ŷ������

Dear Emma, dear all,
this is a question I've been asking myself for a long time and one of the main reasons why I've been struggling with identifying with the feminist movement: If we want to achieve equality for both genders (and not one gender in any way feeling superiour to the other), then why don't we call it equality?
I do understand the historical implications of the term 'feminism' and it is in a way justified to stick with it. However, even to my female ears it sounds as though not equality but the, well, rule of women was the goal of this movement. I know this is not what we all want (at least I hope not!), but since with HeForShe, we were trying to include men as well, the term 'feminism' has met with just as much resistance from men as before - at least in my surroundings. I know many famous and influentual male actors/singers etc. have committed themselves to the term and therefore the movement, but still, it is not widely accepted by men - and women!
This being said, I'd love to hear what all of you think and why you adopt (or don't adopt) the term 'feminism'.
Emma, I'd love to hear your personal reasons for sticking with it. Coming from a linguistic background, I think it's safe to say that language has a strong influence on the way we think and perceive the world, therefore we should always take great care when naming things.

Yours,
Lisa

Lisa Maria wrote: "Dear Emma, dear all,
this is a question I've been asking myself for a long time and one of the main reasons why I've been struggling with identifying with the feminist movement: If we want to achi..."

I totally agree to your point!

I agree the word is important. And I still think we can't call the movement as "equality". As though men's participation is really important and welcome, it's still not their struggle. We're still in a great disadvantage by just being women. They don't suffer for being men. They don't need to fight for equality, we do. I believe that's why the term "feminism" still plays an important role to the movement. To highlight that we, women, are still suffering for being women and that this needs to keep changing.

Agreed, Elis. However, I think in order to improve the situation, it's not just about women doing something, it's about men too. Take sexual harassment: It's not enough for women to know that they should not be abused, men have to know that it's not their right to do this to women. This is why I found it so important for Emma to include the men in HeForShe: If they don't change, there's only so much we can do. And in order to make them listen, we need to invite them (I seem to remember those were Emma's words, too). A term like 'feminism' is set to repell many - and not just men, as I said.

I just posted about this in another thread on here. If you remember the HeForShe Q&A Emma held on Facebook last March, one of my favorite quotes of hers was, "If you stand for equality, then you're a feminist." The way she says it, by definition we are all feminists whether we realize it or not.

I agree with Elis, it's all because of the struggle for women based on how society is. It's unfair and we need to stand together and fight for what's right. It's a constant uphill battle.

Here is a blogpost from somebody who explains your question

Its like any movement for equality. Its called "Black Lives Matter" because, though all lives matter, it highlights that black people are facing a specific threat to their existence. They just want to be treated as equals to, say, white people. So my life matters as much as someone who's black does, but the latter isnt being treated equally. Its the same with feminism and any other cause. Everyone wants to be equal, but the name of the movement shows what equality is being fought for. Men's rights matter, and so do their voices, but its women's voices and rights that aren't being treated as equal, and that's what feminism fights for.

I feel very strongly about this. I don't think 'feminist' should be considered an offensive word. The fact is, males and females are a chromosome apart. Historically females have always been subjugated and dominated by males simply because males could. Men are naturally more inclined to be stronger, and competitive and dominant I think. I'm not saying all, but I think that's the statistical likeliness. In order to have equality, society needs to promote women and give them an advantage. Not because of any inferiority of women, but simply because of the nature of human reproduction. As long as women are the only ones bearing children, they will always be forced to sacrifice either their children or their careers. In some Scandinavian countries more is being done to make this inequality fairer. There was a time when women couldn't vote, couldn't own land and couldn't even own their own money - a woman's wages were considered her husbands property not so long ago. We've come a long way, but we have a long way to go. Look at the houses of parliament, look at celebrities and business leaders. Women are still grossly outnumbered. Women are judged by their appearance far more than men and it's wrong. Nobody questioned whether Harrison Ford has aged well in the new Star Wars film! Carrie Fisher got FAR too much flak over it. Nobody should feel pressure to have cosmetic surgery to maintain their youthful looks in order to protect their career. Female singers and actors HAVE that pressure. I find the unfairness in it quite absurd. Which is why I write about in my books. If you read about gravian society, in my stories, it seems an insane society. Where females hold all the power and treat the males of their society as subordinates, almost as slaves. The thing is, a hundred years or so ago Britain was actually close to the same thing but the other way around. If you want to understand whether something in society is fair, you have to flip the two parties involved's situations around. If it still seems absurd one way around then it's probably absurd the other way too!

Thank you, Kodak and Jordan, for your input, and thank you, Aime, for the link! I think the blog post points to the most crucial point in this discussion:
"The purpose of the movement should be more important than the grammatical side to the name."
This is true. I guess my point is that, unfortunately, the first thing someone who comes across the term 'feminism' (or any other term) will see, is in fact the grammatical side. They will recognise the stem 'fem' and the ending 'ism' and think, 'ugh, it's not for me'. It will thus be much harder to include everybody. Although, as I said, I get your point and see that it's justified, especially when you consider the historical implications. I guess it comes down to pragmatism vs. idealism in this case.

I think that some people don't like "feminism" because it seems "women should rule, men are slaves" (because they are seeing the grammatical side). Instead, we should let them know that women don't want to rule, but just to have equal rights.

@Sara - Exactly!

The confusion is what makes this an uphill battle. Without being able to tell everyone that it's not about 'Women > Men' then I'm afraid we won't be able to reach equality.

I disagree if you think men do not suffer for being men. We do, even if it is not as much as women do for being women. There is a reason why men committ suicide, tend to be attacked more often, get lower grades in school, work rather than join their families, etc. With that said, I still think the fight is a feminist struggle. It is not in opposition to men, but in opposition to patriarchy, the societal structure that put men in power and have expectations on people based on what sex you have.

I agree that they need to change and join us to make an effective change. But I don't understand why the term should repell anyone. It's not a matter of term, in my opinion, it's a matter of meaning and getting to understand this meaning rather than just oppose to it for the sake of it. Men and other people opposed to feminism won't just start supporting us if we just change the term. We have to deconstruct a whole way of living. For me, as long as there are inequalities and disadvantages towards the many minorities (not only women, but other groups) there should be well established movements against these inequalities. A man will never be able to experience the reality of being a woman in a male-dominated society. A white person will never be able do experience the reality of being a black person living in a racist society. A hetero/cis person will never be able to experience the reality of being a gay/trans person living in a homophobic society. The members of the majority that want equality, and defend the minorities rights for equality, not only should, but must join the movements. But it will never be their struggle, they will never be able to fit on the other side shoes. They can't be the protagonists of these movements, even if their participation is crucial for an effective change in the society. For me that's the importance of the terms: to determine who's the protagonist of each movement. A neutral term would just disqualify and underestimate the importance of this protagonism.

Well said, Elis - I think the question of the protagonists is a good point!

I think that most prominent crack here is:-

Equality-Standing up for rights of all the people.
Feminism-Standing up for women's rights and equal status in the soceity

One quotation I heard that I really enjoyed on this topic was: for those who are upset at 'feminism' not being titled 'equalism,' remember the history of all humans is called 'man'kind.

I dont know why but that is something which really stuck with me. And for me, feminism IS equality. The title has been around so long that it cannot really be changed. But a title should not object from people believing in a movement.

Cindy: did you read my full post? :)

I see feminism as a subheading beneath the wider topic of equality. We believe in equal rights for everyone, but as feminists, our focus is on promoting the rights of women. In doing this, the rights of men are also promoted as we fight to break down gender roles and make conventional female and male behaviours accessible for all. Nonetheless, calling ourselves 'feminists' and not just 'egalitarians' or other broader terms is important because it defines our focus. There are so many issues in our society, so many inequalities which need to be addressed that it is easy to get overwhelmed and thus much harder to work out where to start. In knowing where we stand and what we stand for, we are able to more clearly define our goals. This is not to say that we can't address other issues, or be advocates for other concerns under the equality umbrella; we can be against racism and homophobia etc. as well as sexism, as it is all interrelated, it just means that the rights of women are not overlooked when placed in a big pile with the rights of everyone else. I consider myself to be an egalitarian: I believe In equal rights for everyone. I am also a feminist. The terms are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same either. Feminism is the specific quest for equal rights for women and that's important, not more or less important than equal rights for people of all religions or all races but important in its own right, as it is understood and clearly defined by those who take its name. We're not alienating men or anyone else by calling ourselves feminist, just setting the record straight: we are fighting for and promoting women's rights.

Feminism means equality but in order to achieve that I think many people agree that first and foremost women need to be treated better and with more respect. That is not to say that women need to become the dominant gender, it is acknowledging that women have always been in a weaker position with less or even no rights compared to men. If the demands of feminism are met (I know there are lots of feminisms) I truly believe that the world will be a better place for everyone because what feminism essentially wants is that it must not be a disadvantage to be a woman. Noone should be at a disadvantage because of HIS OR HER gender. And with that demand comes the idea that men should definitely have more freedoms and be less confined to this narrow definition that we currently have. However, I do believe that the plight of women - and not just white women - should be at the forefront as long as we are so clearly disadvantaged.

Lisa Maria wrote: "Dear Emma, dear all,
this is a question I've been asking myself for a long time and one of the main reasons why I've been struggling with identifying with the feminist movement: If we want to achi..."

I agree, my understanding on feminism, is still hazy but my understanding on equality, is much high. Nevertheless I have studied Equality, Diversity and Rights on and off over four years, within my college and university courses. Therefore maybe we ought to educate ourselves, first to understand the subject or topic more before questioning it's meaning.

There are multiple reasons I use the word feminism instead of equality:
- That feminism is often seen as a bad word (even a disease that people need to be cured of) is a proof that we still live in a patriarchal society.
- We need to acknowledge the difference between men's and women's position in our world.
- Female infanticide in India.
- Using the word equality instead of feminism almost erases everything feminist have fought for throughout the years. I clearly recall reading in my history book, after reading loads about democracy, two lines which said that women were HANDED the vote in [year]. Women are repeatedly deleted from history, example: Mary Shelley invented science fiction with her novel Frankenstein, but this doesn't get much recognition. Mary Wollstonecraft, a feminist and her mum, named Mary Shelley after herself in the nineteenth century. We never learn about this in his-story.
- It's the feminine traits that both men and women are shamed for, example: showing emotions. It's these traits that our patriarchal system need to accept.
- Imagine building a house and saying that all the bricks are equal when half of them are crumbling, some more than others. The house would collapse. One has to go in and fix the problem (not that men don't have resembling issues - see the preceding point).
- Feminism isn't about removing privilege, it's about achieving equal opportunities.
- The word feminism is empowering.
(I should add that when I talk about feminism, intersectionalism is implied. Since I first heard the word, I have embraced the term.) :)

Interesting discussion, everyone!
It seems that this is more of a linguistic topic than I initially thought. I hinted at my academic background in this field and it occurred to me more than once that one of the keys to make a change is language. A good example is the semantic change of the word 'gay'. The original meaning, 'joyful', 'happy' etc. has been extended to 'homosexual', all thanks to the gay movement. There's a power in language!

Unfortunately, it also works the other way round, and language can bias people to think in old patterns: 'man' originally derives from an indogermanic stem that meant both 'male human being' and 'human being'. The word for 'female human being' in English is much younger and derives from the word for 'male': 'wo-man', indicating that the female doesn't exist without the male. While this is a linguistic fact, it surely helps underline the idea of male superiority - most of the words that initially were for both men and women (and therefore went into pronouns, sayings and important nouns such as 'mankind') now only bear the male semantics. The crux of the historical nature of language. Patriarchy might one day perish, but the old language from these times will remain. And people are not ready to give up these words, they grew up with them and it's exactly this historical dimension (good or bad) that we don't want to lose. So maybe the only way to 'update' our languages to an equal society is by trying to change the semantics, by enhancing the value of certain terms and decreasing the value of others.

This leads to a related and, I think, important question in this matter: How do we want to change the semantics of 'female' - from 'fe-male' to something independent? And how do we achieve it?
If we keep calling it 'feminism', we are naturally emphasising that such a group exists, and that there are 'females' and 'non-females'/'males'. Since feminism is also about trying not to have these standardised groups where people need to fit in, we must carefully define what 'women' and 'female' means to us (and should mean in the whole of our societies). Biological gender would be the first and most important component (because the biological gender was and is the reason for suppression of women), but is there anything else? What do we want people to associate with the term? (Also, but not only, in comparison to 'man' and 'male'.) This defines most of our actions in this movement.

It's kind of hard to change the terms and the language and expect the society to follow it. Normally its the other way around. The changes in the society model the language. If we know that feminism is not about woman domination and if we are aware that we have to deconstruct the patriarchal way of living, empower women to fight for their rights, if we change the general opinion that the feminine is weak, is worse, is wrong, that's the important thing. The language will be different by itself. And you are thinking only about English. In Portuguese the words for "man" and "woman" are "homem" and "mulher", there's no common root, the word "mulher" doesn't derive from "homem". On the other hand we do have male and female nouns. If we change the way we think and act, the language will follow.

I believe the problem is not in the differences between people per se, is treating them differently because of the differences.

What I meant is: changing the semantics is an overall goal and has to be achieved through changing mindsets and therefore taking action. It is one way to approach the subject; by asking ourselves what positive associations our children could have when they think about their own gender.

Of course language shapes itself after the world we live in - but it works the other way round as well. Take the sentence "I am a woman BUT I'm interested in physics/I like soccer/I hate buying clothes/..." If we make more people realise what they're implying when they say things like that, then the change of language may encourage the change in other areas as well.

Lisa Maria wrote: "Dear Emma, dear all,
this is a question I've been asking myself for a long time and one of the main reasons why I've been struggling with identifying with the feminist movement: If we want to achi..."

One of the major reasons the term "Feminism" has persisted as such is that it allows one to reference a body of work that focus specifically on the inequality that women experience in society, and I think this speaks somewhat to the academic nature of Feminism. If we look at works that can be classified as Egalitarian or Humanist (especially enlightenment works) often times they apply positive discrimination against women, Rousseau's assessment of the "fairer sex" is a very good example of this, as he essentially fetishized the idea of ignorance in women, treating them childlike and frail; yet Rousseau can be referenced as an Egalitarian. Honestly, I do think Feminism (discounting the extreme elements of Separatist Feminism) suffers from a retro-centric appellation. By that I mean that it was named in a time when women had extremely limited agency; in-fact, they weren't considered capable of it by some. Women needed to be raised up urgently, and the broader scope of what Feminism has come to encompass (gender roles and how they affect men, gender equality, the nature of sexuality, etc...) weren't as important topics as getting women to simply be recognized as thinking human beings.

I completely agree with that! I am a woman AND physicist! Hahaha... I never used a sentence like that. But that's not a semantic question. It's a question of behavior, atitude. If you say something like that it implies that you think (or was taught) that physics and football are not for women, and buying clothes are not for men. There's no problem in the language per se, but on how you use language.

But why I'd never say a sentence like that? Because when I was a child my father (a physicist) always would talk to me about the wonders of the universe. I also always played with both dolls and cars or action figures. There wasn't a segregation between the role of a boy and a girl in my house. When I decided I liked math and science more than the other subjects, as a kid, no-one said to me that those were subjects for boys. When I decided to study physics at uni, nobody said that I should become something else, because this was a man's career (as a matter of fact, I decided I'd be an "experientist" when I was about 3 years old). Because I was supported in all those things throughout my life, and never sanctioned whenever I did "boy's things" I grew up to believe that there wasn't something I couldn't do, if I wanted to, because it wasn't fit for my gender. I heard from many people what I should or shouldn't do as a woman, but because the way I was brought up and my parents beliefs, atitudes and behaviors, I never believed that for being a woman I'd have to be a good wife to my husband, cook for him, clean the house and wash the clothes.

Libby wrote: "I see feminism as a subheading beneath the wider topic of equality. We believe in equal rights for everyone, but as feminists, our focus is on promoting the rights of women. In doing this, the righ..."

I also like this answer; and Libby sums up very well why there's no real need to change the term.

This is an excellent point you've brought up Lisa. This was the main topic in my last semester class at school "Knowledge and Power" where we discussed feminism on a whole. What we found in our discussions is that equality stems from earning a fair ground of acceptance no matter what the individual is fighting for.
Although I completely see your light in your views, Lisa, to me feminism should stick with its name because of the targeted group, women, that are fighting for their full-fledged freedom.

I absolutely love this discussion because it just makes me happy to see so many people eloquently engage in this debate without starting to curse at each other etc. So thank you for that!

Naming is a big deal! We
understand and filter the world through language so it is really important the name that it is given to things and concepts.
My opinion on the word feminism can not be more
positive, and these are my reasons: feminism means equality between the sexes. It may be said that then the word equality will fit better the cause. Nevertheless, feminism is acknowledging that through history and in today's world the female sex has been suffering an imposed difference in many aspects of social life e.g. only male clubs.
Moreover, feminism is also concerned with experiences which are fundamentally part of women's lives as menstruation, maternity....
From my point of view, the word feminism is recognising that we all are not equal, but we should be treated equally.

This is a really important point because I have many friends who fail to identify with feminism because, and I quote, “it’s a really aggressive term��. I also think it is important to point out that this idea that feminism, either as a concept or as a term, devalues the ideas, triumphs and individuals of feminism. By labelling the word used to describe the concept of gender equality as “aggressive�� or “outdated�� everything that comes under that label is indirectly (and sometimes directly) is being called aggressive and outdated. And if, as a community, we roll over and say “yes, okay, it’s too [insert whichever derogatory word or phrase used]�� to this kind of devaluation we risk devaluing out own values, our own victories and our own identities. The first people to brand feminism as “aggressive�� or “outdated�� (or whatever other things you have been branded while identifying as a feminist) were the people who felt threatened by feminism.
I agree, there is a distorted view in society of feminism, but I don’t think that is helped by changing the term we use. I think we reclaim the word. Campaigning for more paternity leave for new fathers? Feminism. Highlighting the lack of women in politics/business/justice system? Feminism. Opposing the objectification of someone (of any gender) in tv? Feminism. Generally opposing the idea that someone’s gender (and I’m not talking about just binary gender) somehow decides their value/dress code/education options? Feminism.
A little education, a little explanation and quite a lot of resolve can help reclaim the word, and the concept. I’d love to stop being called a “feminazi�� but I refuse to stop calling myself a feminist.

Again, thank you, everybody! I have to admit that in the light of so many eloquent and rational answers it seems like I was rather playing the advocatus diaboli (which is also justified from time to time). The most important point seems to be that the term 'feminism' recurs to the development of the movement - this is indeed a strong justification.

I'm still somewhat hesitant to call myself a feminist. Labelling is important because it unites people with the same interests and gives a voice to these interests, but at the same time, it is always reductionist, and every label (like vegan, atheist, liberal) has a ring of ideology to it, although I don't doubt that most of us here would rightly deny any ideology in this and other movements. Can anyone else relate to this dilemma, feeling part of something while hesitating to adopt the name in order to avoid being reduced to a mere name?

A complex subject if one ever was.

It should be called feminism and remained like that.
Why you may ask ? Simply because arguing on the name of the movement loses the focus of the important matter here : Women.

Of course, men also suffers from sexism but we can not compare what women live to what men live. Because women live much worse things than men do and that's by helping women situation that we will help men situation hence the name of the UN movement He For She.

This name was the only matter or discussion among the anti-feminist, using it as a mean not to talk about the important subject. This is too easy...

That is why it has to remain "feminism" and not trying to hide the true topic of matter by calling it equality or whatever other words some come up with to hide the fact they fear those feminist ideas.

What's the problem of having an ideology related to a movement? Isn't it the whole set of beliefs and ideas that bases a movement? If you don't have an idea or belief to defend, what's the point for the movement?

Elis, by ideology I meant something that is not questioned by means of reason, but is supposed to be adopted without thinking about it. We don't need ideology to believe that women should have the same rights as men - there is no rational reason why women shouldn't. Ideologies are dangerous because they force you to adopt something without thoroughly asking why, often in denial of reality and/or science. Making equality a goal of every society, on the other hand, is completely rational.

I do feel exactly the same way. That word seems to slippery slope towards positive discrimination at times. Gender equality does indeed sound a little better to the ear.

I think also, it depends what part of the world you're in and in what situation, in some circumstances around the world, women are still hugely disadvantaged and that's when feminism tips the scales in the right direction.

Still, words are only words and it's the meaning we attribute to them that's important. Changing perceptions of what that word means and in what context is going in the right direction and a lot of wonderful work has been done in the recent years to do that.

Lisa Maria wrote: "Elis, by ideology I meant something that is not questioned by means of reason, but is supposed to be adopted without thinking about it. We don't need ideology to believe that women should have the ..."

That's so interesting! I never though of ideology something to be followed blindly and unquestionably. I always saw it as a set of ideas that based some kind of social movement, social system, society, group. Yes, those ideas can be irrational, illogical and not based on reality, but they also can be rational, logical and based on reality.

For me ideology is just a set of ideas that a group decide to defend. Ideology (set of ideas) of feminism is the gender equality (which englobes various sub-topics and form the whole set of ideas defended by the movement).

EDIT: I checked on Collins dictionary:

ideology (ˌaɪdɪˈɒlədʒɪ )
Definitions
noun (plural) -gies
- a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc and underlies political action
(philosophy, sociology)
- the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible
- speculation that is imaginary or visionary
- the study of the nature and origin of ideas

Feminism. The focus in women, although equality will eventually help men as well. But let's not lose the focus here.

Thank you, Elis, for your input. I think the crucial word here is 'belief'. Maybe it's the philosophical background I'm coming from that makes me think that rational thought and beliefs are opposites. 'Interests' is more neutral. Everything that needs 'believing' rather than 'reasoning' sounds dangerous to the rational mind ... But maybe I'm being to strict here!

Lisa Maria Koßmann i agree... better use that term to emphasize that the main goal here is the equality... it just happened that women mostly are treated below us men...

Allow me to jump into this discussion, as a man who is not ashamed of calling himself a feminist.
I am a feminist. I "fight" for people's rights to be treated equally, men, women, children, disabled, transgenders, etc.
I too have a little bit of a background in linguistics, and understand the importance of words. But also, I have enough life experience to know that what really matters to people is perception, not the pure linguistic meaning.
I know that feminism fights for equality. Many people perceive it as something else. Out of fear, out of ignorance, out of whatever. Doing something about the way this movement, or this 'ism', is perceived seems to be exactly what Emma is trying to do.

One way to do so could be to change the term, indeed.
Not only women are victim of gender inequality. But inequality for women still IS the main problem with gender inequality in 2016. So should we just abandon the word of the original movement when the original primary goals are not made yet?
I think we CAN shift the focus a little bit, as Emma clearly did in the HeForShe Facebook interview last year, by including men and LGBT.
We can all, as individuals, do our best in our personal environments to treat everyone as equals. This is what I strive to do. This is why I am a Feminist.

I think using the term more will neutralize the "offense" people have towards it.

I personally believe that the term feminism doesn't adequately cover the range of issues that the movement fights for anymore. I think that it has evolved into a movement that now fights not just for women's rights but more generally to move beyond a perception of a gender binary- which I think covers both women's rights, men's rights, and the rights of people whose gender does not fall into these boxes. In that sense, I think the term 'equalism' does not signify what the movement has become either- because in a society that operates so heavily on a gender binary- it gets interpreted as women being equal to men- whereas what I think the emphasis that any name has should have is that gender roles are harmful- because the basis for oppression across the gender spectrum is through gender roles.

In addition to the fact that the name no longer represents what the movement stands for, I agree with a lot of the other posters in that a lot of people get turned off initially from the movement without knowing a lot about its ideas because they think the name implies preferential treatment. This isn't helped by the fact that there are (a minority of) people who self-identify as feminists and say things that re-affirm this notion- statements that nonetheless generate a lot of coverage- which results in a generalization of the movement as supporting superiority. I think the problem is accessibility of a lot of feminist ideas to the masses- the ideas are in academic literature or in books that you wouldn't come across unless you specialized in the field. Using Equalism would definitely increase the access of the movement which would be excellent because it would reach a lot of people who could be helped by its ideas but who otherwise wouldn't see it as something that campaigned for them (men being an example). However, as stated above, I don't think the name is fully representative of what the movement has become now. I personally think that it would enhance the movement greatly if protagonists of the movement came from across the gender spectrum so that they could voice their own unique issues- so while I have been using both feminism and equalism, I am looking for a name that basically conveys the idea of moving from a binary to a spectrum.

First I want to apologize if I make any grammar mistake because I am from a country where we don't speak english.

I agree with Lisa. I think that if we are looking for both genders to be equal, in order to explain this entire process to others, we can't talk about feminism because it would imply that we are only looking for women, when we are not.
I think the word feminism is the reason why so many people disagree. Because they think that we are trying to make women superior than men, when all we want is for everyone to have the same oportunities and rights.

- L

Yes, Satchit, that's exactly my point!

I may add that, of course, I'm not denying the need for a feminist movement in a sense in which we described it above and in other threads. My question is purely about the name and how to best 'sell' it, both to ourselves and to the people who are (at least at first) suspicious to it. The question arose because Emma uses the term rather frequently and explicitl labelled this group a feminist book club. I'd love to hear your take on this, Emma!

This helps a lot, indeed. She is on the spot, people all over the world is observing her and, if she supports the movement, people may stop ant think "what's that about feminism that Emma Watson talks about all the time? Let me hear what she has to say" and that's a great way to deconstruct the idea that feminism supports women superiority. Don't you think? This way people can really learn what feminism is about, rather than change the name to something that might decharacterize and undervalue women struggle for equality. I think it can be agreed that all fights for minorities rights agree with each other, because all we want is to be treated the same. But all have their value, importance and relevance separately. Together we have more strength, but if we are under an united neutral name we might loose relevance.

Kunal wrote: "I think that most prominent crack here is:-

Equality-Standing up for rights of all the people.
Feminism-Standing up for women's rights and equal status in the soceity"

I understand what you mean, Kunal. My definition of the term feminism is that it is about the equality of gender. My problems with this definition are:

1: It is not only important to stand up for equal gender's rights, but also to be for equalism for people of different religions, races, sexual orientations, etc.

2: The word feminism leaves out standing up for the rights for the third gender, as I am of the opinion that gender is not binary.

Thus, I prefer using the word equalist.

I think it's because feminism is an old word. Bach then women were treated less than men, that's why they tried to make women and men equal by pushing women to men's level.