I think most people aren't against equal opportunities and rights for women - and in western civilizations this is pretty much enshrined in law - so I fail to understand why somebody would need to label themselves specifically as feminist rather than just 'normal'.
But feminism isn't just about equality. If it were few people would have a problem with it. In actuality (and from the Merriam Webster dictionary), it's also about furthering womens' interests, which include pro-choice abortions amongst other things, and it's those such things that are the sticking point and red flags for normal people. You only have to google the websites of self-described feminists to realise that what they want is more than just equality, and they can't all be extremists...
Feminists may support equality, and that'll usually be the pretext they use to push their agenda, but there is a difference between equality and womens' interests and you can support one without the other. Simply wanting equality doesn't make one a feminist!
You wrote, "Feminists may support equality, and that'll usually be the pretext they use to push their agenda, but there is a difference between equality and womens' interests and you can support one without the other. Simply wanting equality doesn't make one a feminist!"
Does it seem to you that I am pushing "an agenda?" As a feminist, I want to enlight those who seem uncomfortable with the term. Not all feminists are alike, just like not all Christians are alike.
And, what is wrong with "womens' interests?" Generally, these include equal pay, children's rights and family issues.
Some parts of 'feminism' such as equality are perfectly fine and acceptable to the majority (although that is not a feminist issue per se as it applies equally to blacks, immigrants and several other group of people of both genders) and if that's all feminism was about then hardly anybody would have a problem with it. However the notion that feminism=equality so everything else it stands for should also be accepted is just plain wrong. Muslims believe in the worship of only one God - we believe the same, yet that doesn't mean we accept Islam just because we agree on one point.
You're quite correct that feminists hold varying beliefs and to varying levels; some don't call themselves such and yet would be classed by others as an extremist, others call themselves feminist when in reality their views are mainstream. As I think I've made clear, if you want equal pay and rights for women then that's commendable, but you don't need to wear a specific label to champion that cause, as it is already the mainstream belief in our society as evident by law.
Finally you ask what is wrong with women's interests. That depends on which ones are being discussed. The two that spring to mind that I have a problem with are abortion where some women believe that because it is their body then have the right to terminate a fetus for any reason they choose. In a few very rare cases such as rape or where it causes significant threat to her life to continue I could accept this. However if they really wanted equality with men then they would accept that unprotected sex often does lead to pregnancy and they should either not have had such to begin with, or at least be willing to bear the child and then put them up for adoption when born. Really pro-choice is just the desire to have sex without consequence or conscience and as such many people find that hard to stomach.
The second is the problem of rape; in terms of low conviction rates this is always going to be a problem where a crime is (or isn't) committed in private where there are no witnesses as it basically boils down to one person's word against another. Feminists view this as society being against women - it isn't - it's the normal process of justice that a crime should be proven before somebody is punished. Statistically most rapes aren't a stranger in an alleyway where physical proof of intercourse would be enough to satisfy a court, but happen between people known to each other and usually on friendly terms. In those circumstances you can't rule out consensual sex so you need to take other things into account as to who is most likely to be telling the truth, and generally if still unsure, society affords the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Now that does mean that justice may not be done if the rape really did occur, but that's no different to any other crime where the defendant walks free due to lack of evidence against them. Other problems with rape are that feminist often want to broaden what counts as rape beyond what is legally accepted. You may have heard the claim that 1/4 women at college or university are raped, however that survey included things which fall outside the legal definition of rape such as if she felt pressured into sex - the pressure didn't need to be real, only imagined. Consider the woman who approaches her boyfriend for sex, because in her mind he would dump her if she didn't have sex with him. Even though she approached him, or at the very least consented to sex, this would have been counted as a rape for the purpose of the survey. We may not like the outcome 100% of the time, but we have to accept that people far wiser than us sat down and debated what legally counts as rape and arrived at the decision fairest to all.
Going back to the bit about the courts in a rape case, they often take into account the behaviour and (sexual) history of the accused and the alleged victim - feminists abhor this on the basis that rape=wrong as an absolute and therefore behaviour and past are of no consequence. Technically they are correct, however judges live in the real world along with the rest of us, and know that what is right and wrong isn't the be all and end all. To illustrate this, here in the UK a pedestrian has right of way over vehicles even on a road (drivers must stop if needed when somebody is crossing). Logically I should be able to walk across motorways (70mph version of your freeways) and cars and trucks should all stop for me as I do so. We both know I'd be lucky to make it to the central reservation alive. So why do we bother teaching our children how to cross a road if everyone is supposed to stop for them? Why not just tell them that they've no right to be run over and it's solely the fault of the drivers? Again, reality and experience show that there are things that can be done to minimise risk to oneself, and it's prudent to do those things. I'd far rather my children be safe than right! Yes, my daughter may have the right not to be raped, but you can bet your last dollar I'll be teaching her how to keep herself safe rather than how to argue in court over her rights.
I hope that's cleared things up for you. I don't necessarily expect you to agree with all or any of them, but I hope you'll be able to understand why such viewpoints are held.
i realize that... a word could mean differently from one person to another...but can we really tell one person's opinion is true and the other one is a lie?
on a case such as this..when varied thoughts are presented...we could always go back to our one basic standard..which is the Bible... for i know this is where we can have the common ground as christians..the principles are there and the practical execution of those must be up to us...on our own choosing...that is we gona follow what he says there or not...
I'm not sure I understand your remark- aren't those "women's issues"? And haven't I explained what the problems are with them? I've googled and read a lot of websites created for or by feminists, and equality isn't mentioned nearly as much as those other things. When it is mentioned, it's not that the law here needs changing, because of course it already outlaws sex discrimination, but showcases examples of the law being broken. Fine. But every law gets broken; they could have done the same thing on why it's wrong to steal and that we live in a "theft culture" because some people turn a blind eye to it.
One of those websites says that if you can't call your mother, sister, daughter or friend an idiot simply because she has a womb then you're a feminist - wrong! I am a normal person who doesn't like to see others being wronged - by men or women - I am most definitely NOT a feminist because I don't support the changes such as pro-choice such self-described feminists want to bring about or their viewpoints, and want to distance myself as far as possible from them.
I'm not sure I understand your remark- aren't those "women's issues"? And haven't I explained what the problems are with them? I've googled and read a lot of websites created for or by feminists, and equality isn't mentioned nearly as much as those other things. When it is mentioned, it's not that the law here needs changing, because of course it already outlaws sex discrimination, but showcases examples of the law being broken. Fine. But every law gets broken; they could have done the same thing on why it's wrong to steal and that we live in a "theft culture" because some people turn a blind eye to it.
One of those websites says that if you can't call your mother, sister, daughter or friend an idiot simply because she has a womb then you're a feminist - wrong! I am a normal person who doesn't like to see others being wronged - by men or women - I am most definitely NOT a feminist because I don't support the changes such as pro-choice such self-described feminists want to bring about or their viewpoints, and want to distance myself as far as possible from them.
