Dianna Anderson at Be the Change is pretty upset with Roger Olson, a theologian who is egalitarian and a decent thinker, but seems to have this huge misconception of what feminism is and therefore Strongly Opposes it. This is a lot like the way I’m starting to feel about Al Stefanelli as he continues to bang the drum about why he seems to think that the problem feminists have with the word “bitch” is that it’s a curse word, not that it’s a gender-specific insult designed to silence women.
Olson and Stefanelli have the same problem: they assume that feminism is about disliking men (just pointing out, I like men more than most men like men) and trying to promote female superiority. They will point to “radical feminists”, not knowing that that phrase has a real meaning and, when applied in the context it often is, not only is inaccurate but also reduces the effectiveness of the meaning, much like overuse of “Nazi” has changed the word from meaning “genocidal mass murderer” to “person I dislike”.
What Anderson does really well in this piece is list the many intersectional goals of modern feminists, how feminism supports men’s rights also, and does so in a handy list with links to example. Here are a few.
The feminism I know argues for the rights of men not to be raped in the prison system and to have more support in being believed in incidents of abuse.
The feminism I know argues for the rights of children to be with the parent who is best suited to care for them, not for it to be assumed that they would automatically go with their mother.
The feminism I know advocate for paid paternity leave as well as maternity leave.
The feminism I know includes Stay at Home fathers as well as Stay at Home mothers.
There are a lot more. Go check them out.
Anderson describes her feminism as “Christ-like.” Obviously, I don’t. Perhaps I am being both more optimistic and setting the bar lower, but I consider it absolutely human.