Feminism as often defined:

the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state. Is something I agree with support.

I wouldn’t call myself a feminist because I think the word is basically broken. Too many people use it in a different way than this definition. Too many people think that if you are a feminist you have to agree with other things or you are not a feminist. I would describe myself as a humanist; I think.

I do believe gender is a social construct that’s becoming outdated. And that we shouldn’t have nor woman nor men, at all.

Make of that what you want.

No.

And I got banned from Lemmygrad for saying that,
but I’ll try iterating it again here hoping I won’t be this time around.
Reasons ordered from strongest to weakest.

1. Gender exclusiveness is in the name.

I don’t like any movement that has some form of exclusiviness in their name
other than nationality when they are indigenous to the land or ideology of the likeminded.
Any movement that has sex, age, sexual orientation,
but especially race in their name, immediately raises suspicions in me.
My country used to have a 50+ political party and while I don’t think the general public
thought of them as anything other than that ‘lovely little grandma and grandpa party’,
my first thoughts went to banning the party for age discrimination.

The only thing I think that sets apart the feminist movement from other supremacist movements
is that I believe that humans have taken an evolutionary path that has resulted with fewer women
with dominant and mean personalities and
while I think current technology/economics would allow such thing to happen if
it were to run for several more generations, near future technology/economics won’t.

And that makes this movement much less dangerous than
other supremacist movement that is far quicker to cheer on genocide.

2. Not agreeing with things feminists have said about themselves

Most of all, all the “If it weren’t for us…” statements.

I fail to see how it was not inventions that changed society as a whole in most cases.
Household chores used to be a full time job.
Paper, ink and education was something only the rich could afford,
so forget about voting, including for men.
War has gotten more and more mechanic and even robotic,
so the draft has gotten rare as well.
Bank accounts stopped being a rich people only thing as well.

Other statement like “the Feminist movement is about equality between women and men.”
to which I say
“Sure sure, and the Trump movement is about equality between Trumps and non-Trumps. That’s why we needed more Trumps in leadership positions.”

3. I consider there to be an imbalance demographic imbalance between the sexes,
   and I consider this to be an issue on the relationship market,
   and myself as a (perpless) victim of it, so it hits me personally.
   I also consider this to be something that dropped power into women’s hands
   and I don’t think leaders of the feminist movement would want to happily give up on that

This is the more controversial one that gets me banned.
Due to new technology, demographics skew towards more men
of adult age, so not counting the elderly or children.
For every ethnic group that would mean advantages for that group,
but when the demographic group is about the sexes,
the less there are of you, the more power you have.

If I were the only male, I’d be king of the world,
heterosexual women at my feet, protected and wanted by even the most powerful presidents.
I could exploit it to the fullest and powerful women could and would block other
women from ever coming near to me, physically or through manipulation.

This shortage gives women the power to exploit men.
And since it’s a semi-permanent power, there’s little anyone can do to mitigate the issue,
apart from society inventing new technologies that will balance or skew the scale to the other side,
which could happen in ten years or so.

“The universe doesn’t entitle you to a girlfriend”
Then I would say that that IS a true statement,
but then I also am not entitled to an income,
a car, a house, food, water, electricity and other basic necessities,
but I do think that I am entitled to live in a society
that prioritizes to have these necessities in abundance supply.

I don’t like these kind of statements that turn the political into the personal.
It’s similar to the “You’re on your own kid. Just get a job. Improve yourself” statements when someone loses their income and house.

“Women are not stock. They are human beings. Stop comparing our bodies to objects.”
I say that employees and employers are also human beings.
There’s a demand and supply of that too and yet again
I’d like to say that I’m entitled to live in a society
where unemployment is down to 0%,
so employers with jobs would be in full supply.
And if I’m the only male on the planet,
I would have no qualms saying that there’s a shortage of supply in men.
There’s an abundance of supply of men right now.
Just because women want relationships, and thus there being a demand for men,
does not mean that I think men or women are objects or livestock.

“It’s not the quantity of women that’s the issue, it’s the quality of men”
I find that hard to believe since both men and women are each other’s counterparts,
made from the same DNA cloth who evolved by procreating with each other.
So an insult to one sex in terms of quality can only be an insult to the other.
Unless you want to go the uhm… “other route”
you know the “What do you mean Karen when you say that there’s more low-quality men these days?”

Quantity however is something that used to be balanced by nature,
where boys and men died more often from the plague, cholera and other diseases.
Most of us don’t live in that kind of society anymore.
We have tamed the animal kingdom down to the virus and bacteria
and now men are in a significant abundance.

4. Issue #3 makes me doubt the authenticity of people supporting feminism.

I’ve seen the fat acceptance or body positivity movement implode almost overnight the moment Ozempic got popular.
Apparently, people weren’t all that positive about their bodies the moment they could easily lose weight.
And I’m expecting to see the same with feminism once technologies that boost up the number of adult women becomes popular.

I believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, be they man, woman, in between or none of the above.

But saying (and perhaps believing) one is a feminist and actually acting like one are often two different pairs of shoes. We all are confronted with so much discrimination, with so much bias, with so much misogyny, it takes active labour to actually behave like a feminist, because no matter how you think about yourself, at some point and to some degree, all that shit we get confronted with every day will rub off on us, and we have to understand that and constantly check ourselves so that it does not influence us in our thought patterns. Constant mental garbage collection, if you want.

That is true for all kinds of discrimination, no matter what it is based on.

If feminism is defined as equal rights for all things that are not gender relevant I agree. But there are a lot of really good exception, where it makes sense that we acknowledge differences. Like pregnancy, physical differences and so on. In short everything that can be equal should be.

It means if you think women should have the same rights as men. I am a feminist.

I’m an egalitarian. I believe women and women are, and should be treated, equal(ly).

The clue is in the name feminist. Feminism is about equality in the same way an advocate of masculinism is an advocate of equality.

“Ecofeminists examine the effect of gender categories in order to demonstrate the ways in which social norms exert unjust dominance over women and nature. The philosophy also contends that those norms lead to an incomplete view of the world, and its practitioners advocate an alternative worldview that values the earth as sacred, recognizes humanity’s dependency on the natural world, and embraces all life as valuable.” —https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecofeminism

Yes. Because it goes hand in hand with Cynicism, my main guiding philosophy:

Cynic: “an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence” —Merriam-Webster

I’m a male vegan anarchist and reject every form of mistreatment based on immutable qualities like species, ethnicity, sex etc. At the same time women in my life have consistently broken my trust, which has left me with some generalized cynical views about them. I also believe that the west is at a point where women often receive preferential treatment in sectors like education and hiring, so advocating for them while men are left behind doesn’t make much sense to me. I do not consider myself a feminist.

Yes, bc I support equality. That’s it. That’s all it means. I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated. I try not to be an asshole to others. I know sometimes I fail, but I don’t go out of my way to do it. If somebody tells me I did something incorrect or hurtful, I don’t get offended, I just try to do better in the future if I see them again.

I didn’t know that supporting feminism was just supporting equality until I was an adult bc nobody ever taught me that. It’s not surprising to me that some people attach so much additional meaning to the word (both positive and negative), and they’re opposed to it for whatever additional meanings they have attach to the word.

It is still very surprising to me that there are people who will openly admit they’re just strongly opposed to equality. From my perspective, if you’re opposed to equality, that means you’re opposed to treating others as you would want them to treat you. You’re intentionally being an asshole, and you kinda forfeit any expectations that people shouldn’t be an asshole to you too. Yet, I still believe you’re entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Equality means it’s ok to be an asshole to another asshole. That is feminism to me.

‘Feminist’ is one of those terms that seems to have different definitions based on who you ask. I don’t know what you call me but I’m a proponent of Equal Rights Amendment full-stop.

I am a feminist because I believe men and women should have equal rights. I think a lot of people fell for the propaganda that feminism is about women over men or something. The thing a lot of men fail to realize is that “the patriarchy” hurts them too. A lot of the things you see men complain about like being told to “man up” or not being able to express their feelings without being mocked are 100% a side effect of patriarchy.

I will say yes, because I am a woman who has benefited from what feminists did in the past, and don’t believe in strict gender roles for men or women, and my kids were all born as girls, I had to work a lot to get them good education, my focus has necessarily been more on advancing the lives of girls than boys, I didn’t get boys until I married.

I think humanity as a whole is stronger when women are stronger. Empowering women empowers men too, when we all do more we are stronger, it’s not a zero sum thing.

So yeah I think so, yes, soy feminista.

I’d specifically think of myself as an anarchafeminist, so yes, I’d say I’m a feminist. Fuck bullshit gender division, and fuck anybody who thinks someone is less capable because of their genitals or the clothes they wear (or if those things “match” or not)

Yes. I think it’s about thinking patriarchy is bad. Almost always that implies preferring equality; the manosphere dudes massively overblow the support for matriarchy. I’m honestly not sure if I would include equality in the definition or not, because of how little that distinction matters in practice.

I should also include that I think patriarchy is real (because anything else is flat-Earth tier, look at Afghanistan), and that many remnants of it still exist in the West. Sometimes people who oppose something they call feminism claim that there’s not.