Men's Group

In my opinion, if you are X you get to define what X means at point Y in time provided that those who align with X generally agree and support that definition of what X is.

Feminism IS a word ORIGINALLY aligned with the ideas of equality in opportunity and freedom from traditional roles and the freedom to pursue one's own sexuality without the burden of existing roles or admonition.

I think it is why I consider myself a feminist at all. Who could argue against the idea of equality for women without sounding excruciatingly stupid?

However, it is not a word I feel married to. As it stands, the current definition of feminism is defined by, as you say, advocacy rather than equality.

Where it mentions equality is in equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity. For a host of both logical reasons and reasons of simple admiration of the idea of freedom of choice, I cannot get with this plank of the current feminist platform.

It buries itself in a particularly paradoxical concept, that adult women are strong and don't need help or coercion to make their own decisions, and at the same time cannot legitimately consent to sex with a man, implying an inherent weakness of mind which negates the original (and I believe CORRECT) assertion. That modern feminism states that "you are free to choose anything, so long as you make the right choice" reduces women to children, and all in the interest of resisting a "patriarchy", not mentioning the fact that "matriarchy", should it exist, is a concept equally as odious.

Like I said, it isn't a word that I feel married to. I think it is a label used (at least by me) as shorthand for a system of philosophical principles:

1. Equality between the sexes with regard to opportunity, even if outcomes do not reflect the equality of opportunity.
2. Individuals, regardless of gender, should not be disqualified from any vocation or avocation provided they show the skill required to perform the work and should be paid equally for equal work.
3. Freedom to choose a role for oneself even if it goes against traditional gender roles.
4. Working for the acceptance of this equality, and all that it must, by definition, entail amongst the population at large.
5. Punishing those who engage in brutality, violence, or discrimination against those of another gender to the fullest extent the law permits.

Note that these are in no particular order, and note that this set of principles does not single out women in particular. On some level, feminism as a label, at least from my standpoint, is code for "humanism" while at the same time acknowledging the current state of tilt in its lack of realization.

The point being that if feminism does not embrace these principles, I will gladly stop using that label in favor of one which better reflects underlying principles. If modern "2nd wave" feminism, or whatever it's properly called, feels comfortable assuming the label for what is, as you stated, advocacy by, of, and ultimately only for women (and a rather intellectually dishonest form of advocacy, I'll add), then I cannot legitimately call myself a feminist. As I said, they have the right to define their own terms. Right now, they own it, and they are welcome to define it in any way that suits them.

Until a more sensible brand of feminism comes along which underscores the idea that none of us are truly free unless we all are, humanist suits me just fine. I completely understand Marissa's trepidation with regard to using the term to self-identify given what modern feminism is. I hold nothing negative to her decision.