I think people get too hung up on labels sometimes, but that said... If you're a feminist, then so am I. I don't think your PT's understanding was correct.
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
I see feminism as a component of minimizing heirarchy and moving toward anarchy.
Instead of the liberal conception of rights, I would use equality of individual liberty and social solidarity regardless of gender or sex. Definitionally, I claim gender as performative and sex as related to procreative genitals. Maybe it's all just worbs, that is, political words without meaning.
Those in favor of heirarchy use "equality of outcome" as a bludgeon. Humans do not need "equality of outcome". We need autonomy to make choices about our lives. We need societies that take care of each other. Heirarchies such as patriarchy prevent making choices and taking care of each other.
As a bonus rant, the rube statement, "What is a woman?", can be answered with, "Who is pink for?". The provocateur wants to conflate gender and sex, but is too embarassed to come out and discuss genitals. A logical follow-up for the embarassed trap-setter could be, "Which genitals taste the best?". The point being don't entertain traps with anything but hostility.
I know posting is masturbatory, since I often fail to read replies. I'm sure your reply will be great and I will probably fail to read it. I'm still working on social solidarity.
I guess I'm a feminist, but I don't really call myself a feminist. I call myself a humanist, maybe even an environmentalist, because I believe that all humans, and animals, and the environment should have rights, and should be protected against greedy, scared and powerhungry (sick) individuals.
I guess to some degree, not very actively though so I wouldn't necessarily call myself one. To me feminism fights for a society where people have equal opportunities, safety, etc regardless of gender. I support that idea wholeheartedly. But I'm not actively fighting for it or anything, which is why I'm hesitant to call myself a feminist.
Thinking about it, I believe in equal rights, but would prefer not to be called a feminist, because it implies preference to women. Men have some rights where they are worse off than women, like military service, or - at least here in Poland - differing retirement age.
Also, at a certain point, because there's biological and cultural (for a long time, if not forever) ups and downs to each gender, doing equal rights would then be unfair to whichever gender has it worse, which will certainly be subjective. I'm mostly for it in obvious bullshittery like salaries for the same job done or abortion rights, but at some point like maternity and paternity leave, I'm not giving it much thought.
(Also, I'd totally punch a woman anytime I'd punch a man, which is never anyways, but I think most people would call that feminism anyway)
My definition of feminism: a struggle historically led by women to dismantle the structures of power that let cis men hold privileges over other gender expressions
With that in mind, yes, I’m a feminist. I don’t buy into the “no gender” thing, because in the way some people frame it, it erases the lived realities of gender oppression that still exist. The aim should be to dismantle gender hierarchies without ignoring how they operate here and now. Stripped of its anti-oppression context, no gender rhetoric can be co-opted into TERF narratives that reduce womanhood to biology and genitalia and deny gender diversity
Stretching it a bit, I also see animal liberation as part of this struggle, since these same power structures keep female non-human animals in the role of breeders and providers, much like they do with humans
My definition of feminism is roughly: People of all genders share equal legal rights and social respect. This doesn't mean biological differences aren't real or shouldn't be considered.
So yes, I consider myself a feminist as I have defined above. I do support biological segregation of things like athletics. I say biological since there are obvious outliers when it comes to hormones, muscle mass, and reaction time differences between the biological sexes.
Yes, although I really do have to question the capability of concern silos to effect change through society.
Women's rights are human rights. Lgbt rights are human rights. Worker rights are human rights.
The fight for human rights is a fight for us all. United we stand, divided we fall. And holeeeshit are we fucking falling right now.