I see feminism as an analysis, a way of approaching issues, rather than a collection of issues. You can bring a gendered analysis to anything. For example, nuclear non-proliferation - you can talk about how the use of nuclear weapons is discussed in masculine terms, how having a nuclear arsenal is a kind of macho posturing.

The following is just my opinion -- I am quite sure many (possibly the vast majority) on here will vehemently disagree.

Feminism is not a political ideology or a political party. To me, "feminism" is the category of beliefs/ opinions that MUST be held and demonstrated for label to apply -- i.e. (1) that men and women are of equal worth, and should have equality of opportunity throughout society (in employment, housing, medical care, decision-making, politics, finance, business, etc.); (2) that women deserve the autonomy to make their own choices for the manner in which they will live their lives (i.e. occupation, values, religion, marital status, appearance, relationships, children, education, political ideology, etc.); (3) that domestic violence and rape are real problems, and are not acceptable under any circumstances. I am sure there are a couple of essential tenets that I am missing here.

It is the second tenet above that I think flies in the face of the notion that a feminist must be a progressive. If women (and feminists) deserve the autonomy to determine for themselves the values by which they will live their lives ... who am I to say a conservative that believes in the equality and autonomy of women cannot qualify as a feminist?

I am progressive in many ways (though not all) ... but, I do have a problem with the conflation of feminism and various progressive causes. A feminist is not simply a female progressive. A feminist does not even necessarily have to BE progressive. A true feminist can be a staunch capitalist, a Christian, a libertarian, a tax-cutter, personally anti-abortion (though whether a feminist can be anti-choice is a whole separate issue), a global-warming skeptic, a foreign policy hawk, a meat-eater, against single-payer healthcare. Feminists do not have to toe the progressive line.

I think it devalues feminism to make feminism just another word for a female progressive. When we confuse feminism and progressivism, we take our eye off the ball -- and we end up fighting for causes that, while likely worthwhile, are not essential tenets of feminism. In doing so, we alienate possible allies on the right that might be otherwise on board with feminism in principle -- but feel they must remove themselves when feminism begins to represent issues and causes (unrelated to the essential tenets of feminism) that do not coincide with their values.

I think it is a huge problem within feminism that so many women believe feminism does not represent them or their values. If we could unite women on the issues where feminism represents the vast majority (which I think is true of most of the central tenets of feminism) -- think of all we could accomplish. I think we hurt our own movement by alienating conservative women by uniformly latching on to progressive causes. Feminism should be a bigger tent than progressivism/ liberalism.

Just my two cents. Flame away.

kbz

I think the conflation of every social justice movement with feminism is a symptom of one of the main theses of patriarchy: women -- and therefore feminists* -- are supposed to take care of everyone else before themselves. There are many social justice movements that naturally intersect with feminism, like anti-racism and LBGT rights, because women are members of every other group. But there's no expectation that anti-racist or LGBT groups will be anti-sexist, and indeed, this is borne out by experiences of endemic sexism within both movements, with little discussion of change. People who want to deal with sexism in these realms must split off from the mainstream as womanists or lesbian feminists, for example.

And then there are barely tangentially related social justice movements like most of those that you list. There's no expectation that climate change activists or animal rights groups will offer a modicum of respect for women, even their group members. I think it's too much to ask for reciprocation on the part of feminists and feminisms when there's no respect given back.

This is not to say that feminists cannot be activists in other steads; we all wear many hats. But I think that making feminism all encompassing -- a mere synonym for social justice -- is a dangerous path to tread. Given the way that patriarchal values push women to caring for others above themselves, a space for issues that specifically touch women is absolutely necessary.

*Not that men cannot be pro-feminist, but the face of feminism is a woman's face. It's reasonable to expect that patriarchal pressures that act on women will act on the feminist movement as a whole.

Actually, I believe the anti-Scientology to be, in part, a feminist issue due to the way they treat homosexuals and reproductive rights. The Sea Organization forces pregnant women to leave if they refuse to obtain abortions, and leaving the Sea Org in general is often next to impossible, so abortion is usually the only realistic choice. Also, L. Ron Hubbard wrote that homosexuals are low on the tone scale, and therefore must be either "cured" of their illness (using expensive Scientology courses and auditing) or destroyed.

Of course, as long as the only major anti-Scientology force is Anonymous, I doubt many feminists will get involved.

Interesting question. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary to always define an issue as feminist or not; I'm not a fan of black & white labels. I think it's just important to agree that many of these issues have feminist elements, and to varying degrees.

Take health care and LGBTQ rights. I think it's quite easy to pinpoint the feminist elements of these. Access to healthcare is a class issue, and that makes it a women's issue, because women are more likely to live in poverty. Women also bear children, and the grand majority of us will do so at least once (probably more) throughout our lives, so we will need to access services that will always be women's healthcare service and never men's. I probably don't even need to mention abortion, but I guess I just did.

LGBTQ rights, similarly, are a movement that is largely fuelled by pointing out the limitations of living in an overly gendered society. Gender norms and social taboos are really what anti-LGBTQ attitudes boil down to; how could that ever be dissassociated with feminism? Feminists and LGBTQ activists have to work together. Our movements are, indeed, possibly two of the most easily linked together social movements.

Then there are the movements, like you've said, that seem worlds apart from the feminist movement (I think your example of nuclear disarmament is a good one). And it's true - nuclear disarmament is an important cause, but one that has nothing DIRECTLY to do with feminism. But there are tons of other associations that tie them together. The anti-war/pacifist movement certainly does. The anti-nuke movement has to be a part of the pacifist movement, it can't not be; feminism should play a role in pacifism too. Women are diproportionately affected as (civilian, at least) victims of war, and will continue to be so as long as rape is a weapon of war. Another link between "no nukes" and feminism might be, again, healthcare - one only has to consider the health effects in the aftermath of nuclear activity to see that connection.

So, in sum, I guess I'm saying that we don't need to draw any lines between Feminist Issues and Non-Feminist, but Equally Important, Issues. Rather, let's simply see how the global systems that hurt (and help) us work together, and because the connections are far too complicated to easily break down.

The anti-Scientology movement can and does have a feminist bent. There are women's issues related to the movement, such as the coerced abortions in the Sea Organization (that's the big one, women in the Sea Org have very little control over the choice to abort, because the only other choice is to leave, which is next to impossible because SO members have very little money, job skills, or connections to the outside world), the Silent Birth tech, and the belief that homosexuals must either be cured through Scientology methods or destroyed. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and there are also family-related issues as well.

As you can see from my username I am involved with Project Chanology myself, possibly the only feminist in the movement, though I'm not just in it for feminist reasons.

In my humble opinion, if we all branched out and extended our concerns to involve those that impact human beings, we wouldn't be stuck in rigid boxes that do as much to separate us from others as they do to give light to a topic with a more narrow focus.

Imagine, activists groups working together instead of separately or at cross-purposes.

Health care issues disproportionately affect women, so I would absolutely say that's a feminist issue. Prison reform relating to treatment of female prisoners, especially pregnant women, is absolutely relevant.

The others strike me as general issues. So not strictly speaking feminist, though one can certainly support both feminism AND any of those movements!

I see it as a line-- think about the issue. Ask first, "Is this a problem for women?" Then ask, "Is this MORE of a problem for women than it is for men? Does it affect women more?" If the answer is yes, then yes, it's a feminist issue. If no, ask, "Does this problem highlight underlying sexism and sexist issues in our society?" That also makes it a feminist concern-- for example, discouraging boys from going into art might not affect women more than men, but it does represent an underlying societal problem. That's why LGBTIQ rights are included under the feminist banner-- because the arguments against LGBTIQ rights usually reveal underlying sexist ideas and are motivated by sexism.

If it neither demonstrates or is motivated by sexism in society nor affects women disproportionately, I would argue it is very important-- but not inherently "feminist." However, feminists are often people who want to get out and fight for their rights and justice for all, so it's natural they won't just fight for the rights of women-- they will fight for everyone to be equal and have opportunities.

A feminist issue is one that highlights unfairness towards women. If climate change affects women disproportionately, then a discussion of this, in particular, is a feminist discussion. Otherwise, no.

There's no reason a feminist can't discuss every other conceivable issue out there. I'm into French-language rights and so is my dad. He's a practicing Catholic; this is where we diverge severely. We agree on one thing and not others.

Does it matter?

I'm a feminist. My feminism (in which I acknowledge that I have gender boundaries to overcome and sexism to fight) makes me sensitive to the issues of others who are at odds with the status quo, including children, the poor, the uninsured, animals, those who don't abide by religious dogma, etc.

It's all co-mingled, to me. I can't cry foul at sexism but let racism go. It's all part of a larger picture of justice and equal rights for the world.

I see feminism as hermeneutical - you can look at just about anything through a gendered lens. I think the oppression of animals and the oppression of women are interlocking - our cultural understanding of animals and of women both comes from a place of white [human] male cis straight Protestant power.

Nearly *all* the issues you listed have some connection to women's rights. How can healthcare not be a feminist issue with the Stupak-Pitt amendment? With insurance companies declaring domestic violence a pre-existing condition?

Slow Food and regulating chemicals in our environment are of importance to women because we are still expected to take care of cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing. Chemical solvents and other environmental pollution (incl. climate change) are thought to be associated with breast cancer.

Prison reform - think of all the stories of pregnant women who are incarcerated, the young women abused by juvenile prisons, etc

The most popular religions in the world all have atleast one major sect that flaunts their belief in the subordination of women.

Deschooling/unschooling are also of interest to feminists because, again, women are disproportionately expected to look after children's development in all areas.

(one caveat, by and large, the anti-scientology movement just sounds like a lot of people of 4chan pouting about something)