Asklemmy

I believe that I am, but I'm told that my definition is wrong.

For reference, my definition is:

Anybody who believes in equal rights for women.

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

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

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

I do believe gender is a social construct that's becoming outdated.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

Make of that what you want.

I would say I am now. I wasnt a few years ago but after roe v wade being overturned, the subsequent shitshows, as well has government powercreep against rights I believe women should yield, turned me into a feminist. There are obviously issues that men face, but I believe women are most at risk of oppression under this current administration. Especially with how frequently the blatant fascist dog whistle of "traditional family values" is blown nowadays. Republicans are desperately trying to cram women back into the kitchen and domestic servitude.

I think people get too hung up on labels sometimes, but that said... If you're a feminist, then so am I. I don't think your PT's understanding was correct.

I see feminism as a component of minimizing heirarchy and moving toward anarchy.

Instead of the liberal conception of rights, I would use equality of individual liberty and social solidarity regardless of gender or sex. Definitionally, I claim gender as performative and sex as related to procreative genitals. Maybe it's all just worbs, that is, political words without meaning.

Those in favor of heirarchy use "equality of outcome" as a bludgeon. Humans do not need "equality of outcome". We need autonomy to make choices about our lives. We need societies that take care of each other. Heirarchies such as patriarchy prevent making choices and taking care of each other.

As a bonus rant, the rube statement, "What is a woman?", can be answered with, "Who is pink for?". The provocateur wants to conflate gender and sex, but is too embarassed to come out and discuss genitals. A logical follow-up for the embarassed trap-setter could be, "Which genitals taste the best?". The point being don't entertain traps with anything but hostility.

I know posting is masturbatory, since I often fail to read replies. I'm sure your reply will be great and I will probably fail to read it. I'm still working on social solidarity.

I guess I'm a feminist, but I don't really call myself a feminist. I call myself a humanist, maybe even an environmentalist, because I believe that all humans, and animals, and the environment should have rights, and should be protected against greedy, scared and powerhungry (sick) individuals.

Thinking about it, I believe in equal rights, but would prefer not to be called a feminist, because it implies preference to women. Men have some rights where they are worse off than women, like military service, or - at least here in Poland - differing retirement age.

Also, at a certain point, because there's biological and cultural (for a long time, if not forever) ups and downs to each gender, doing equal rights would then be unfair to whichever gender has it worse, which will certainly be subjective. I'm mostly for it in obvious bullshittery like salaries for the same job done or abortion rights, but at some point like maternity and paternity leave, I'm not giving it much thought.

(Also, I'd totally punch a woman anytime I'd punch a man, which is never anyways, but I think most people would call that feminism anyway)

I guess to some degree, not very actively though so I wouldn't necessarily call myself one. To me feminism fights for a society where people have equal opportunities, safety, etc regardless of gender. I support that idea wholeheartedly. But I'm not actively fighting for it or anything, which is why I'm hesitant to call myself a feminist.

Lots of good comments here pointing out problems with feminism, but one that I think hasn't been mentioned enough in this thread that's also directly relevant to the OP is the harmful idea that "if you believe in gender equality, then you're a feminist by definition".

While the term "feminist" does signify a person who, at least ostensibly, is in favor of equal rights among genders, using that term also, necessarily, implies belief in the core dogma that is inseparable from the term itself (patriarchy theory, etc.). This creates a false dichotomy in which people feel that in order to support equal rights they must also buy into feminist dogma, and that's not at all the case.

Luckily, though, feminism doesn't have a monopoly on gender equality, and it's important to let people know that fact, both because of how incredibly misleading "feminism just means gender equality" is and because there are more useful, more egalitarian frameworks through which to view the push for equality.