Can you get behind that? If not, what is your reason?
There’s the definition. Can you get behind that? If not, what is your reason?
Mirah Curzer

You: Can you get behind that?
Me: No, I could not then, and cannot get behind it now.

You: If not, what is your reason?
Me: The name of the concept which is defined as:

‘a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes’

should NOT be ‘Feminist.

Feminism is a ‘sexed’ term, which to my way of thinking, would automatically disqualify it as a word reflecting true equality of the sexes.

In respect to the history of the Feminist movement - which did originally seek to create equality of the sexes (by advocating for women’s rights) - times have changed.

Women in the first world are far better off now, than when the original Feminist movement began. This is a good thing.

As the economic, political, and general societal circumstances of the first world have undergone such a positive change with respect to women’s rights, it’s time the Feminist movement updated it’s mission statement to fall more in line with the reality of what they stand for and what they actually do.

This means that Feminism is more accurately defined as ‘advocating for the rights of women’, and that the definition of ‘belief in the equality of the sexes’ no longer should apply strictly to the word Feminism. Perhaps combining the two definitions would work. Let me give you my proposal to update the current discussion of inequality in the world.

Here is my proposal for a set of updated definitions:

Feminism: advocating for women’s rights with the belief of equality of the sexes.

Masculinism: advocating for men’s rights with the belief of equality of the sexes.

Equalism: advocating for the rights of all human beings with the belief in the equality of all human beings (regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, age, criminal background? developmental ability? socio-economic status, etc. etc.)

What do you think?