“Feminist” – Take it back, or Leave it back???
November 20, 2008
by Amy Siskind
|
Say it loud, say it proud: yes, sisters, the next wave of feminism is upon us. And, you have found it right here, right now!
Now we need your input and suggestions.
How do you feel about the term “feminist?”
Tina Brown wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast that a poll of 1,000 U.S. voters showed the following:
Only 20% of women are willing to use the word “feminist” about themselves. Only 17% of all voters said they would welcome their daughters using that label.
Tina also wrote about our group, The New Agenda, as the new way forward:
Our poll suggests a lot of scope for a revised and updated women’s equality movement—as long as it doesn’t call itself feminism. Only 20 percent of those surveyed are willing to attach themselves to a label that seems to have become as droopy as one of Bella Abzug’s hats. So passe is “feminism” that the bi-partisan woman’s activist group New Agenda, formed by Amy Siskind in August after Hillary’s defeat, is canvassing for new names to re-invigorate the cause (suggestions gratefully received).
Well, thank you Tina Brown; and YES, suggestions gratefully received!
Please tell us what you think…
Education, Education, Education
I am proud to call myself a feminist and by educating others about the very strong, very intelligent women before us – OUR HISTORY – we will once again find our voice, our stength, our unity.
National Women’s History Project is already preparing for March 2009, National Women’s Month – Lets be prepared to educate those around us.
I intend to buy a book to read over the holidays to educate myself. For some reason, I must have missed the one day (of my many years of education) that taught Women’s History!
Happy Thursday to all.
In thinking about feminist, I realized that words with the “ist” suffix often convey something perjorative – agist, sexist, racist, etc.
Though I like humanist, I’d prefer a word without
the ist….
Women Together?
When there was no attempt to unionize the mass of working women and no fight was undertaken directly on their behalf, it became an elitist term in the minds of some, maybe many. I think that cited poll reflects this feeling. Its connotation is exclusive too, for women only. Wanting equitable justice, pay and political representation for all doesn’t make me a feminist and it doesn’t even make me a patriot unless I take some kind of action in support of those beliefs.
POPs – prisoners of patriarchy but really more akin to being POWs given the oppression of women.
I don’t have any problems with the word feminist, but I know many women do. It’s a term that has been stolen. Now it means Rush sneering about feminazis or it must mean you’re a lesbian. Well, being accused of being a lesbian just means you’ve probably done a good days work, LOL, but that’s just me.
But you can see how complicated women’s rights are. We can’t just focus on women, now we have to deal with homophobia because gay bashing is also used to oppress women. Then we have to deal with racism, as we saw in the last election black women are often forced to chose between the two. I know some black women who were getting it from all sides. Sexism from the cheetoh crowd and accusations of disloyalty from black friends and family. So in order for women to unite, we have to build unity with women of all differant races. And my personal belief is that we must also build unity with those of differant political persuasions.
So it’s really difficult. We’re talking about trying to unite half the human race. Maybe there just isn’t a word available that can’t be misinterpreted or co-opted. This is a really massive struggle that’s been going on for thousands of years.
“I’d prefer a word without the ist….”
It’s because negative connotations are put on words by those who want to belittle the idea, so in the end no matter what the word is, it will be attacked until it becomes demeaning.
“Liberal” or “handicapped” or even “foster” —I’m not sure if they came up with a new term for foster kids, but I remember when they were trying.
In response to feminazi, I came up with “feminuclear.” As in, “feminism is da bomb!” (Also as in fem-centric.)
It’s not an easy word to play with!
Because I have a love for straightforward propositions, I have often repeated that Susan Powter line, “Either you’re a feminist, or you’re an idiot.”
I was looking it up this morning, and found this.
Is it possible to re-brand the term “feminist”?
I’m not thrilled with the word, honestly, to me it seems like a club where you have to adhere to certain arcane rules to be a card-carrying member. Like there is a difference between a feminist and other women.
Gay activists don’t call themselves Gayists, AA activists don’t call themselves Africanists … they take on the mantle of speaking for the rights of all gays, all AAs.
The label feminist does more to separate women from women.
Just my opinion.
My spanish speaking mother referred to feminists as “Adelitas” referring to the brave female soldiers and backbone of the Mexican Revolution – hence I have always considered myself an Adelita,
How about Justitians? (Those who uphold what is just, esp. fair treatment and due reward) I don’t know if its a real word – but we could make it one.
I’ll keep thinking of some other possibilities.
I agree that the word “feminist” has been almost irrevocably polluted by NOW and other failed “womens rights” organizations.
They’ve burdoned us with a humiliating legacy.
I am fine with the term feminist, and I don’t want to cede it to the Rush Limbaughs or to folks who simply have a misconception about what feminism means. Ceding the term will be like acknowledging that the Rush Limbaughs are right, that feminism is something you should distance yourself from. Feminism is an internationally recognized term.
It is difficult enough to brand a new organization; I don’t think the New Agenda should make the task twice as hard by trying to rebrand an social movement as well.
Besides, if The New Agenda rejects the term “feminist,” the first question anyone will have is – “how is (new term) different from feminist?” which will be an open invitation to bash feminists.
And, besides besides that, what about all the women who are proud to call themselves feminists? Do we really want to alienate them?
The other day I attended a lecture by a feminist playwrite from Sweden. Her works primarily address issues of immigrants, gays and womens rights. She was relating the story of how she came to adapt a particular work by another playwrite: she wanted to make it about feminism but found terrible resistance to the idea. She said that the term “feminist” was met with “derision and snickering” – so she went ahead and adapted the play to be about gay rights instead.
And Sweden is like number three in the world in womens equality. I believe the US is way down the list at number 27.
Yes, the word feminism is known world-wide, but it seems to have been polluted world-wide too.
The other interesting thing is, not five minutes before she related this story, she told us that in Sweden, like the US, the worst schoolyard taunt that one kid can throw at another is “You’re gay”.
Nevertheless, the “gay” storyline was acceptable to the general audience – not the “feminist” storyline. hmm.
Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to serve in Congress and the first woman to seek the Democratic presidential nomination, said “I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being black,”
The feisty Chisholm also put it this way: “being female put more obstacles in my path than being black.”
I’m not sure which is the more accurate version of the quote but maybe both are correct, since I am sure Shirley Chisholm spoke about this issue more than once.
So, keeping Shirley Chisholm’s observations in mind, I ask you to ponder this question: Would Arnold Schwarzenegger ever have been elected governor of California, the state with the largest population, if he had been a woman?
Arnold — or let’s call him Agnes — had NO political experience, had never run for or held any public office before, had posed naked for photographs that showed up online during his campaign … but that didn’t seem to faze the media boys and girls … nor did the FACT that Arnold had posed for studio photographs with a large-breasted naked woman sitting on his shoulders.
(Yet, it truly seemed to inflame SOME people that Sarah Palin had once entered a beauty contest dressed in a demure one-piece bathing suit, hoping to win scholarship money so she could complete her college education. )
Those photos of the naked Arnold with the naked woman on his shoulders were widely available on the Internet before Arnold was elected. Imagine if a woman running for office had posed nude; do you think she would have been elected to anything? We would have heard howls about morals and “what will we tell the children?”
Arnold had also been accused by many women of fondling them against their wishes … the uproar became so loud his wife finally had to come forward to defend him as a “good” person.
Arnold KNEW the women who had accused him were on firm ground, and so he apologized to all the many women he had fondled against their wishes.
STILL, the voters had NO problem electing Arnold governor and, then, touting him for the U.S. presidency — if we would just amend the Constitution to make that event possible.
In his first two years as Calif. governor, Arnold managed to anger just about every group that wasn’t representing Big Business, but finally had to change his ways and alter his policies when the turmoil grew to be too great.
But NONE of that kept the media and many voters from saying we should change the U.S. Constitution, so Arnold could run for president — and they were sure he’d be a shoo-in, since he had won the Calif. election so easily.
Well, after a few years with Arnold as governor, Calif. is on the brink of bankruptcy and is hoping to get a BAILOUT from the federal government.
On the other hand, Gov, Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for almost two years, and Alaska is doing fine.
But NONE of those facts kept the media goons and many other people from persistently holding Sarah Palin to a different standard than Arnold, ridiculing her and accusing her of saying and doing things she NEVER said or did.
I was at a meeting recently where someone started ranting that Palin had tried to “burn” books to “keep people from reading them.” Sarah Palin NEVER asked the Wasilla librarian to ban ANY books and, in fact, that librarian has stated that she was NEVER asked to ban any books. The topic had first come up at a PUBLIC Wasilla Council meeting and Palin had asked a rhetorical question during the discussion. The question was NOT a secret and the issue was written about in the newspapers that covered that Wasilla Council meeting. The whole issue is a CROCK and was exaggerated to make Palin look bad.
But with Arnold Schwarzenegger, it seems he could do any OBNOXIOUS thing and the cheers would go on and on and on … because he is not Agnes Schwarzenegger (who would have been laughed off the public scene if she had run with Arnold’s non-existent political resume) … he is Arnold, so everything is hunky-dory.
————————————————————————
“SHADOW” now . . . and “SHADOW” forever!
“Stop Humiliation And Disparagement Of Women”
Imagine if the civil rights activists during the 60′s were called “Africanist”. Not as easy for the mainstream to digest. Things like “Black Power” and the Black Panthers were important but more fringe. I like how the term “civil rights” gave an opening for all citizens to embrace the cause of African Americans. Of course African Americans lead the movement but the involvement of other racial groups was also very important.
I have been thinking about the term “civil rights” and how it would be nice if that applied to us as well. Of course the term is too loaded…. but I’ve been trying to think of something more serious than “Girl Power!” and more inclusive than feminism.
Just a brainstorm of words really…
- Women’s Representation – I think representation is one of the key things we are fighting for. Representation in politics, the media, etc. I also keep thinking about “No taxation without representation” and how women do so much to make the wheels of American society turn but without fair representation.
- I LOVE your 17% pins. Perhaps something with the number 52, as in 52%, as in we want 52% representation.
- Amy, I love the word “together” – implying our strength in numbers.
- Perhaps something with the word “majority” since women are the majority population in this country?
Okay, I’m stuck for now! That’s it!
-
It doesn’t matter which word you choose; if it’s about women, women’s rights, and efforts to secure that, it will be pejorative.
Feminist.
Feminst
Femiist
That anyone would even be considering backing away from this word tells me there is a lot of ground work that hasn’t been done. And I think it must be, before anyone can take this word from me and the women who gave it to you.
I am angry. Ashamed.
I don’t know, Sis. Like I said above, the term “Africanism” would have annoyed…. “Feminism” annoys. I think PR is so important. I remember studying the whole “Ebonics” controversy in graduate school. Ebonics was simply a wonderful educational strategy being used to teach African American children standard English. But what an awful name! The media and politicians from both the left and the right went hell crazy to destroy Ebonics. And that’s really sad. But public relations wise, proponents of Ebonics had done a lousy job of getting there message across.
This debate – shall we change our branding? Is certainly worth something.
I think the difference is that it depends on how you look at the debate.
From the moral, principled, gut-instinct side of the argument, I say…
–It’s our word given to us proudly with literally the blood of our “foremothers” on it.
–Giving up the word implies there is something wrong with being a feminist or feminine.
–In my heart of hearts I feel great pride in being a feminist.
But, from the practical “business” side of the argument…
–Almost everyone I say the word to has a negative visceral reaction. (Lesbians, hairy legs, man haters, child haters, ball busters…)
–It lumps us in with NOW etc, no offense to them but we are trying to be a different kind of group.
–I don’t know very many men who will join a “feminist” group. (I know that is stupid but it just is.)
I guess the question is do we stick to principled idealism or take a pragmatic marketing and “branding” view of it. The fact that we even have to address it irritates me, but that doesn’t change the fact that we do.
No, no, no. We cannot let them continue to make this a bad word. It is the best word to use, because it actually explains our struggle in unique terms. AAs didn’t talk about how they could find some other word besides “racist.” Hell, they even took the overtly derogatory N-word as a badge and said, “Oh yeah, well take that!”
Here’s the deal: Because we are challenging patriarchy, a whole lot of people, both men and women, are going to be opposed. They’re not gonna like what we do, but we have to keep pushing it in their faces. We need to stop looking outside the group for validation. If some women are too stupid to recognize that feminist is a positive label, then we tell them how stupid they are–we don’t go changing the label so they can feel better.
Well-put, lightacandle. Good analogy.
And I like the idea of Representation, Ali.
FTR, I realize some folks may be opposed to using shaming techniques like that, but let me assure, a full quarter of the progress AAs have made is because of shaming techniques that worked. They made it so anyone would be ashamed to be a racist. If you begin to tell women who don’t get it they are stupid for not getting it, and use other shaming techniques, many will look for ways they can stop being stupid and start to get it.
Anna Belle, the equivalent of racist isn’t feminist, though, it’s sexist.
But your point is a good one, and I’m not above shaming people.
My question: how DID the AA’s manage to make people realize that being “racist” is shameful, and not the natural order of things?
Anna Belle,
I understand the point you are making, but I am not interested in telling anybody they are stupid because they don’t agree with me. I’m happy to shame people who display sexist or misogynistic behavior, but we have the term “playing the race card” for a reason and I don’t want there to be a “playing the feminist card” backlash. No offense, but I think the intolerance of other people’s viewpoints is one of the main problems we have had with NOW and previous women’s groups. I hope that we will be more inclusive here rather than take that “toe the line or hit the road approach.” I do however appreciate your passion very much!
Equality
Equality Now!
Equal Rights
Equality is inclusive. Feminism is exclusive. I know the definition of feminism is inclusive, but the word itself is exclusive. In my view, it is the exclusive nature of the word that drives a lot of people away. Few years back couple of women talked in class about the word feminism and asked the audience, what does the word mean. Many said it means striving for women right’s. The connotation of the word does not include men although the definition itself does.
I don’t know if changing a word will make a difference. But I do know that words matter, especially in this day and age of information. So brainstorming about this is good.
BTW, I like the name The New Agenda. I am just learning about the difference between a mission and a vision and the name seems to have both. Very clever.
This is challenging!
First, as an aside, several years ago I read a great study where women (don’t recall if men were included) were asked a series of questions which focused on equal rights for women without announcing themselves as such. The people interviewed were asked if they agreed or disagreed with each point. For example: “Do you think women should receive equal pay for equal work?” What was fascinating was that of those interviewed, the vast majority agreed with all of the major “feminist” principals. BUT, when they were asked if they considered themselves feminists, the vast majority said, “No.” (Similar kinds of studies have been done regarding public policy issues and party affiliation and reveal similar cognitive dissonance.)
Anyway, for me, when I think of the word “feminist” it feels dated. Almost like “modern dance”. I do feel a new word is needed, not because of any sense of shame about the old word, but simply because I feel “feminist/ism” conjures something from the 1970′s and, while many principals are the same, we’re living many decades later.
Perhaps a good place to start is a brainstorm list, stream of consciousness words and phrases that we all think embody the notion of “feminism”. Perhaps that list will ultimately provide the key words to create a new “brand”, if it is decided that is the way to go.
Terms:
Equality
Equal rights
Women’s rights
Names:
The 52% solution
The vocal majority
Majority population equality
Raising up the Other Half
Women Rising
Disclaimer: These are just brainstorm ideas. Unedited!
JP – I think we were typing at the same time! Your ideas about inclusion and exclusion are interesting. I also feel the word “equality” come up when I think about it. For me, the challenge of equal rights is that it’s so inclusive that it’s hard to pin down the demographic group it refers to. Equal rights. Human rights. I do agree women’s rights fall under this heading. But, equal rights can also mean that we’re rallying for any and all exploited groups around the world, irrespective of gender. Of course this is an important mission, but one beyond what I understand our scope to be. Hhhmmmmm.
I think you all might like this quote (it is religious, sorry, but I like the image):
“The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female. So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly. Until womankind reaches the same degree as man, until she enjoys the same arena of activity, extraordinary attainment for humanity will not be realized; humanity cannot wing its way to heights of real attainment. ”
When half of population is oppressed, humanity is a broken-winged bird.
Ciccini – Just read your post. Lots of really great ideas and things to think about. I was going to post a few more brainstorming ideas, but after reading your post, I think I gotta consider your points very carefully. So now my post is just this:
Hey, everyone, check out Ciccini’s post!
Wow, votermom – What a great quote! It could be inspiring from a logo perspective, among other things. It’s really beautiful!
Just looked up the definition of feminism in my dictionary:
1. The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 2. Organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.
Well, hard to imagine summing our mission up much better than that.
Here’s a compromise idea:
Keep the term (per Ciccini’s points) while adding one element of the org name The New Agenda and consider:
The New Feminism
ugh
votermom- I love your post too! That is the perfect analogy for us. Don’t apologize for it coming from a religious place, we are inclusive remember!
Where is it from?
Or we could be Real Feminists and the “feminists” who slander women could be fauxminists.
Real Feminists stand up for all women.
Anna- Your idea of the New Feminism makes me think of New Coke. I don’t guess that is relevant I just thought it was funny.
Anna, Ciccini,
I think you both have it right. I’m thinking – we don’t reject the term “feminist”. We accept it. But we can discuss the difficulty of the term, how it means so many things now and add an identifying buzzword that describes the essence of who we are or the importance of what we need to do.
When we gave speeches for the nonprofit I worked for we always referenced our catch phrase. It went on our stationary, it went into our grants. It defined in a sentence our value (beyond the name of our nonprofit). I thought it was a successful approach.
How about “Philogynist”?
1. Puts a positive twist on misogynist. The misogyny of the election gave birth to our movement. Let’s turn it into a good thing with our name and our actions.
2. Our movement is all about unity and success for women. Love.
3. Many men would be happy to take part and proud to call themselves Philogynists!
I proud to be a feminist. I can be a feminist and a Philogynist. Our movement welcomes all women and men from all different feminist branches and waves as well as all women and men who don’t feel comfortable calling themselves feminists. Our movement includes all those who agree on the 80% and want to achieve 52%.
If that sounds too hippie dippie, another option could be
“Isogynist”
Equal Women. Dedicated to equality for women. Pretty literal. Hard to argue.
Anna, I hear you about the term equality being too broad. I just figured to go to the other end of what I feel feminism represents (as a word.) Equality is what we all want regardless of our gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. We all want it, we all need it, we all deserve it. Unfortunately it is not a reality for all of us. But it can be, it should be and it will be.
So back to the term. While equality is a broad term and can include a lot, it can also be narrowed down to a specific cause. Feminism, on the other hand, started from a specific and had to be broadened to include more later down the road. In the end, feminism as a word feels as if it has become the victim of its initial specific definition by default. This is just my sense of the word and what I have experienced.
As a side note: it is interesting that some “feminists” at this moment are being exclusive, again, instead of embracing the need for a new direction. I am not sure what this phenomenon is all about. It is as if “they” have become the “status quo” and resist change.
Votermom, loved the quote!
Hey I have an idea. You know all the hating on Hillary? Then they turned their hating on Sarah?
Lets get these women to change their names.
That’ll do it.
Backing up: Why do we need a label at all???
I agree that it’s crucial to be able to sum up our goals in a single sentence. But, think about it: People who work for human rights aren’t called human rightists or rightisms. Folks involved in the civil rights movement didn’t/don’t refer to themselves as civil rightists, etc. Why can’t we be people who are working to advance women’s rights so we have equality in the political, seconomic and social sphere? Maybe this is what is new, that we cast aside any need to be labeled, while embracing the core values of the mission?
I still agree the Ciccini has a very important point which is that starting a new org is challenging enough. Trying to shift a long-established word to a new one is daunting. Anyway, as I posted, now I’m thinking there is no need for a word to sum up what we’re about. I think it could be ok, fine, even great to have a terrific name for the organization along with a finely honed summary vision, which I do believe is likely not much different than what it’s been for years.
Cynthia – LOL! After I posted that I also thought, geez, it sounds like “new and improved” like the way they market laundry detergent. Not good!
Quick question: What makes The New Agenda, new? What is it about the mission that differentiates itself from other women’s rights orgs in the past? I think this is something important to define.
We are “new” because:
1) we are non-partisan
2) we are not taking a view on choice
3) we are activists (see Soujounor Truth quote on home page)
Remember how Sarah Palin waffled on calling herself a feminist? I can understand how the term carries connotations that make right-wing women uncomfortable. We want to attract right wing and left wing women in droves, so perhaps we can each describe ourselves however we like, but we could say that The New Agenda is a pro-woman group, for feminists and others.
Dawn – I love that idea “that The New Agenda is a pro-woman group, for feminists and others.” That seems to be inclusive, without being overly narrow nor needing to attach a label.
I think that you are on to something too Dawn: “Pro-Women”
Amy – I’d consider making sure all of those points you listed are inlcuded in the mission statement. The term New Agenda (which I intuitively love) isn’t clear in and of itself. What’s “new”, and even more, what “agenda” is being referenced? Therefore, I think a single defining statement that would always accompany the name would go far in helping people to immediately grasp what The New Agenda stands for. Plus, once you get your non-profit status, grant apps are always going to ask for this sort of text. But, mostly, I think that your bulleted points are not reflected in the mission statement and I think they should be. Just my perspective.
Devil’s advocate:
How would we differentiate our notion of “pro-woman” with some bozo womanizer who thinks he’s “pro-woman” as well? (This is where I keep looping back to the whole equality issue as one that seems central.)
I think this kind of intellectual exercise is great and vitally important as it will become the thing that ultimately defines who we are. It’s hard and can take time.
Just took a look at the Mission Statement and played around with it for fun. There is some redundancy there, first listing 4 areas where the org seeks parity and then repeating, but only listing two areas. Anyway, here’s something I’m working on if you’re interested:
The New Agenda is a national, non-partisan organization that seeks to advance women’s rights by working towards parity in the way women are treated throughout all sectors of society, including the media, the government, the workplace, and the home.
It’s odd, but I’ve noticed that everyone I have talked to about The New Agenda has a negative reaction to the word feminist. You know that face like they smelled something bad? The only exception was my self-defined socialist friend Amy who said “yeah feminists!” Even my more liberal friends make the stinky face. I think I am just going to start saying “pro-woman” so I don’t have to immediately start defending the whole idea. My 82 year old neighbor warned me I would get “saggy boobs like hers” if I quit wearing a bra.
Why is this so hard?
My husband had a good suggestion (bless his heart) of Women’s Advancement Coalition. I really liked it until I realized it was WAC.
Cynthia – I loved your post, especially the end!!! This is hard, but not because of the subject matter, per say, but because it truly is difficult to hone a vision into a single word or just a handful of words. In this case, I think there is the additional baggage of a word that has already been established, so we’re not starting with a blank slate. But even if that weren’t the case, I think it would be hard. But in the end, it will pay off, especially in the fundraising dept. The more clearly one can define who they are and what they’re about and have it all bundle together well, the better.
I’m now cracking up again about “WAC”. How about New WAC?!*
Anna,
WAC is better than his original suggestion, beautiful in its simplicity…
Coalition Of Women
(He didn’t see our whole debate about using the initials)
Cynthia – Oh geez. That is too funny!!!
I think someone posted about this somewhere, but I can’t find it:
It’s actually kind of wierd to attach “ism” or “ist” to feminine. When ism or ist is attached to other nouns, it tends to have a negative connotation, as is racist, or sexism.
Maybe we should just be women, and leave it at that! (Of course, if we really want to hone things, perhaps the fact that “men” is part of women and “male” is part of female, might inspire some (not the faint of heart) to select an entirely new word for us! (Girls and Ladies, probably, not allowed!)
How about “egaltarian”? It is already a rather wide-spread term in the church. It’s a movement that believes that men and women are of equal sprititual gifting and women should be allowed to serve as spirtitual leaders. The down side is that it is already used, but I like how it implys equal status.
I did really like La Adelita’s commet on “Adelitas”. That’s a snazzy word!
How about Phoenix Feminism?
Rises from the ashes of feminism that went up in flames this election season.
Or Majority Feminism?
As in feminism for all women as opposed to liberals, AND referring to the fact that women make up the majority of people in this country.
I don’t want to get rid of the term feminism either- it carries history- but I think tweaking it opens a doorway to women that have felt excluded.
Lisa, I agree that we should keep the history and, like Cynthia said, add to it. It’s interesting to note that most of us put “feminist” or “feminism” in quotes (even when not delineating it as a term) – distancing ourselves from the words. This, to me, speaks volumes.
Since I like simplicity, my first thought was new feminists (especially with the New Agenda name), but how will women who have been using the term feminist to describe themselves for all of these years feel about it?
Like Cynthia, I’ve gotten the same “face”. Unfortunately, the word really turns a lot of people off. The pragmatic approach may need to win out here.
Great discussion!
Riffing on both visionaries and ovaries I came up with
feminaries. And immediately came back to my original conclusion:
the word is really hard to mess with!
But here’s something that was discussed a lot in earlier threads…what about “4th Wavers?”
I have no idea why we’re 4th wave feminists instead of 3rd, but 4th Wavers would be something that would both indicate newness but also connect us to the history of feminism.
It invites queries and interest in the various waves of feminism.
To Cynthia:
Perhaps we should add a couple of words to it like The History-making Women’s Advancement Coalition
thwac
I like Majority Feminism since the New Agenda’s goals are relevant to most all women and most all feminist ideals.
Cynthia, it’s a Baha’i quote (but I’m not of that faith, just ftr)
We are having a conference call today with the branding expert that one of you so kindly found us.
We will give her all the feedback from this comment thread.
Thanks all!
Amy
biteoftheweek,
I like thwac even better
I agree with votermom. I have for years and years distinguished in my own mind “real feminists” (who identify with and really care about women) from “faux-feminists” (who are male-identified, whose thinking is rooted in leftist ideololgy in which everything else trumps gender if gender has any salience at all, whose intellectual pretentions are postmodern and postfeminist, and who have coopted the academy, women’s studies, and infused the thinking and priorities of liberal activists).
I sometimes hesitate to say “real feminists” because it could seem divisive. but then again, the FF (and I like votermom’s fauxminists as well as faux-feminists) have stolen our name and our identity,
I like Fourth Wave because it references a history, reminds everyone that this is a long struggle, and that we are different from past waves.
I think actions speak louder than anything else. And out of our actions a label will emerge. I believe that a motto is more important than one single word. I would personally prefer a motto that was positive and inclusive. Something along the lines of “Respecting, supporting and celebrating all women and their common goals.”
I think given the new agenda, we ought not to be judgmental of those feminists who came before us. We learn and grow based on the trials and errors of those who came before us. Let’s not turn against each other and be respectful of all contributions.
Lisa, I like Majority Feminism, the idea, but not the word majority, I don’t know why. Just an opinion. I prefer United Feminism or something using the word United. How about Feminist Unity? hehe..FU.
Here’s some more brainstorming of mottos, because it’s fun:
Women United for the Good of All
United Women Stand Strong
Women United Have Power
Claiming Our Power
Respecting All Women for a Better Future
I like the simplicity of the Pro-Women suggestion.
Some of us are proud feminists but if someone doesn’t consider themselves a feminist, we can respect that and still welcome their membership, activism and any other contribution to the movement. Any of the different branches of feminism would and should feel included in a “Pro Women” movement. Theoretically, any person would and should feel included in a “Pro Women” movement. Anyone who agrees with our goals – women, men, feminists, non-women, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th wave – is welcome.
Also, maybe one of our members is or knows a public relations/marketing expert who could suggest some ideas for a word or words that communicate our goals in a positive way.
Sorry! I meant to write non-feminists not non-women!
I’m with Sis and Ali — I still think it’s important to claim the word. To the extent people have legitimate claims that the movement has been flawed, eg it hasn’t been appropriately inclusive of women of color, transwomen, conservative women — then it’s only by actions and not a label change that this will change. To the extent people have illegitimate problems with the movement, eg they don’t believe in women’s equality, a label change won’t alter that.
To me, changing the label seems like one more accomodation. While marketing is important, IMO the marketing focus should go toward what the movement should be about going forward and how to share the microphone with groups who haven’t felt represented, not what it should be called.
Additionally — I think it’s important to use a word that means “belief in equal rights for women.” Feminism does that. Pro-woman or Coalition of Women both strike me as watering down the concept. Sure, this might make guys more amenable, as in: “well, they just want us to be “pro” them now, not say they’re equal.”
One of the schools I looked at for my daughter said they have specialists come to the school. One helps a group of boys who are good at math. Another helps a group of girls who are good at writing. I had a feeling this was not purely self-selecting. This strategy may be “pro woman” because it helps both girls and boys. But it sure ain’t feminist.
Similarly, “pro-woman” could be compatible with a system in which men are encouraged to optimize their economic and qualitative needs whereas women are encouraged to prioritize qualitative needs and that focus on economic needs isn’t important. But that sure ain’t feminist either.
For the record, I too always get that sneer (“stinky face”) when I use the word “feminism”. It makes people turn-off immediately to the message. Obviously, the term is a hinderance to the movement. Why should we waste any time or energy trying to rehabilitate something so tainted?
Lets continue to assess everything with fresh eyes – and not allow ourselves to fall into old traps, old tactics, old terminology. Already some are saying we should banish & shame those who don’t want to be associated with the term. -Sounds exactly like the old way to me.
Shoving the term down peoples throats isn’t a productive strategy.
There is already an org called Feminist Majority Foundation. They publicly backed Obama.
Negative association will attach to any word used because it’s about women.
It’s sad to see women trying to hide behind euphemisms, to mask what they’re about.
Feminist.
I don’t think Sarah Palin waffled on calling herself a feminist. I think she was saying “whatever that word means now” ie) calling out women who say they are feminists but don’t behave like feminists. Women who are sexist, who took part in attacks against her, who wore c*nt t-shirts but said they were feminists.
That’s sure the way I feel. It’s not the word that’s at fault. It’s the women who think they can talk it but not walk it.
“Remember how Sarah Palin waffled on calling herself a feminist? “
a lot of great discussion here ! Amy since you are meeting with a branding specialist, here are my suggestions:
1. the mission statement needs to be tightened up
2. a tagline (or motto) is key for this group. ( how about “Respecting, Supporting, Celebrating, and Advancing All Women” ?)
3. we shouldn’t completely walk away from the term “feminism.” We need to own the history (good and bad), but clearly state how we are different. (i.e. “Feminism Redefined” , “Dawn of a New Feminist” , “Neo-Feminist”)
Since we are a new emerging group, these three key ideas need to be communicated in everything we do…every letter we write, every interview we give, every conversation we have with our friends. A new brand needs time to build awareness and educating the audience is key to making sure the brand is not misunderstood.
This reminds me of corporations, who brand whatever is most marketable, and never live it. Did we fall for, get Obama’s “brand”? What do we think of corps and people who brand, and people who fall for it?
To my way of thinking it is how an org acts and what you do that brands you, not marketing and public relations spin.
I think most “consumers” are fed up with branding.
I think people are fed up with branding when what you get turns out not to be what was advertised. The difference here is almost the opposite. If we are marketing our group as a feminist group, most people will not understand that we are taking a different approach from previous feminist orgs. We will be lumping ourselves in with what has turned people off in the past, and then spending a lot of time and energy trying to differentiate ourselves from what most people’s opinion of “feminist” seems to be. It isn’t saying we are denigrating those who came before us, only that we intend to be different, and an alternative for women who didn’t fit with NOW or those who still want to support groups like NOW on choice etc, but also want to help us fight all the other fights. Branding and public relations are important whether we like it or not. Just look at the election. All of them wound up being perceived as other than what the are, some in a more positive light and some in a more negative light.
We can be “right” and all pat ourselves on the back with the righteous indignation that we shoved the word feminist down all their throats, but we will be saying it only to each other because no one else will be listening. Just my opinion.
sorry, but i respectfully disagree. there is nothing inherently wrong/negative about branding. true, consumers get fed up when products don’t live up to their hype; the result is they abandon the product. the converse is also true. it’s very hard to become aware of “good” products without “marketing” that product. good communication is key to the success of any product or organization. the challenge for our group is to make sure we “walk the talk.”
cynthia, i wasn’t disagreeing with you. i think we are saying similar things…i was disagreeing with sis on the notion that marketing and communication aren’t important.
This discussion actually reminds me of another word that causes people to make “the stinky face.” Vegetarian! I am a vegetarian from Texas, now living in Georgia, and I have spent half of my life trying to explain to people that no I don’t throw fake blood on people in fur, no I won’t throw a fit if you order a steak, I promise not to lecture about the health benefits of being a Vegetarian, and you don’t have to cook something with tofu every time you invite me over for dinner. I simply prefer not to eat anything with eyes. (except, as my wildly entertaining father-in -law pointed out, for potatoes.) A lot of people actually say the word “vegetarian” as if I had just told them I was from Mars and am here to “probe” them for data to take back to my planet.
Lorraine-
and I blathered.
I know, you and I said pretty much the same thing, only you said it much more succinctly
I agree that we shouldn’t run from or “accomodate” as someone said by trying to find another word or label other than feminist because of the (negative) way it seems to make many feel.
At the same time, the pragmatic side of me says that if the word has that kind of turn off or misconception for people, it won’t help to advance our goals if people jump to some misguided stereotype as soon as they hear a single word and, as a result, shut us out.
A conundrum.
I still sort of wonder why we feel we must have a label. Why can’t this organization develop a great name with a well defined single-sentence statement that further defines the vision?
Anna, whether we like it or not, the term “feminist” is going to be thrust upon us, negative connotations and all!
we will need to address how our effort is different (i.e to define our definition of feminism) otherwise current negative connotations will be applied to us.
Lorraiane – Even if/as we define ourselves as different, I believe negative connotations will be applied, anyway. I think there is tons of negativity to go around, be it based on past impressions and/or current. The way I see it, that’s part of the mountain we have to climb. All sorts of people feel threatened by, turned off by, etc, the notion of women’s speaking out and speaking up for themselves and their rights, no matter how that act is termed. Argh!!!
Heard the tail end of a fantastic interview with Toni Morrison on NPR. She spoke of reclaiming negative words (such as the “n” word) as one’s own. SImilarly, the pink triangle that has been turned on its head by the GLBT community is another example of taking a word or a symbol with a negative connotation and claiming it. Obviously, feminism is different in that it was never meant to have a negative connotation, but the idea of reclaiming as one’s own is empowering and made me think of:
Fourth Wave,
or,
21st centrury,
or some updating word…
followed by
Feminism:
Reclaiming and Reshaping Women’s Rights
…something like that…
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I lean toward embracing our word and owning it with pride.
I have to say I’ve never liked the word feminist. I embrace the ideals but the label, even from the 70′s, has never appealed to me.
I’m thinking a bold, new, maybe referring to something current, label would be better.
Feminism for All
Feminism for All Women
Feminism: Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity
Sandra – I like your ideas….
Feminism: Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity for All Women!
Alliance for Women’s Equality –
AWE-some!
Monarch- That’s a fantastic suggestion!
Don’t forget to ask your branding expert about all the ideas discussed in the N.E.W. Agenda, NEWA thread/s.
Also….some of the ideas are getting somewhat prosey. Sentences aren’t branding. They may be apt for a mission statement, but if it’s more than two or three words, it’s even unwieldy as a slogan.
Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Equal Voice
MONARCH – I love your idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A.W.E. – Alliance for Women’s Equality
SIS – Your 11/21 @ 2:17 pm is right on!
AMY – I hope you consider Monarch’s suggestion. And, perhaps consider a way to have blog posts numbered so if people want to address a specific post of a blogger who’s written several posts, they can type the post number along with their name (or just the post number).
I am 56. I consider myself a feminist. I say leave the word behind young women. It is associated with a time in the past. Go forward with a larger movement, a less radical more relevant agenda and let yourselves develop a new name. Forget reproductive rights for now since you have them and focusing on fears of losing them is crippling. Here are my suggestions for focus…
1. Develop real power in media for women, lets hear real womens voices and lets give women the consumer rights to reject fake “women’s content”.
2. Men have been busy defining women and their place with images they create. Gay men have created the way we should look with fashion and related industries They demand we be too thin and androgynous and wear uncomfortable clothes and shoes that look like someone elses misconceived art project. Clothes should flatter real women and facilitate living and movement. . Straight men have defined women’s role in sex and how they should look with pornography. Let’s just say no to this crap and define ourselves.
2. Equal pay for equal work.
3. Let’s take our fair 52% of the government positions. Possibly then the boys in charge will stop making dumb decisions like Viagra being mandatory for insurance coverage while birth control is optional.
Step up young women, we old gal will support you.
Oh and could we possible get some women’s magazines that make women happy after they have read them? I am talking entertainment here not political diatribes. Why do men’s magazines make men happy when women’s magazines make women feel bad? Who came up with those standards? I keep hearing Vogue put up as the women’s answer to Playboy. SNORT! Playboy is the straight men’s attempt to define the perfect woman and Vogue is the gay men’s attempt to define the perfect woman. They can both go to hell in my book. And no, us old feminists do not oppose sex, only the male only definitions of it.
women together sounds like a lesbian group to me. Fine if that is what you want, but not the right substitute for feminism.
I like everything about feminism, including the name. Let’s keep it and spread the many good things about feminism.
My daughters are feminist. I am proud.
Lorraine – Great ideas in your post from 11/21 @ 2: 53 pm
“Unity” Feminist.
We need to stress we won’t let men divide us by uterus.
AWE-some is awesome! What a great idea! I love it!
The problem with “feminism” is that it’s a phrase that has been co-opted by different groups of people for different times and different things. I mean how many “waves” of feminism has there been? I remember three from when I took my intro to women’s studies class like 3 years ago.
Today feminism has been transformed into the political. And while political goals are important to the female cause, they should not be specific to one way of thinking. After this political season where so called feminists thrashed and bashed their “perfect specimens”, Clinton and Palin (hardworking, smart women who also raised families and did all of that successfully), I have learned to despise the “feminist” movement. I don’t want to be a part of that at all. And I still see and hear these women around me everyday. It’s frustrating.
But I have learned that their way of thinking is very much set. There’s not much I, or anyone, can do to change them. So for me, I would prefer to leave the word in the past, along with all of those ideas. There should be a new word or phrase or something. And after having read some of the posts, “A. W. E.” along with “Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Equal Voice” seem like perfect starts.
As a woman whose political leanings have shifted somewhat after 2008, I would love a new movement that is actually inclusive. Not just of politics, but education, social, racial, sexual and economic situations. ( If I missed any, I apologize.) Though I am no angel in this or any other respect, I came to the realization that you can not claim the high and moral ground, if you are in condescension of others.
A.W.E. – Alliance for Women’s Equality
Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Equal Voice
I really like this too.
AWE. A great idea!
I really like it too. Having the word “Alliance” as part of our message really encapsulates our agenda of including feminists, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans etc. The word “Alliance” really seems to sum it all up, many different kinds of men and women coming together in an “alliance” to accomplish common goals.
Cynthia – I agree. I think the word “alliance” is fantastic!
You folks have some great ideas. AWE is clear and appealing. Don’t waste your time trying to take back “feminist” it has come to represent certain behaviors and values, leave it to the definition it has evolved to.
I also think to have real power your movement needs to NOT be extreme and inflexible. That does not mean there is no place for extreme groups they are actually good because by contrast AWE will seem positive and pragmatic. Women are the majority. The male perspective on anything is not the normative perspective.
I agree with Cynthia from the 21st. Spend time working toward your goals of economic, political and media equality for women, don’t waste energy trying to change the prejudices directed toward the label feminist. These goals will be hard to reach because to reach them something will be taken away from men so some will fight hard to maintain the status quo. In order for us to gain 52% of the representation in government men will lose their exclusive right to govern. In order for us to have “women’s content” defined ONLY as media content “women will pay to consume” men will give up producing garbage like the Victoria’s Secret fashion show and calling it women’s content. In order to have women in 52% of the top paying jobs men will lose their exclusive rights to hold these jobs and their economic control of women. So it will be a hard fight just to get our rights we do not need to waste energy on changing the definition of the word feminist. In fact I think feminist is a good red herring issue, let the Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman’s rage against feminism while we quietly take over beneath the radar.
Connie – Loved your last sentence/concept!!!!!!!!!
Connie, what you’re saying makes sense,
“These goals will be hard to reach because to reach them something will be taken away from men so some will fight hard to maintain the status quo.”
I’ve often thought about concept that the group in power will not willingly give up or share their power, it must be taken from them.
But the Devil’s Advocate in me wonders whether this is something that is true only from a point of view of patriarchy that in order for us to advance, another group has to feel a loss, or experience the change as a loss. In my mind, gender equality, and respect for women is so important to our world because everyone will benefit, not just women. Men suffer from living in our current society, in different ways from women, but we all experience the negative effects of a world where people are systematically oppressed.
I would want to try to go about achieving fairness and advancement for women without pitting us against them.
Instead of Feminist Movement I thought of:
Women’s Activiist Movement or W.A.M.
Anne-Marie: I agree with you all people will benefit from a world where women have equal power. And all men are not the enemy mostly they are fine people who we will need to work with to form a better world. But the ones we will be fighting against believe they will be losing something if women gain anything and you can expect them to fight hard to maintain their privilege. Some things they can expect to lose are the right to govern badly with out thought of others needs. The right to have all media channels aimed at them or at least approved by men. And even the right to throw on air sexist diatribes like Matthews and Olberman and so many others repeatedly do. If you have 25 spots for programing and suddenly only half of those are for men then yes men in media will feel a loss. Men will lose the right to be mediocre and ineffective without being questioned and this will fell like their whole world is falling apart.
I am trying to take on the word feminism for what I think everyone is seeing as the next wave. When I asked around a women’s group recently people were reluctant to use the word but there seemed to be an energy to redefine it.
I also love going under the radar too.
[...] recently asked readers and members what they thought of the word “feminist” as a term by which we define ourselves, and we got a variety of [...]
[...] November, I wrote a piece for this blog titled “Feminist” – Take it back, or Leave it back???. The piece drew over 100 comments with varying points of view and suggestions for alternative [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
May 8, 2012 at 11:30 am
May 8, 2012 at 9:56 am
May 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
April 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm
April 11, 2012 at 4:39 pm
April 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...