Can we agree that feminism is poorly named?

This is a discussion about semantics, and an argument for why the ideology has a hugely unfitting name considering it's claimed objectives.

Feminism is a word of french origin, first attested in the early 19th century, constisting of the words feminine and -ism. Feminine is the adjectival of the latin word it ultimately derives from: femina, meaning woman. -ism on the other hand is, quoting from the online etymological dictionary: suffix forming nouns of action, state, condition and doctrine.

Thus feminism has a few meanings which would literally be the action to womanise, the state/condition of being womanly, and the doctrine of womanliness.

But isn't the supposed goal of modern feminism equality between the genders and sexes? Seems pretty stupid to name the ideology after one of the two genders then doesn't it?

Just think about it. You have A and B and you want equality between the two, so let's not name our ideology ABism or equalitism but Aism!/sarcasm

Note that most other ideologies do not have this problem. Conservatism is about conserving the good about the status quo, liberalism is about freedom, socialism is about helping eachother, nationalism is about doing what's good for one's people et cetera. And all of these make sense semantically. Conservare is latin for to preserve, libertas is latin for freedom, socius is latin for companion, natio is latin for tribe.

Femina is latin for woman.

 

I am a feminist. Though I admit the movement does have a much broader set of goals then the label itself would indicate. But language is a funny thing. We have lots of words with meanings that do correlate to their etymological breakdown. And changing the name of a movement or belief system is never easy and almost always ends in failure and ridicule.

 

I suppose the reason for using the word would be that it took women organizing to get equal treatment. It wasnt men who did that as a spontaneous epiphany that they outta!

People run all sorts of personal agendas under banners they appropriate.
Self styled "feminists" are no exception.

I have one poster here who considers
feminists to be screeching harpies, and says I cant be a feminist if I am for equality.
And that Im some sort of hypocrite because as I've made the statement that I "dont like" men.
Its a lot more complex than that, Im in NYC for Christmas break with my boyfriend. Im generally afraid of men but I have my reasons.

Anyway...

The problem is not with the word but with how people use it. "Awesome" used to be a good word, I suppose, before it started to mean "thank you".

 

And I dislike each and everyone of them.

Keeping the name invites ridicule in my opinion.

Yes indeed. Back in the days when women didn't have the vote et cetera I believe it was justified to use the name. They were seeking to make it easier to be a woman, and to have womanliness accepted. They did focus specifically on women's issues, and hence the name.

That was then, and it's not the same anymore, and a name change is needed.

You actually have good grounds to fear men. It's sad, but the truth is that humans are capable of being very bad, and it's also true that such is the case for men many times more than for women. It's biology, with men, young men, being pushed towards idiocity by nature. If you walk alone in the streets one night and see a group of young men, you are very justified to feel uneasy.

 

I wonder what name you'd suggest? Might be good to just abandon that word completely.

I like what it says in the US constitution other than it says all MEN are created equal. Change it to "people" and, then act like we all mean it.

Young men and older ones for that matter can be very scary, and a woman
is in a poor position-as is a man alone against many, if they mean ill.

What happened to me didnt even start out as ill intent, it was teenagers egging eachother on and showing off.

 

I'm not sure. Something based on a word meaning equality would be a good start I suppose.

Here's an interesting thing. 'Man' originally didn't refer to a male but to a 'human being' and a 'person'. Old english, and swedish for that matter, had the word wer to mean what we now call man, whilst 'man' was used as human is today. But wer fell out of use and man begun to refer to male instead, and the same thing happened in swedish. Interesting isn't? So mankind literally means human-kind, and it was originally including both sexes. In many ways man and men still retain their older meaning of humans rather than males, and I assume such is the case with the constitution.

Older ones might be scary, but they are not dangerous as young men can be.

It need not be ill intent. it's exactly that need to 'show off' that leads to many of the stupidities of young men.

 

People who call themselves Feminists who genuinely believe discrimination is wrong when it effects either gender are in actuality 'Egalitareans.'

Unfortunately, how many times have you heard a feminist complain about the sentencing gap, as apposed to how many times have you heard feminists complain about the wage gap?

In other words, most Feminists are not egalitareans, unfortunately.

 

Didn't hear many feminists complain about the male-only draft either...

 

Only 8 posts and you're already derailing your own thread to bash women, which was pretty transparently the real purpose of your "semantic" discussion from the beginning. People call things what they call them. Communism is an ECONOMIC system, it really doesn't even HAVE politics if practiced as it was planned to be; but try telling that to Lenin, or Stalin or even Putin. And Fascism, well, what in hell DOES it mean except "authoritarian dictatorship", and then both of THEM don't have any real meanings either.

Tell you what, you want some real semantics? Look up the word "quibbling" then contemplate the phrase "get over yourself"

 

How am I bashing women?

Your wierd incoherent rant is very cute and all, but I wonder, whence did it come, and why? You just couldn't stand anyone making the slightest criticism of feminism -despite it being over semantics? Did you bottle up all this rage, and waited for the first post which you could twist into a bash on women? odd

 

How is he, "bashing women?" He's criticizing Feminism. Not all women are Feminists, and not all Feminists are women. Criticizing Feminism does not equal bashing women

 

Hey, Swedish is my friend. Quit bashing him.

 

It used to be 'women's liberationists' but that got a bad name (surprise) so it changed to 'feminism' then that got a bad name too. (surprise)

It's not about the name it goes by... some will bash away whatever name it goes by.

Some people are good at bashing away and being derogatory at the same time…

The 'slut walk' evolved from women taking the hateful, derogatory word ‘slut’ that some used against them and they highlighted that word in their march. In effect, they took the grubby word that grubby people spoke against them and used the word to highlight the word and also depotentiate the word and highlight the sexism of those that use the word. If women take possession of the word, it takes possession away from those sexist people that use it against them.

Yes, words…

Some have tried mightily hard to demonise the word 'feminism' and they plaster their vitriol all over the internet and wherever else... but women are clearly strong in that they have KEPT the word and MAINTAINED the word against the might of all the derogatory and nasty huffing and puffing at them. So power and strength to the feminists for that.

The problem isn't the word 'feminism'. The problem is partly with the nutters who liken it to Nazism and go off the deep end in shrill looniness because they seemingly hate feminism sooo much. It's the same brigade who bleat that feminists hate men… while they vent their spleen comparing feminists to Nazis. I find that extraordinarily lame and pathetic and loony.

I am a feminist. I am fine with the word. Nitpicking about the word I find disingenuous. If you don't like feminism, fine, don't like it. Or hate it as some do. But what ever name it goes by, some will continue to dislike and hate ‘feminism’, not the word. So at least be honest about that.

 

See, you are talking about feminism as if it had much more to do with women than men. And I do of course agree with you, which is why I think feminism should drop the pretence at representing both sexes, and if they insist on that, rename the movement.

Also, you do have a problem in that there really exists people who are female supremacists who go by the name feminism. It's just like it's not very popular to call oneself a nationalist these days, despite the word standing for things most would agree on, because there's plenty of fascists and nazist who also call themselves nationalists.

 

If feminists 'represented' themselves in a way that you approved of... no doubt you'd be crowing about how their representation suited you and pleased you no end... as a male. But they're clearly not pitching to anti-feminist men. Clearly. But their representation is such that it would resonate with men who seek an equal partnership with a woman.

Because that's where you focus. Feminists are everywhere and everyday women. Working in the cake shop or a bank manager, at home with the kids, an auntie, a grandmother or a teenager. You clearly don't get that. My friends are feminists, we come from all walks of life, have various careers, some married with kids, some single... and we are feminists. You notice a handful of those you call 'supremacists'... but you don't notice the magnitude of everyday women that are everywhere who are feminists. But I do. And I live amongst them. So, for that, I consider you particularly out of touch having little to no experience of the broad range of feminism.

That's the thing, anti-feminists are so often unaware as to what feminism is. It's like they bash away at shadows on the wall. They have such a limited grasp and understanding of feminism.

Also - there is a nutter in every single group of peoples on the earth. So you just go off now and set about abolishing every single name for every single group on the earth. Otherwise I'll regard your assumption and concern about the word feminism as disingenuous.

So you don't like feminism. Big whoop. Stop making excuses that it's the name that bothers you. Your assumption is pretty easy to see through.

 

Most of the Nazis in Nazi Germany were not rounding up children, women, and men and putting them in gas chambers. Most Nazis were bankers, or bakers or had various other careers....Some were single. Others, were married, but they were still Nazis-know what I'm saying???

Similarly, the majority of Feminist have probably not directly killed children. However they're still Feminists, and since Roe vs Wade 55 million defenseless children have been killed as a result of Feminists promotion of abortion. In comparison, the Nazis only killed 13 million defenseless individuals. That makes Feminists over four times worse than the Nazis.

The comparison of Feminists to Nazis is not only more than fair, it's more than accurate.

 

Mr. Swedish Guy lives in Sweden tha Shangrila of Feminism and he's the one who's "out of touch"-the irony

 

Godwined out.

Go. Stay not on the order of your leaving, neither.

 

Can someone translate this post for me-lol

 

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[8]

Act 3 scene 4

Lady M. I pray you, speak not; he grows
worse and worse;
Question enrages him. At once, good-night:
Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once.

 

So according to Goodwin's law Gwendoline lost the argument because she's the one who brought up the Nazis first-right???

 

yep, fair is fair.

good catch.

 

What's interesting is that if you look at the way the ideology is applied in society, it lives up to its semantic nature as well. Despite all of its claims about equality, it ultimately only seeks special treatment. Endless demands for "equal rights" yet never a demand anywhere for equal responsibilities. If women want to do something that men do, the demand is to lower the standards so that they are easier for women to achieve. Not for women to work harder to achieve the preexisting standards. Or accept that those standards are beyond them. Because to accept such limitations would be to admit that men and women are made differently. And that equal in value does not mean same in makeup. Something that every 5 year old kid could tell you but for some reason most 25 year old adults have been conditioned to no longer understand.

 

I dont seek special treatment. I already am special!

Seriously, you can describe a group as is appropriate, but dont please overgeneralize.

I dont say that all christians are blind-faith science haters who think there was a six day poof and a flood. Tho some are.

 

I thought it was implied that it was a generalization. You can always find exceptions to anything.