(I originally posted this on my own blog about a year ago but have been thinking a lot about the topic recently so thought I'd bring it up here)
Let me preface this post by explaining a few things I believe to be true about feminism:
1. Feminism has many different definitions and means different things to different people. It is a very broad subject area.
2. Damn right it is. Feminism is arguably the oldest and most successful social justice movement in the world (it goes back much further than the suffragettes, y'know). Moreover, it pretty much touches every aspect of our lives. So it had bloody well better be a very broad subject area.
3. This is why people often refer to feminisms, not feminism. It is not monolithic.
Now we've got that out of the way, let me explain something about my particular feminism.
For me, the more my feminist consciousness grows and develops, the more strongly I believe that feminism is not just about women, it is a movement for men as well. I believe there are as many restrictions placed on man by the patriarchy as there are on women, and no doubt I will elaborate on this in a future post.
But now, on with my main argument: Why we should keep the word 'feminist'.
There have been a few times where I've found myself in discussion with non-feminist friends and acquaintances of mine about feminism's relevance in the world, and I have explained that I don't really consider feminism nowadays to be about "equal rights" so much as about liberating people from restrictive gender roles. Therefore, it is just as relevant to men as it is to women. The typical response goes a little bit like this:
"Then why is it called 'feminism'? Why don't you just call it 'humanism' or 'equalism' or something? 'Feminist' implies it's only about females by virtue of its very name."
My problem with this is threefold.
1. The word 'feminism is important because it gives our thoughts, actions and ideas a context.
- Feminism's history is colourful, varied, fascinating and inspiring. Feminists today may have shifted their focus, but they ('we', I should say), are part of a long and rich tradition of fighting for gender equality. It is important to see our struggles as part of a bigger picture.
- Changing the word 'feminism' to something else would rob us of this history.
- Feminists (as well as people with a burgeoning feminist consciousness who do not yet ID as feminist) often feel a strong sense of isolation - sometimes it seems as though you're the only one who notices that there's anything wrong with the world.
- Knowing that there are others who feel the same way is very important in combating this isolation.
- As such, the word 'feminism' unites us under a common banner and gives focus and meaning to our thoughts, actions and ideas.
2. Feminism is traditionally about women, hence the name. Do you have a problem with that?
- However much I feel that feminism benefits everyone, sexism has throughout the course of history disproportionately hurt women.
- Moreover, although great strides have been made in terms of legal and social equality, the fact remains that pretty much every society in the world sees females as inferior.
- Although many feminisms (such as mine) focus to varying degrees on how to benefit men, we should honour our history by keeping the female-centric nature of the word in acknowledgment of the fact that women have been, and continue to be, more negatively affected by patriarchy than men. And we should never, EVER be ashamed of it.
3. People who advocate a rebranding of feminism to something more gender-neutral are ass-kissers.
- Whether you realise it or not, your unwillingness to align yourself with feminism may have something to do with the fact that it's predominantly associated with women.
- There's a stigma attached to anything seen as overly female. Think about it. Boys and men who want to do traditionally female stuff are seen as 'cissies', whereas girls and women who aspire to do traditionally male stuff are either lauded or seen as over-ambitious.
- As a result, a movement which unashamedly benefits women and fights for their place within society (even though, as I say, it helps men too) is ghettoized. It's somehow not 'worthy' enough.
- Much as I hate to generalize, chances are if you're a guy and you disassociate yourself from feminism you are to some extent afraid of being seen as being 'pussy-whipped'. And if you're a lady who does the same, you're kissing the ass of the patriarchy in order to get a pat on the head. Of course, this only applies if you support the general aims of feminism in the first place; if you're a right-wing misogynist ignore what I just said.
So there you have it. If you want to read a much better worded, better structured and more interesting piece on a similar theme, try Catherine Redfern's 'Feminists are Sexist'. I promise you will be enlightened.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why we should hang on to the word "feminism".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10291
Perfect! I can add nothing but my favorite phrase for the sort of asskissery described in point #3. The last man I dated had a delightfully straightforward mother. She called women who align with men to avoid womanish stigma "ball-kissers."
Haha! Why do i imagine someone with a Boston accent saying that?
"Ball-kissahs"...
It does sound good in Boston! But ex's Mom is from Nashville, so it came out "bawl-kissers." (-:
I totally love it in the Southern accent!
Excellent article. I am happy to call myself both a feminist and a humanist and there is no hierarchy of identification among these terms. I think if we are so inclined we should claim multiple grounds of advocacy. That's why I call myself an anti-racist too. And I am conscious of the continuing struggles of working class or low-to-no income people. Audre Lorde said it best in "There Is No Hierarchy of Oppressions":
"[O]ppression and the intolerance of difference come in all shapes and sexes and colors and sexualities; and that among those of us who share the goals of liberation and a workable future for our children, there can be no hierarchies of oppression. I have learned that sexism (a belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over all others and thereby its right to dominance) and heterosexism (a belief in the inherent superiority of one pattern of loving over all others and thereby its right to dominance) both arise from the same source as racism-a belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby its right to dominance."
Best wishes.
My response to 'why is it called feminism instead of humanism?' Is always, 'That assumes you can only be one of those things. I am a humanist and a feminist.' Why do people think that being a humanist means you're not a feminist!? Humanism encompasses feminism, if you don't believe in equality between men and women, you are not a true humanist, and if you don't believe in equality for everyone regardless of race, class, orientation etc., then you are not a true feminist. It cuts both ways, they go hand in hand.
Yes, especially because it is possible to be feminist and not be "humanist"--me, for instance. Although I can agree with some of the varied definitions of humanism, I don't define myself as one because I believe humanity is unnecessarily obsessed with itself, does not understand that we are animals, sets itself superior to other animals, and proceeds to do terrible things to those animals and to the earth in general. And at least one definition of "humanism" is absolutely about the superiority of humanity.
When I teach Feminist Theory I have the students write out a definition of feminism on the first day of class, and most of them basically give the "equal rights for women" version. Given that this seems to be the prevalent view of feminism, it makes more sense to me that people are reluctant to identify as feminists, or think we're ready for "post-feminism." Of course all the right-wing and media demonization of feminism has a lot to do with it too. It's also depressing to realize how many people believe that women freely choose these oppressive gender roles and are biologically determined to prefer them.
I always feel that when people try to move away from the term 'feminism' advocating a focus on wider acceptance of everyone regardless of gender, they are (not often consciously) belittling the female centre nature of it, it's almost as if (hell it probably is) there is some conspiracy against anything being too 'female'. I seem feminism as a branch of equality and humanism, one fouces on women. That focus does not deny any other issues and all the harping on about how feminism is 'exclusive' and 'discriminating' against men just misses the point.
Excellent, excellent post. You took the words right out of my mouth. Especially #3--the fear of a female association holding back people from calling themselves feminists (as evidence that the need for feminism is strong)
Honestly I am comfortable with the title feminist in this forum because I have a good feeling about what the women here stand for. In other quarters thats not always the case.
i've said this before and i'll say it again: feminism is not as simple as "men and women should be equal." as a political movement - because of all that history that you mention - it is rife with a number of complications and issues that one may or may not agree with. there are more issues with the term than simply its association with women. there are many good things to be said for a feminist identity and for use of the term itself. however, there are also many good reasons NOT to embrace the label besides "kissing the ass of the patriarchy in order to get a pat on the head."
"however, there are also many good reasons NOT to embrace the label besides 'kissing the ass of the patriarchy in order to get a pat on the head.'"
Such as ongoing incidents of racism, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination that having an ongoing occurence in various contemporary Western feminist movements. These instances have served to isolate trans-feminists and POC from feminist activism, blogs, and other resources.
If you read the latest issue of "Make/Shift," there are several articles discussing why this up-and-coming feminst magazine may also reject the label of feminism for these very reasons. I personally hope they're able to find some redeeming and valid reasons to keep the label as part of the magazine's mission, but I will try to understand their reasons for not doing so (if that's what they choose) instead of arguing that feminism is this perfectly innocent label they should embrace.
Well put! I love this!
I would hesitate to say that in ALL contexts/races/classes/age groups/etc. that women are ALWAYS more negatively affected by patriarchy than are men.
But you touched on that. Some rich, white men who want to engage in "feminine" activities are shunned - unless they are gay, then they are somehow "safer." Their rich, white female counterparts are free to express a wide range of gender expressions, get their drinks bought for them, get special scholarships for being a woman (even though daddy could pay for their college seventy times over), etc.
I'm not even saying that's always the case for the upper class. But I've seen that scenario play out of non-normative men getting the short end of the stick of patriarchy in that case.
Great post.
Rich white men, no matter how "shunned" they are for "feminine" activities (examples?), still have power because they are men, because they are rich, and because they are white. Rich white women have 2/3 privilege but except for a TERRIBLY select few who are executives or such, they are not powerful. Getting your drinks bought for you is not, is never, privilege; it's chivalry, it's a tool of the patriarchy, and, who was it on the Feminism101 blog who said it best--"If you're a good slave of the patriarchy we'll throw you a bone." When you claim that some non-normative men get the short end of the stick (I'd still love some examples), it's short compared to other men's sticks. But it is completely unhelpful comparing men to other men in this discussion; their stick still trumps the woman's.
And if you don't think rich white women are ridiculed, do a bit of research. If the worst a rich white man can get is "pussy," try "slut," "gold-digger," "trophy wife," "attention whore," "daddy's girl" (which you conveniently fed with your scholarship comment), etc., etc., etc.
As for women's scholarships, please, don't go there. Striving for equality is so not the same as privilege.
I'm just saying it's dangerous to go unilaterally across the board and say women ALWAYS get the brunt force of patriarchy. There are particular situations in particular demographics where that is not the case.
Yes, BROAD MAJORITY of the ill effects of patriarchy are directed towards women. But trying to erase the ways in which men can sometimes be EVEN MORE victimized (key word: SOMETIMES), just participates in the same sort of unilateralism that you are trying to dismantle.
I think the point raised, that men are derided for being feminine, in no way undermines the point that women get the short end. It's not a notion of "a woman can be who she wants to be, but a man can't!" It's, again, "a woman should aspire to be masculine, but to be feminine is wrong".
I'm baffled, seriously; I still want to see examples of how rich white men can be more negatively affected by patriarchy than rich white women.
I'd be much less suspicious if you hadn't used that demographic, because it is one which has a long history of sexism against women--one which you seem to be completely unaware of. If you can enlighten me, go for it. Here is your opportunity.
Completely unaware of? Excuse me?
I'm not some troll. I'm in 4 Women's Studies courses, have taken 2 and am on my way to a minor (and maybe even a major) in the field. Of course I've been educated about the oppression enacted by rich, white men.
Thanks for assuming the worst of me.
But, beyond that...
Just one example of how men sometimes get the shorter end of the stick of patriarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd_Jr.
And remember, I'm saying on a situational, person by person basis, not from a broader perspective in which women CLEARLY are more oppressed.
...What? You just gave me a perfect example of...racism.
Again, I implore you: how can a rich white man get the short end of the stick, because of the patriarchy? Stay on topic, please.
Patriarchy and racism go hand in hand. They don't exist in distinct spheres. I think this is a perfect example of patriarchy.
How about Matthew Shephard?
No, no, no; you're not going to get away with completely evading my question and then crying, "You must not think these things are connected!" when called out.
You specifically mentioned rich white men; so I want you to specifically explain yourself.
Judith,
I gave you the example that you were looking for. I don't think the onus is on me. With a claim like "women are ALWAYS more oppressed by patriarchy than men" I think you're the one with the argument to sell.
You gave me an example of a rich white man who had it worse and wasn't gay, like whoever you were talking about in your original post? Where? Am I blind?
Does he need to be NOT gay? When did we specify that I had to find a rich, white straight man?
Um, you did, in your initial post. "...unless they are gay, then they are somehow safer." Your example was a straight, white, rich man.
This is getting positively ridiculous. If you can't even remember what you said, and are persistently incapable of following up on those statements, this is a futile argument.
I'm aware of everything I said:
"Some rich, white men" emphasis on SOME.
I was not trying to say that ALL rich white men have it worse off under hegemonic masculinity than women do under patriarchy.
Here, I'll even give you a hand: gay men, white and black, can be victims of hate crimes. Homophobia is a cruel child of patriarchy, and if you'd made essentially the same "sometimes-it's-even-worse-for-men" plea with, say, Matthew Shepard as an example, I would have stroked my chin and thought, yes, hate crimes against gay men are particularly common.
But especially if those gay men, like Matthew Shepard, are not rich, are not old, are fairly powerless.
I still have no idea how increased wealth can make a man more susceptible to gender-hate than any woman with otherwise the same demographic.
I'm also still patiently waiting for you to retract your comment about Daddies, college tuition and women's scholarships; "Daddy's girl" comments seem suspiciously unlike anything a woman's studies major would ever say, as they are so connected with the contempt for rich white women that you insist you know all about. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a concern troll until you explain that statement.
A concern troll? What?
"I still have no idea how increased wealth can make a man more susceptible to gender-hate than any woman with otherwise the same demographic."
I never made this claim. I just said that in some instances, a la Matthew Shephard, men can get the shorter end of the stick than a white, straight, female college student in his exact same environment.
I made no such reference to "Daddy's girl" as a stereotype. I was acknowledging that many rich, white women are put through school by GASP! their fathers. The same is true for rich white men.
I think you're a little over eager to label me as a troll. I don't think our disagreement is really as huge as you're making it out to be. You essentially made my point for me in your above post.
Your original post:
"Some rich white men ... unless they are gay, then they are somehow safer."
So...like, not Matthew Shepard, who was not rich, and was gay?
Still waiting for that example. Own your statements, or retract them. It's simple.
Once again, if you want to assert that always in all situations for all the billions of people in this planet, women ALWAYS get the shorter end of the stick with regards to patriarchy, you're the one that's going to have to own your statement.
How about violence against male crossdressers, most of whom are straight?
See, the thing is, I never said that women always get the short end of the stick. In fact, I've explicitly said that violence against gay men is quite possibly one of those exceptions. You, on the other hand, explicitly said that rich, white, straight men can get the short end of the stick and have provided zero examples of that. In fact, by saying "gay men are somehow safer," you're belittling the example I just gave; gay men are the opposite of safe from the patriarchy.
Seriously, why are you not giving me a specific example? You must have one, or else you wouldn't have used rich, white, straight men as your one initial claim of men getting the "short end of the stick." If you can't provide me with one, I'm done with this conversation. I will not tolerate empty "But what about the menz" whining.
Then take your smug attitude and run with that. Can you really not accept a simple statement like "there are exceptions to ANY rule"?
WOAH - I don't mean to patronise or offend anyone, but can you two please calm down? You're both misunderstanding each other. Judith, you've got some excellent points, but you come across as a little antagonistic. Alan, you too have some excellent points but they have some flaws as Judith has pointed out. Listen to each other!
Sorry if I'm coming across all wrong as well, I just hate to see in-fighting in feminist camps.
Lovely piece! I was just having this discussion in a sociology class last week; someone said that she thought the term "feminist" wasn't really necessary anymore, isn't equality about everyone? I'd like to print this out and bring it to class. :)
This is an excellent, excellent posting. It said a lot of things I've been thinking for awhile.
I'd love to add to #2: although ridiculous, arbitrary expectations are placed on both genders, the main difference I see between men's expectations and women's expectations is that men are capable of living up to theirs. Women are not, because our expectations contradict each other: we mustn't be a slut OR a prude, we mustn't be needy OR successful, we mustn't be ugly OR beautiful (beautiful = fake, remember). Men just have to be as unlike women as society deems at the time, and millions upon millions achieve, and benefit from, fulfilling those stupid expectations.
Wouldn't be so sure that men are widely capable of succeeding. Women's expectations are logically impossible- demanding opposite things at the same time. Men's, however, are still practically impossible. The norm is to overcome everything, dominate everything, and show no weakness ever, and only for a few men do circumstances allow that to actually happened. Stratified as our society is, most men wind up near the bottom of the social heap, having accepted the message that if they were real men they would have conquered it. Susan Faludi's Stiffed really clarified for me some of the craziness that goes on in the male side of the culture because of that.
This is just a nuance, since I agree with argument #2 above- women's chains are still heavier. But I think it's an important nuance, because the other reason I think it's appropriate to keep thinking of this movement as feminism is that the very best thing we could do for men right now is liberate women. When 'female' doesn't mean shameful and 'male' doesn't mean superior, we'll all be one step closer to living as humans.
Mm, I'd disagree that only a select few men live up to society's expectations. In every field, men dominate the positions with the most power, and I doubt they have all lived their lives--the top chefs and the fashion designers, as well as the CEOs and politicians and doctors--not once showing any sign of emotion, compassion, any of those other "effeminate" stereotypes. The fashion designer field is a huge example: it, like virtually all fields, is in reality male-dominated, but it's not unusual for a male fashion designer to be gay, the "ultimate effeminacy," and yet he still has power because he is male.
That's another big difference between men's and women's expectations: men's expectations, when followed, put them in a position of power; and women's expectations (if they can be followed at all) put them in a place of submission.
Now, nobody should have to follow arbitrary gender roles, and failing to do so hurts. But succeeding will overwhelmingly benefit a man, and overwhelmingly not benefit a woman. And as you can see simply by looking at the world around us, men are benefiting constantly.
"In every field, men dominate the positions with the most power..."
Sure. But for everyone sitting on top of the pyramid, there are dozens of poor schlubs getting slowly crushed at the bottom. Your average MRA is pleading sympathy for the men at the bottom, not the top (and never mind the preponderance of women at the bottom...) My point is that feminism- meaning, advancement of women's equality- is the best means of helping those men as well as women.
"...men's expectations, when followed, put them in a position of power; and women's expectations (if they can be followed at all) put them in a place of submission."
100% yes. I tend to think these people lead sad, empty lives, but undeniably they live them in penthouses, which we can't generally say for women who follow societal expectations and lead empty lives.
I think the word feminism should stay as is for every reason named, this list has a lot of information i agree with. i really like number three: the fear of a female association holding back people from calling themselves feminists. I see this as probably being an big issue that needs to be solved.
I love your last point. I think it's important to point out how the question "why not change the name" starts from the assumption that there's some problem with "feminism." And that kind of examining of unspoken assumptions is, I would add, one of the historical strengths of feminism.
Nice post......
I myself have issues with all the labels and classes that people get put into.
It seems we have lists upon lists to put people into so many different category's, and to me that just sets the bar for segregation and judgment.
Republican, Democrat, lefty, righty, blacks, whites, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, the lists go on and on, and it seems that everyone feels the need to affirm with all sorts of groups, or classes.
I am sure I can be "classified" into many groups by many different people, but i prefer my speciese to be my class, the human animal.
Male and female yes, but equal in all aspects except one has and inny and the other an outty.
Thanks for all the wonderful things you post, it keeps me up to date.
*deep, appreciative sigh* Thank you feministing, for all your beautiful articles and posts (like this one)! You make me feel less alone on the world.
I love you all!!!!
I'm a man, and I get that the patriarchy also oppresses men, but what dismays me the most (beyond the patriarchy's oppression of women) is the oppression of children. I remember reading Anne Fausto-Sterling and seeing a parallel in every stupid and sexist biological claim about the alleged differences between men and women with the current claims about children: their brains are still evolving, so they have poorer judgment; they aren't mature enough to make decisions about sex; teenagers are crazy and need to learn better discipline; etc. Youth liberation is a badly neglected part of the fight against patriarchy. I mean, other than Harmful to Minors, how many half-decent books have there recently been about kids? I can't name more than a couple.
To a certain degree I agree with your post: children are hurt by partriarchy too, yes. However, I view that more in a 'children have to conform to gender norms and that hurts them', more than the way you look at it.
I might be the odd one out here, but how is it wrong to state that children's brains are still developing? They are. And I would say that children have 'poorer' judgement, if that is the correct word to use. They certainly judge differently from the way adults do, because they have less insight in consequences. As I would define a 'good judgement' as one that is made on the basis of possible outcomes, consequences if you will, I do think children have poorer judgement.
As children grow up, they can, and should, be entrusted with greater and greater responsibilities, so that they can learn and practice their improving skill in assessing consequences.
Children (and I consider people up to about 12 to be children, above that to be teenagers) are, in my view, indeed incapable of making decisions about sex. I do not think a sexually undeveloped child can have an inkling of the consequences of sex. Teenagers, as I said above, are, as their age increases, more and more capable of making those decisions.
I'm presuming you are not saying children are capable of agreeing to sexual intercourse. Please, tell me you are not saying that.
Now as to teenagers needing to learn better discipline. Perhaps my own teenager days are too close for me to be able to discuss this with any sense of distance, but I mainly remember adults needing to learn a bit more discipline and respect for young people... Not vice versa!
As I say, no distance (yet).
Lol, no, I'm not arguing that children can consent to sexual intercourse. Forgive the slippage between children and teenagers in my post.
I disagree with your claim that it's legitimate to claim that children or teenager's brains are still developing. The trouble here is that there isn't evidence to suggest a connection between developing brains and impaired judgment. The risk is that we parrot the spurious claim that children and teenagers still have developing brains in order to justify the arbitrary exertion of power over children and adolescents.
I absolutely agree with you on increasing responsbility and everything else. I'm just troubled by the ways in which we assume things about children and rationalize them biologically.
I may not be a child specialist--but as someone with six years of experience teaching Sunday school to kids age 4 through 12, I have a very hard time understanding how you can't see a difference between a child's and an adult's capacity for judgment.
There are, as always, exceptions; many adults have poor judgment, many children have exceptional judgment, and there are surely children who have better judgment than some adults.
But to claim that we must assume that any given child of 6 or 7 has the same level of judgment as any given adult of 30 or 40 is...well, ludicrous. Young children throw tantrums in order to resolve conflict, and watching a child grow up, they clearly develop the skill to resolve conflict in quieter, more productive and cooperative ways. Children aren't born cooperative; they learn it from watching and experiencing, making failed attempts, and discovering the natural negative consequences (like not getting what you want when you yell). Children are profoundly less capable of thinking through the many layers of consequences of their actions. By a certain age, they can navigate these potential personal consequences when coaxed ("If you do that, what do you think will happen? What about if you don't?") and not long after, they are able to do so on their own, if they remember. There is also a point at which children discover that their actions will affect others, as well as themselves, and when coaxed, will take the consequences to others into consideration along with their own. And again, shortly thereafter, they will start doing so without any help.
Children are remarkable; most of them learn these things quite fast, and by middle-school age are at the very least making a concerted effort to make informed judgments about their and others' decisions.
But this is a process. All children work to achieve that level of judgment and before they do, they lack it.
I like having humanism and feminism as separate words.
There's nothing wrong with recognizing that feminism is a movement primarily concerned in the rights of women. People can be more effective at bringing change if we focus on areas of personal interest and our discussions are a lot more meaningful if we set a specific topic.
The problem is when people assume that an interest in one humanitarian concern excludes interest in others.
Asking, "are you for women, or do you care about men, too?" is as nonsensical as, "are you an environmentalist, or do you care about poverty?"
So, given that you're someone for whom the fight to bring women into gender-equality is particularly compelling, the word feminist is perfect.
What's with all the -1's on these comments? Can we get rid of the "disliked this comment" function yet? Why not just a "liked this comment" function?
And I went through and put a +1 for any comment here negatively rated w/o explanation!
Yeah a lot of the time it still glitches for me - I'll scroll through the comments and it'll be like "you disliked this comment" and I'll be like WHAA? I haven't even read it yet. So I'd say a lot of the -1s are errors.
I appreciate the function - denouncing trolls - but we should get a more troll-specific device. Maybe a little troll icon we can click on?
I'm guessing that's the "report abuse" button, though I'd feel a lot better about reporting trolls if I got to click on a picture of one.
Of course, trolls can also downvote, so it seems fairly easy to subvert if that's the intent.
I agree with Rick. I do think that the word "Feminism" prioritizes women, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing -- you can be pro-women without being anti-men.
The problem I have with "humanism" and "equalism/egalitarianism" and related words (compared to Feminism) is that they are vague and boring. They are obvious. They excite no new actions, and have no urgent agenda. They're non-committal safe-words.
"Feminism" is specific. It evokes specific issues and has definite agendas. It's polarizing -- this is a good thing.
I use the word "feminist" to identify myself among those who are sure to know what I mean by it, and that what I mean by it is not man-hating.
However, I don't think that is sufficiently intuitive from the way the word sounds. Certain sectors of the general public think, understandably enough, that feminism refers to female supremacy.
Around people who might misunderstand, I am starting to prefer to say that I "value gender equality" or to point out examples of "sexism." (I find it a lot more effective to put whoever just said something rude on the defensive than to allow myself to be put on the defensive for the word "feminism.") Maybe the same reason the concept of "racism" has gone more mainstream than that of "black power?"
Besides my issues with the slight counter-intuitive quality of the word itself, there's the problem of feminist stereotypes occasionally being true of some crazies. I would not anyone to think I agree with this comment of Robin Morgan's (and I understand the frustration this utterance comes from, but it is still unproductive): "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."