well, unfortunately for feminism, N.O.W. is "the largest feminist organization in the USA" and gets the most press and the most attention. So when they made Thelma and Louise their official mascots, they were speaking for the largest organized body of women's rights activists in this country. And I didn't want to have anything to do with them.
To me, NOW is to feminism sort of as the Catholic church is to Christianity. It's one big organization representing a large chunk of the group, but it's not the whole group. And it's possible to be in the group -- that is, to hold the beliefs that define the group -- without belonging to any organization at all.
It's not a perfect analogy, because most Christians do belong to one church or another. Whereas I don't think most feminists belong to any feminist organization.
Do you feel using/accepting/embracing the term feminist separates you from others? Who specifically? (I am curious... not trying to berate anyone...)
To me, it mainly separates me from someone who does not feel that women are entitled to the same rights as men -- i.e., sexists. It's hard to imagine there being any other options in between. I guess I subscribe to a very passive idea of feminism.
I don't think one has to be either a NOW member or even an activist to be a feminist. I don't think one has to hold one particular set of beliefs, not agree with all other feminists about everything, nor live one's life in any particular way. I do think one has to believe in equal rights very strongly, though, and to be aware enough to notice when those rights are being compromised, to stand up for them if possible when, or if, push comes to shove.
A lot of it is internal and attitudinal. A feminist, for example, might iron all of her husband's shirts because she loves her husband and wants to do him this nice favor. If she irons the shirts because she feels that's a woman's duty to her husband as king of his castle and head of the family, then she's probably not a feminist.
A couple of other clarifications: I enjoyed
Thelma and Louise, too. I just saw it as entertainment, not as a triumph for women. But it was also a bit refreshing -- not the murder, but the fact that it showed women not relying on men to rescue them. It was very rare in movies in them days -- less so now -- for women in distress to not have to be saved by men.
Also, I have never belonged to NOW, but not because of some strong philosophical difference with the organization. I'm just not much of a joiner.
Hey - the poll miraculously changed while I've been reading the thread!!!
The thread genie granted your wish!