And I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist: Level the playing field for everyone.
The correct answer is "Of course I'm a feminist; I'm a humanist." Feminism is an undeniable part of humanism.
Old school feminism, maybe; where the drive was to level things out, more of focus of getting a fair shot and proving that they were just as good as men if not better. Modern day (say last 10 years or so) isn't as inclusive, IMO; mainly the issues with ignoring or excluding the transgender and homosexual community--which is an old problem that's coming more prevalent.
Ok, feminism. Let's do this.
Short answer: That doesn't make any sense.
Long answer:
What, was "old-school" feminism MORE inclusive of transgender and homosexual people? Considering that awareness and acceptance of transgender, homosexual, and other non-hetero-normative identities and sexualities has only
grown over the course of recent years/decades (and was still in a truly
horrible state in many countries, certainly in the US, as recently as the mid-to-late 20th century), I don't buy that idea.
And you're saying "old-school feminism was about getting a fair shot for women and proving they were just as good as men, but modern feminism isn't as inclusive." That's actually kind of a nonsensical criticism itself. You're comparing the
goal of old-school feminism with the supposed
exclusivity of modern feminism.
It's like saying "New Trek isn't as good as old Trek. I mean, old Trek was all about adventure and exploration, but new Trek doesn't use it's minor characters as well and just gives all the attention to the main trio."
If you want to compare the two, compare
the same parts of the two. So again I ask: was old-school feminism somehow
more inclusive of non-hetero-normative gender identities and sexualities? That strikes me as extremely unlikely. If anything, it seems like modern feminism is making strides
toward correcting its transphobic elements, which have been around for some time. Or in other words... they were failings of old-school feminism that many feminists now acknowledge need to go. So-called "radical feminism" is the main branch under which transphobia (among other issues) remain commonplace. A quick google search turned up
this New Yorker article on the subject (it's super long but the main part relevant to my point can be found in the first few paragraphs), which correlates with
other writings I've seen
elsewhere as well as my own experiences. If there is an issue within modern feminism with excluding gender identity issues and the people to whom those issues apply, it seems to be a relic from older forms of feminism that is slowly being eradicated.
Now, if a self-professed feminist were to actually dismiss or belittle trans or gay people, yeah, that's a problem. Obviously. That person is displaying ignorance and intolerance. But it's not a problem
because they are a feminist. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on the notions of the feminist movement (unless its widespread. Which it was, but as noted above, that ship is being righted). It's just... a problem if
anyone does that.
On the other hand, if what you mean is, feminism is flawed because it's
primary ideological vision is not, wholly and completely, inclusive of trans people and gay people and racism and every equality issue imaginable, then that's just completely unfair. Feminism is about equality. People who consider themselves feminists want equality, and generally speaking that does mean for
everyone. But it's THROUGH THE LENS of women's issues. That's how feminism began, and that's what it still is. An equality movement can (and almost always
is)
generally focused on the issues concerning one specific group (in this case, women). Should the main issue and others intersect, then yes, those other issues should be acknowledged. And someone who isn't a straight, cis-gendered woman
absolutely should not be excluded from participating in the ongoing discourse in and around feminism, or from benefiting from equal rights strides feminism makes. But it isn't fair to decry the feminism
movement as "not being inclusive" on the basis of not being
about gender identity issues or homosexual issues, for not pushing those issues as hard, or as often, as it pushes women's issues, because women's issues was and remains what the movement is about. Women's issues are still a THING. Women still face inequality. Therefore, the focused movement is still needed.
Should gay rights activist groups be criticized for not spending enough time talking about women's issues?
And even acknowledging that some issues with exclusivity and transphobia are still present within feminism as a whole, all that means is that the movement can and should continue to grow and evolve. But I can't get behind the idea that it warrants dismissing the whole movement. That would be a textbook example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and in this case, it happens to be a really damn important baby, too. And really, this isn't any different to what has at times gone on in other movements. Homosexual activism has often been dismissive of, and even hostile toward, bisexuality and bisexual (and pansexual) people. It's getting better, but it is a problem. Waving aside gay rights activism and just saying "well, I don't support 'gay rights', just 'human rights'" on that basis would be absurd.
Movements evolve and humans are not perfect. Every person, no matter how progressive or inclusive they may be on one issue, has the potential to be the exact opposite on another issue. We don't give up, we don't stop trying, we keep moving forward and educating and trying to be
more inclusive.
Moving on to the other part of your strangely worded critique of feminism, continuing with the whole "please compare feminist apples to feminist apples, not feminist oranges" theme: is modern feminism
no longer about leveling the playing field for men and women? About giving women a fair shot? About proving they are just as capable as men? Note, those things are, according to you, what made old feminism perfectly ok. So why would you have a beef with modern feminism since it's goals are
the same damn things?
Modern feminism also wholly embraces the idea that stripping away the harmful elements of patriarchy would benefit MEN as well. This is just a gut feeling on my part, but I would strongly suspect that awareness of how patriarchy and machismo culture negatively affect men as well as women is, if anything, much
stronger today than in previous decades.
