are a man and live in this world, and see all the things that happen, and what you care about is if you are a feminist or an equalist, then you're insane. Who cares how we call it? If I tell you that nazis were not nazis, but national socialists, does that make you feel better? The point is that you want things to change, and you want to do something about it. So just do it, it's not necessary to call yourself anything. Words are just words. And when we achieve equality then we may have time to worry about linguistics, don't you think so?

Any man who says that he doesn't do anything in order to achieve gender equality because he doesn't want to be called 'a feminist' is a hypocrit. Stop worrying about other people's opinion on you and just do the right thing.

I see where you're coming from and its not a bad idea. Though what would seem easier to do is just bring up men's issues under the feminism "umbrella". Instead of changing the name of this entire gender equality movement, we could redefine it. The name doesn't make a difference as long as we have clear and concise ideals and our actions and the topics we cover in this movement is consistent and true to those ideals. And we do need to talk about men's issues to better understand each other's struggles and change things accordingly.

Alecia wrote: "I see where you're coming from and its not a bad idea. Though what would seem easier to do is just bring up men's issues under the feminism "umbrella". Instead of changing the name of this entire gender equality movement..."

I just want to clarify. My problem with the word feminism is when it is used to stand for the equal rights movement, not the gender equality movement.

I call myself a feminist, although I "fight" for equalism, because women are being discriminated at the moment. Unlike some people say, feminism doesn't mean that you can only support women, it's just a way to help the world achieve gender equality, something that should be really important in this modern world.

-Simon <3

Rochelle pretty much said everything I was going to say.

The problem with changing the name of the movement is that any other term would fail to highlight the actual inequality that exists. While yes, we are fighting for equality, that equality can only be achieved by acknowledging the inequalities in place. By calling it "equalism" would suggest that one is for equality, but it doesn't really tackle the problem. Feminism is used because femininity is devalued, which disproportionately affects women.

Another important thing that feminism seeks to rectify is a disproportionate number of male voices in places of power. By changing the name to equalism, and making men and women of equal focus in the efforts, we again silence women's voices because until a balance of power is achieved, men will always be heard over women because they are valued and hold power that women simply do not have in the same quantity.

I have said time and time again how men can also benefit from feminism, but just because they also benefit doesn't mean that we need to change the name to reflect that, because the fact of the matter is that this movement does not seek to help men. It seeks to eradicate differences between the value of masculinity and femininity, and this imbalance is more of a problem for women than men. So we highlight that within the movement and in the naming of the movement.

Just like Rochelle pointed out with Black Lives Matter. Also, when we argue for gay rights, we don't also say "but straight people deserve rights, too!" because that would be ridiculous. I don't really understand why we feel so desperately that men need a reason to be feminists beyond "it's the right thing to do" or "it's about equality." HeForShe is the perfect invitation because it literally says, "Men, come support women. We value your support."

Feminism DOES benefit men in plenty of ways, but I object to the idea that if it didn't, they wouldn't participate. So changing the name, I think, would not just be trivial. It would be damaging.

Wow, what an interesting discussion this is and i changed my opinion about Feminist or Equalist or however we should call it at least 10 times after reading all your opinions ;)))

In my opinion is changing the word as described unnecessary, even though i had a few experiences where peolpe seemed almost shocked as I sayed to them that I am a feminist because they didn´t exactly known the meaning of it.
After I explained it to them almost all understand and appreciated it .

And thats the reason (the shocked faces of my counterparts) I was, at the beginning, thinking the same way Ryan does. "Wouldn´t it be easier to name it different so that almost everbody knows exactly what that means and what it stands for?"

But after reflecting the comments of yours an my experiences its irrelevant to change the name, because if You don´t like the word, dont use it. You will explain your counterpart what´s behind that word no matter if its feminist or Equalist. At the end it´s Important that its a movement for gender equality.

(sorry for any bad vocabulary and spelling misstakes, not used to write longer texts in english :´D)

Greets x

Marc wrote: "Wow, what an interesting discussion this is and i changed my opinion about Feminist or Equalist or however we should call it at least 10 times after reading all your opinions ;)))

In my opinion is..."

It's great that you can keep an open mind when participating in these discussions (even if only passively). Also if you kept changing your mind it means that both sides of the argument has pretty solid points.

Also here is some food for thought. The beginning of the Feminist movement is for people to stand out tall and proud and demand equal rights without giving in to gender discrimination. Changing the name in hope of increasing the number of supporters are like politicians throwing false promises. People should rally behind the movement base on belief and honest support, and not just because its a brand that sounds nice.

For those who think they only want to be associated with something that sounds nice, let me ask you this. Did you voted for Obama because he is handsome? Or because you really thought that it was "Time for a Change"? Did you listen to Alice Cooper because his songs were awesome? Or was it because Alice Cooper is such a cute name? Think about it.

How about Humanism, Egalitarianism, Individualism WeforWe WeforUs or maybe there is no need to title people or define each others. It should not be about picking one side or another, blaming one group in compared to another. In history the greatest oppressor of people has always been the state rule, not the people within the state. The movement should not be about division but unity. I think feminism is so divided within itself that a new clearer idea of equality might be needed.

The reason its Feminism is that you can't create equality without equity first. You can't create equity without making a point to lift those who have been oppressed. You don't call attention to unfair gender-based treatment of women by saying humanist or equalist. You do it by pointing to our specific humanity: femininity.
Hence feminist. We don't say gay rights because we think gay people deserve MORE rights. We say it because we have been traditionally afforded less rights than straight people. In America we aren't saying Black Lives Matter because we think other lives don't matter. We are saying it because we see a system in place here that has traditionally valued the lives of people of color less than white people. We don't say feminism because we think women deserve special rights. We say it to call attention to the fact that women have traditionally been afforded less rights than men throughout history and in order to fix that and work for equal treatment, we need to fight for equity first.

Clair-Louise wrote: "Feminism does not equal women or women only. It is the feminine qualities that are stigmatised in society, that apply to both men and women, that it aims to reform. Men's issues are entirely inclusive in feminism so why the need to change it? ..."

I thoroughly agree with everything you said in your comment.
I call myself a feminist because to me it represents the history, the long struggle that gained as much of the equality as we have today, AND highlights the continuing climb up towards true equality for all genders and all peoples of all skin colors and backgrounds, abilities and aneurotypical-ness, classes, cultures, and ethnicities. It is the fight for the validation of femininity in ALL its forms, no matter where or whom it pops up. It is the winning equality between femininity and masculinity, so that masculinity is not the one lording over the femininity all the time.

As an effeminate gay man, I agree that all men have an interest in feminism as a case in point, simply from the denied femininity in ourselves while growing up - which has some pretty nasty and horrific effects on the world today. To make femininity wonderful, beautiful, respected, valued, and perfectly equal with masculinity, is something I am fighting to realize. There are many roads to this goal in my mind but all serve to inch us forward as a collective whole.

And like other commenters in this thread, there are many places in the world where women still cannot vote and are confined to the house and family [away from further education] once they're married and are forced to do so at a young age and thus cut themselves off from future prospects. The effects of vilifying femininity hits men hard too, and the inability to have close relationships due to vulnerability being lumped in with the "oh so horrible" femininity, strikes at all areas where men try to have relationships with each other and with women and with others. Many of the things that are seen as feminine are considered "weak" and "unworthy" even as they are in truth, necessary strengths for relationship building and conflict dispersal. Hmmm makes you wonder if that might be one of the key things behind our "Fight fight fight!!!" attitude in the world today where diplomacy and knowing when to withdraw from a costly war seems null and nonexistent (especially in America's culture).

In any case, I am damn proud to call myself a feminist because I am ALL FOR the equalization of femininity with masculinity.

Also, as a last aside, I am damn tired of the recent trend towards putting a damn "man" or "bro" in a word to somehow make it "better" and suddenly "acceptable" for men to partake in it. I.e. "man-purse, manly tear, bro hug, guy-liner, bronies (fans of MLP), bro fist, bro five, bromance, man-bag," and much more. Heck there are parts of the LGBT+ group that are miffed at the white gay men coming in and stealing the "gay" term as just for them, and the inclusivity rainbow too. I'm rather tired of "rebranding" things JUST so that men could even dare to touch it. I think men should in general get the heck used to not being the one catered to all the dang time and just use the names as they are, instead of needing a freakin' adjustment to make it somehow "acceptable" for them to use it. This is part of my reason I don't want to change "feminism" to "equalism" just because some men have trouble getting into it for the "fem" part. Tough.

Maybe I seem a bit harsh here but I'm really tired of seeing this trend happen and I'd rather just avoid anything like that myself. I'm using "purse, crying, hug, eyeliner, fist bump, high five, romance, bag," etc. with no shame, apology, or even a blink of an eye otherwise. Hell, I had to look up some of those alterations because I thought it was so unbelievably ridiculous when I first came across them, that I blanked it out of my mind in preference for the original words.

Anyways that's just how I feel. It's good to read everybody's opinions though, and quite fascinating too!

Indigo wrote: "Clair-Louise wrote: "Feminism does not equal women or women only. It is the feminine qualities that are stigmatised in society, that apply to both men and women, that it aims to reform. Men's issue..."

Indigo I totally agree with you. I'm a straight dude, but some times I just want to go to a pizza place and order a glass of strawberry milkshake. Dude just wants to have some strawberry milkshake without them judgemental stares.

What I was referring to is that humans both men and women have been oppressed in history. To look at it as men have complete privilege over women is not looking at the whole picture. To say that men had some privileges over women and women had had some privileges over man is more correct. To look at higher forms of rule, monarchy, state, class as ruling over the majority is a even better way to look at it. That is why individual freedoms are so important . I don't think looking at issues that are based solely on sex is very health in today's world when it comes as a way to divide people. We should be willing to understand each other's differences and provide what is needed as a society. Also I would just like to say that men are not a group they are a demographic. To say that men as a group have been oppressors is completely wrong. To infer that men's masculinity is a trait that all men somehow share, or express in the same way is completely false and becomes a sexist view. Everyone is a individual .

The point why I´m not agree with the start-post is that "Equalism" reduce the term "Feminism" to only gender-equality, but actually Feminism is a bit more than that. Apart from this we can only reach almost equality ( in my opinion ), because a woman is still a woman and a man is still a man, that means actually not much but it creates some unique needs for both gender.

At the end, I have to say that I hope my post is understandable because English is not my native language.

James wrote: "What I was referring to is that humans both men and women have been oppressed in history. To look at it as men have complete privilege over women is not looking at the whole picture. To say that me..."

James, why are you still here? We discuss gender equality in terms of feminism. There should be some other communities and discussion boards strictly dedicated to equalism and egalitarism. This particular board simply doesn't seem to fit your needs.

Pardon me for not quoting individual comments, but here is a summary (not exhaustive) of what has been discussed till now:

Those who think 'Feminism' needs re-naming:


Men feel alienated.


The movement has become much more than recognizing women's rights and empowering them to recognizing men's rights as well. (Post-feminism is the term?) (Yes I am aware the theory was recognition of rights of women AND men, but theory and practice do not always have a one to one correspondence)



Those who think it should remain 'Feminism':

It may dilute the movement by taking the focus away from the issue of inequality of women in society and possibly have the effect of again creating imbalance of power.

People who are not willing to look beyond the name and understand what feminism stands for are perhaps not the people who we should concern ourselves with.

The discussion of re-name is taking away attention from the goals of our movement.



As far as I understand it, it is not the presence of 'femin' in feminism that makes it seem a women's movement, but the general perception. As Emma and Gloria have pointed out: people, women included, see it as a gender-specific movement, and not always in a good way (for many reasons).

Idealism says let us educate.
Pragmatism says let us re-invent, re-define.

Personally, if it wasn't for He For She I would not have taken an active part in gender equality movement. It was the 'He' in the He for She that made me feel "I belong".

Ash wrote: ... James, why are you still here? We discuss gender equality in terms of feminism. There should be some other communities and discussion boards strictly dedicated to equalism and egalitarism. This particular board simply doesn't seem to fit your needs.

I'm sorry but, should we not respect everyone's point of view? Wasn't inclusiveness the point and not exclusiveness? To dissuade a person, especially by a moderator, from sharing IMHO is counter to the principles of what this forum stands for.

Ashwin wrote: "Ash wrote: ... James, why are you still here? We discuss gender equality in terms of feminism. There should be some other communities and discussion boards strictly dedicated to equalism and egalit..."

I agree with that. As long as he abides the rules of the group, I don't see any issue with him debating and arguing his beliefs.

Kodak wrote: "(This is JUST an example!)

There's discussing and "agreeing to disagree", meaning (for example) someone is happy to accept we won't come to the same conclusion, and we keep Feminism/HeForShe etc.,..."

Well said!!

God forgive us if we all don't live in peace and harmony! You know, out there everything's just cool, so why would we disturb all that greatness in a forum!!?

Kodak wrote: "(This is JUST an example!)

There's discussing and "agreeing to disagree", meaning (for example) someone is happy to accept we won't come to the same conclusion, and we keep Feminism/HeForShe etc.,..."

It was my understanding that the point of this thread was about how to make men feel less reluctant and more willing to participate. My opinions were expressed to that end. Of course not every one can agree on something and we can agree to disagree, but as long as the discussion is healthy (again a relative term) I personally see no harm in continuing it. Even if no conclusion is reached there can be insights!

About my exception to Ash's (I used to assume the name Ash, before a friend changed it to Ashiot!) post not so much because of the content but the tone. You see, I have come to understand that the information conveyed is both by words and the way they are put (although I am not a big fan of it, it is human nature). One can make a polite suggestion or one can suggest the same harshly. I think mods should stick to the former. Great power comes with great responsibility; which is only fair you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Kodak wrote: "Of course, it's never my intention to upset anyone, and I do try and weigh up options and see things from both sides. I hope my latter explanation made sense, too."

An aside from the topic, but as E F Schumacher quotes in his book The Guide To Perplexed: "We judge ourselves based on our intentions and others based on their actions".

And no, Kodak your conduct has been exemplary. (Although I am on one to judge)

Alright. I didn't expect that I will have to explain this to someone, but nevermind.

James, with both of his accounts, has a history here. Since this community was announced and created, he insistently repeats the same thing in different threads, either they fit or not: feminism is bad, we all should rethink our views and move towards another theoretical basis.

I'm okay with his point. I even somewhat agreed with him, and definitely I can defend him for having a different point of view. But I hate the way he tries to put it.

Now I see that he even started to post the same links to same videos again; videos that some of us already have seen and even discussed with him (!), and thoroughly explained our point of view.

He simply refuses to listen to anyone. If I can't call this "disrespect" - what is this then?
And by the way, he already broke a few rules: blaming, crossposing, spamming. I personally have zero tolerance for such things.

Should I just block his accounts? I don't think so. Instead, I'm trying to make him listen and understand another people and their positions. Sadly, no luck for now.

Ash wrote: "Alright. I didn't expect that I will have to explain this to someone, but nevermind.

James, with both of his accounts, has a history here. Since this community was announced and created, he insis..."

Of course, I should have mentioned that I will not see the entire picture as I do not follow all threads. And I did think you have some substantial case. It was nice of you, although not required, to explain (I'm sure you have hands full moderating this forum!).

You guys are doing an excellent job.

And please don't take my opinions personally. They are just opinions!

Indigo wrote: "Clair-Louise wrote: "Feminism does not equal women or women only. It is the feminine qualities that are stigmatised in society, that apply to both men and women, that it aims to reform. Men's issue..."

Because Indigo brought it up (thank you), I now have the chance to rant about the word 'bromance' because I HATE it.

I watch Teen Wolf, and the guys who play the main characters have become very good friends. And what's the result.
Headlines like "Teen Wolf Bromance", "Dylan O'Brien & Tyler Posey Bromance Caught On Camera", "Tyler Posey and Dylan O'Brien Have the Best Bromance Ever".

It's not a 'bromance', it's a friendship! It's a loving, close friendship where they meet each other's moms and talk about their feelings and they're allowed to have it! Without anyone renaming it 'bromance' because apparently loving your friend is gay but loving your 'bro' is fine.

I think this is one of the best examples of how gender inequality also impacts men. People are actually impressed because a twenty-something guy says he loves his friend and talks about his feelings. Like he's doing something brave and daring by admitting to tenderness towards another man.

It's like men's feelings are now so closely watched for signs of 'gayness' or 'girliness' that if they say they love another man, it has to be followed by 'like a brother, you know, like a brother'.

I believe there is no problem with the Feminism. As I understand the Feminism through our work, I must say that in the 21st Century, times of billions of people on planet, some actions can be seen quite easy as others.

What I think creates Feminism?

Today people as women as men, think with the same character, meaning that also women, think like men and men think like women. Because before our monetary system takes over his values, there was a very powerful predominance of mens values.

In today world, that eliminates men and especially women values, there are still men values, that were dominating before our capitalism takes over (free building of trains stations, etc). And because men thinking is hierarchical and patriarchical constructed before our monetary system and because thinking of monetary system and men thinking can get along more easy than monetary system thinking and women thinking, there are people who sense, that something is wrong.

And this something is Feminism. Where do come from? Actually, women who think like men, sense the mechanisms of other men, which are important for his own gender somewhere, and because of "logical dividing" (which is not correct), that women are actually less worthy agains those men, those women became Feminists.

In the opposite site, the men who wants to become more successful and sense that other men are at some hierarchical good position, would not say to themselves Feminists.

The Feminism is only logical if we divide between males and females.

- Tad

Indigo wrote: To make femininity wonderful, beautiful, respected, valued, and perfectly equal with masculinity, is something I am fighting to realize.

Yes!!! I love this!!

And also what Clair-Louise had to say here: "It is the feminine qualities that are stigmatised in society, that apply to both men and women, that it aims to reform."

Honouring and celebrating the feminine and the masculine as characteristics that everyone has within themselves, as opposed to celebrating women or men, which is where it gets divisive.

So many interesting thoughts here. This book group is fabulous :)

First off, I apologize if I'm repeating someone else's comments...there's a lot on here and I haven't read them all.

The jist of OP's post seems to be that the word Feminism does not encompass all the intricate layers of gender and oppression that we're now dealing with. I think that's misleading. The feminine aspect of a person, any person, is what society typically looks down upon and so that is the issue that Feminism, by and large, addresses.

Equality between all genders is dependent upon mutual respect of the feminine and the masculine within us. I'm a research scientist, and I should not lose job opportunities because I'm a woman. My male colleagues should not be mocked or looked down upon if they choose to take paternal leave or cry when their cat dies. In both of these cases, the feminine is what is under attack. And that is why it is called feminism.

While the words Equalism or Humanism sound great, and they certainly have a place in the discussion of human rights, they cover up the underlying issue...which is that the feminine is looked down upon. By putting it right there in the word, up front, for everyone to see it keeps the focus exactly where it should be. We're not pretending that oppression is equal across all humans.

Sherrie wrote: "The feminine aspect of a person, any person, is what society typically looks down upon and so that is the issue that Feminism, by and large, addresses."

These are the words I've been looking for! When I consider why feminism is called "feminism" and not "equalism," I think about how as a society we tend to place people into the categories of male/female, when it's really more a spectrum from masculine to feminine characteristics (physically/socially/culturally/etc.).

Ignoring the wide spectrum of human traits and valuing either the masculine or feminine side is quite damaging to males and females alike - if men can't adopt "feminine" characteristics like emotional sensitivity or childrearing or skirts without being considered less than other men, and women can't adopt "masculine" traits like outspokenness or breadwinning or pants without being considered out-of-place, then I think a lot of individuals (and society) would be at a disadvantage.

Feminism is about embracing the equality of feminine characteristics as much as our society currently accepts masculine traits. Feminism is about allowing everybody to sit along a spectrum of gender performance, rather than one of two boxes.

At least, that's this woman's opinion ;)