Get widget

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Clyming the Walls of Feminism - A Critical Look at the Feminist Problem Part I

Feminism needs a hero.

The third-wave, post-modernist conundrum of personal, individual choice (which is a right everyone, including women, should be allowed) versus presenting a unified front to the world of Patriarchal ideology is the cause of much debate and study.

Women deserve equality. That seems like a simple enough cause. Yet as more and more people join the feminism train (which is fantastic), throwing their support and their individuality behind this common theme, a hierarchy of problems emerges, and it goes so much deeper than "I'm a woman who enjoys demeaning beer ads, and as a woman I have the right to enjoy them."

Even as horrid Facebook memes scatter and spread throughout the internet, even as the hashtag #violenceagainstwomeniswrong gets more "But what about the menz?" comments than support, even though, as these examples show, the feminist cause is clearly not mainstream despite the year being 2013, the infighting between feminist groups and groupies takes center stage. And it's happening on all levels. Academically, Angela McRobbie fights Merri Lisa Johnson. In more accessible publications, Abigail Rind wonders if we should just give up the label of feminism altogether, while Jill Filipovic laments the lack of a "variety of feminism".

Clearly, we need to get our act together. Enter Charles Clymer.

Charles runs a rather successful feminist page on Facebook called Equality for Women. He's also a fairly prominent blogger in the area of feminist issues.

He's also a man.

Is this a problem? His supporters say no, and point the finger at the dissenters, calling them hindrances to the movement, saying equality, and thus feminism, applies to all people. And don't women need men on their side, male advocates, if you will? Isn't the point of feminism that men and women are equal, which would move away from the us-versus-them mentality?

Feminist writer and television producer Rain Stickland points out the importance of the male feminist voice, saying, "Realizing that a man could be a feminist has helped with my activism and my writing, and it has made me become a better feminist myself, helping to define what the word means to me."

Clymer explains his goal: "With Equality for Women, I want to provide a safe space for persons of all genders (who believe in women's rights) to encourage each other in their activism and get news and commentary on issues of inequality facing women."

Follower Sheila Holmes says he's doing a good job in that goal. "I have seen so many posts that lifted me up and helped me feel less alone in this world. The postings and conversations on the page often validate my feelings and discomfort at situations and give public voice to what I've been told so many times are insecurities--but they're not."

But when a man becomes a feminism advocate, and then a feminist leader, the lines become blurry.  And the mission statement is quite narrow, though that doesn't seem to be the case at first glance.

The page, which once boasted a team of several moderators, including Tasmyn Elizabeth, Zoe Katherine, Angela Boyle, Evee Vann and Jamie Maguill, now only has Charles as administrator. The self-proclaimed (and rightly so, it is his page, after all, though, of course, there was no vote) president wants his page to be a holiday of agreement and back pats, feminists, survivors, advocates and women all coming together to work toward female equality.

Sounds amazing, but in any group of people you are bound to come up against debate, questions, and commentary that you do not agree with. This is the part where individuals have the right to maintain their individuality and participate in a group effort (and this is where EFW mirrors the major problems in feminist culture today almost perfectly). And Clymer doesn't much like that.

"There are several much more prominent Facebook pages out there right now," Clymer says. "You go on the threads, and it's a complete pie fight. There are men who do nothing but troll these posts. And I don't want that on my page; I want it to be clean. I want people to be able to engage on my page intelligently."

To Clymer, deleting and banning people makes his page the idyllic world he is looking for, and helps it to provide the service he deems to offer. And it's his page; he can do what he wants with it.

"I feel like people seeing those (now deleted) comments get the wrong message," Clymer says. "And I want the page to be a safe space."

Unfortunately, many comments on Equality for Women that have been deleted are by women, and many of the people who have been banned are women. And this angered the women, as you can imagine, because now you have a man running a feminist page essentially silencing women he doesn't agree with. And the disenchantment begins. The litany of crimes against him from those who have been banned is long.

"He has zero interest in letting women be heard about issues that affect them," says Bree Casson, a former EFW follower. "He is only interested in the opinions of Charles Clymer and people who agree with them."

"It's a supposedly safe environment where discussion was supposed to be encouraged, yet any comment that did not support the party line was deleted," adds former member Angelique D'Arcy.

Kallie Whitby gives an informational account of her time on the page, stating, "I followed EFW and had comments deleted where I asked respectful and legitimate questions or voiced disagreement, and ultimately was banned when I challenged their deletion."

Charles says the remarks were out of line. "It wasn't that they disagreed with me, it's that their disagreements were aggressively anti-women, or that their disagreements were abusive. If you come at me like, 'I think it's wrong a man is leading a women's group, I'm going to ban you. I think it's an abusive remark."

After our interview, I convinced Charles to start a no-banning, no-deletion policy toward remarks that were made in a respectful manner. To his credit, he tried, making a post about it on the page and everything. It lasted for, well, a few minutes, really.

Kelly Solberg commented with a "yeah! It's about time!" and was immediately banned. Sandi Yu questioned the banning, as did various others, and many of those women were also banned. The entire post was deleted, but here is a snippet from it when it existed:

EFW: "Sandi, she was a member of a hate group that has worked tirelessly to hurt me. I couldn't ban her until she made a comment on here, but now she did, and I banned her."

Tyra Michelle Brown: "Banning someone for comments on another page is kind of ridiculous. She hasn't made any comments that are ban-worthy on this page, so banning her seems like spite more than anything."

Within that same discussion, Clymer says, "My point is if you're going to have an argument you'll need to have logic behind it. I do too much research and work and advocacy to have someone who glazed over Feminism 101 in college trump my argument with nothing more than 'well, you're not a woman, so you don't know."

And that's an excellent point because the "you're not a woman" argument shouldn't trump research and knowledge. However, the "tone argument" implies that most women of dissenting opinion took one course in feminism and therefore are illegitimate allies. Also, not necessarily a problem within itself, as debates can get heated, and people say things in that heat. We don't want to miss the point he made.

Where it all goes off the rails, though, is that this post and comment thread was completely deleted, ending all possible discourse. Clymer has the power to stop the discussion and he uses it. Several members of that discussion were banned. He has the power to get them off his page, and he uses it.

In Clymer's defense, it seems personal to him because it is.

There really was a group entitled "People Banned by Charles Clymer" on Facebook, and it really did take action against him.

"They sent messages to several of my feminist contacts that I had," he says, "and I had to spend a lot of time gaining back that trust."

This, again, mirrors feminism, the movement. People climb up only to be shot down, either because of mistakes they've made or because of their stations in life, or anything really. But at some point we all have to "man" (see what I did there?) up and accept responsibility for what is our fault and fight against what is not.

A while back, Clymer shut his page down and removed all the mods after intense infighting and confusion that is too muddy to go into here. That drama plays into why Clymer states he will never have a mod team again.

"This is my baby," he says. "I'm going to do it now. People can contribute things, and I'll post with credit, but I'm not going to open the page back up."

As someone who feels he is being relentlessly attacked, this makes sense. To those looking on, however, it looks like he's taking the feminist cause and making it his own.

Former moderator Zoe Katherine says of her time there, "I disagreed on him preaching feminism to women. He's completely unaware of his privilege. You can't tell us not to reclaim words, and you can't tell us to be thankful for our periods. If we disagreed publicly, he'd threaten to remove us as mods; if we did it privately we were guilt-tripped, or simply ignored."

Stephanie Kay related to me a story in which she posted a request that any male moderators on the page "remain aware of the fact that authority over women is a male privilege, and that male allies should be very careful about not turning themselves into the 'voice of feminism'." She says she made a point to explain how male authority in a female space can hurt women. Such as, "we are culturally conditioned to be more accepting of male leaders, we're less likely to voice disagreements in a male-dominated atmosphere, men's voices are considered more valid than ours even on issues directly affecting women." She continued, stating that "privileged allies of other oppressed groups will very often rush to take charge of equality movements, and by doing so, they effectively appropriate the voices of those who are actually being oppressed."

Are these legitimate concerns? Yes. And Clymer has addressed them before. The problem is he is no longer addressing them. What could have been an enlightening debate on privilege and male voices in a feminist world was shut down. And this time not just with deletion or banning.

Both Clymer and Kay forwarded me the entire Facebook exchange between themselves and the moderators from back in March when she voiced her concerns. Several of the women moderators at the time explained that they were just too busy to post, and that Equality for Women was run fairly. Since that time, many of the moderators have retracted their support.

Kay apologized for voicing her opinion in a way both Clymer and his mod team found offensive at the time.

"Basically, she was saying I'm sorry you took offense to what I said," says Clymer. "It was a false apology, and it really angered me because not only was she disrespecting me, she was now disrespecting the moderators."

He later wanted to extend an apology for what you're about to read: "Though I still stand completely by what I said to Stephanie Kay, the way I said it was completely abrasive and inappropriate, and if I had to do it again I'd change the tone. Although I completely believe in the concept and far-reaching harm of male privilege, I feel she only used it to attack myself and the women moderators, which is why I mocked her approach on that. However, that still did not give me the right to berate her. Maturity demands maturity. I'd like to extend my deepest regret and apologies to Stephanie for how I worded my response."

Here was his response at the time:

"Stephanie, I'm going to let you in on a little secret that, apparently, no one has had the guts to tell you up to this point in your life: having a vagina does not grant you magical powers of perception and nuance anymore than my penis magically blinds me from the horrors of the world. 
You have to earn respect for your opinion. I'm not going to hand it to you because you're a woman talking women's rights. Nuh-uh. It doesn't work that way. Because if it did work that way, I would have to hand over the reins of this group to any Phyllis Schlafly who comes in and claims to know more than I do about feminism or claims to have more passion. 
And yes, I am the leader of this page. These are my moderators, who I have selected for the page that I created and into which I  have poured money for advertising, and make no mistake: I do hold executive privilege (your favorite word, apparently), and I do have the final say on decisions. However, I trust my mods, and instead of being a dictator, we work as a team of equals. They let me know when something's off, and I listen to them and heed their advice.
I run this page, a feminist blog, write a column for another feminist blog (under a woman editor-in-chief who respects my writing and invited me to contribute articles), and on top of all that, I volunteer 30-40 hours a week at a feminist lobbying firm. 
Here's a good question: what the fuck have you done for women's rights, lately, other than troll the page I created? 
"I absolutely love your page..." 
That's how your comment began that started all this, and you know what? You should have just stopped typing right then. As long as we're doing our jobs (and, apparently, we are because this page keeps skyrocketing in growth), you need to mind your own fucking business.
You want to talk about privilege? Fine, we'll talk about privilege. What about your idiot privilege? It would seem you're so used to people not calling you out for being an absolute fucking moron that you've become blind to how your asshat actions affect others. 
So no, after us reaching out to you, you decided to insult me, and, more importantly, my moderators with your bullshit, half-hearted, tongue-in-cheek apology. 
Supposedly, you're an outstanding feminist but have no problem telling my women moderators how they're supposed to think and feel. 
Please accept my invitation of hide-and-go-fuck-yourself. 
And one more thing: If I ever see your name on my page again, I will report you for harassment and block you. 
Feel free to relay this message to the 1% of women feminists out there who foam at the mouth and put their bullshit on everyone else who disagrees with them. 

These messages, of course, were responded to as an individual responding to a critic who questioned his belief in the cause. And Clymer gets a lot of those messages. He has everything from those carrying a very personal grudge to generalized men's rights activists on his back all the time. People simply have a hard time accepting men as women's rights advocates.

During our interview, Charles said, "To say that men can't be feminist leaders is eliminating half our potential talent in this movement but also losing an opportunity to attract more men into the fight for women's rights. Sadly, many men need to see other men in feminism to feel comfortable. But more than that, I think I do a pretty good job of standing with women, not in front of them. I am eager to hand them the microphone."

Perhaps best known for his "I need feminism because..." photo series, Charles also uses his male privilege to highlight the pervasive nature of rape culture in a way a woman really couldn't get across. When one flips a movement on its head, one can often reach ears that would have otherwise have been deaf to the cause.

His critics say he is taking the feminist movement and making it about him. And some are more adamant about it than others.

Raeven Zayas says, "He's using the oppression of women to gratify his ego."

Angelique D'Arcy adds that, "He is the head of a feminist movement, and he is manipulating the situation and the audience and the delivery of information in a Patriarchal way and actively silencing the very women he's supposedly trying to give voice to."

Clymer sees it differently. He says he's not trying to silence anyone, merely keep his page unified. As for making the feminism cause all about himself?

"They're partially right. I'm in it somewhat for my ego and personal gain. I'm looking at this as a career. I would love to become a leader in it. Part of it is ambition, and I do want to make a name for myself, but 80 percent of it is for the cause. I think there is a difference between people who exploit a cause for their own gain and people who want to be influential."

And that's where feminism as a general movement stands as well, along with any progressive movement. The leaders are looked upon with scrutiny, some justified, some not. Feminism is a personal business as much as it is a movement, and that means the attacks we all feel on our opinions and viewpoints hurt more, influence our own behavior, and change our course.

In the end, it's up to you to decide. Charles Clymer, feminist hero, villain, or just some guy on the internet? But when you do decide, think on the macro level. What do these in-fights say about feminism as a whole, and how does your decision on this microcosm play into your feelings about the movement on the whole?



  1. Thank you for writing this. I have seen with my own eyes how Charles silences women and it sickens me that he is considered by anybody a "leader" in the feminist movement.
    I think you did an excellent job.


  2. Charles Clymer, solicits cash, solicits rape and abuse stories, silences people, particularly women who are sharing their personal experience, and has NOT created a safe space for discussion, conversation and particularly not for disagreement. He talks a lot about 'respectful' disagreement....but shows no respect to others. His page is seriously problematic and he is dishonest as hell about what happened with the mods leaving, all of them, at one time, after trying to bring down the page. There are so crap feminist pages, some so so feminist pages, and some great feminist pages.....this one is neither great or even so so. If you're looking for a safe space to share, contribute, and learn about the movement and evolution of feminism, and particularly about intersectionality...keep on looking. You aren't going to find those things here.

  3. This guy's a predator. Wanna be safe, stay away.

    1. You got in just under the wire! I forgot to take anon commenting off for this post for a second.

      I looked into the private allegations against him, and there was nothing there of publishable merit. If my research has been incorrect, feel free to come to me privately or comment here with a lead, and I'll entertain it. But after a solid week of research and interviews, I found nothing to back that allegation up.

  4. Im going to be completely honest here, and I hope you take it as constructive criticism and not a personal attack. The fact that you openly admit you want to be a leader in it makes me feel uncomfortable. This isnt a stepping stone to a political career for me or a lot of women, this is our you know, LIVES. I know the shiny appeal of fame and leadership might appeal to your ego, and thats great, but I find it kiiiiiind of...idk skeevy? that you're co-opting issues I've been fighting my entire life in order to support your rise to glory. There was an article that just came out about male feminists and I'm going to put a quote up here.

    "Feminism affords women a space to share their often ignored and silenced stories, experiences, and perspectives, and male feminists should promote and support those.

    The feminist movement needs male allies, but we need male allies who listen, who trust us, who support us."

    I...dont think this is a place for women to have a space to share. At least not at this time. I've only been around this place a short time, and I've been hesitant to comment because it seems that you make assumptions that "opinions that are not charles clymers" = ANTI-WOMAN/MRA. Which, lol no. I mean, im sure its easy to write off every dissenting opinion as a personal attack, but if you're THAT sensitive, might be time to get out of the business yo, anyone who thrusts themselves in the spotlight is going to have critics, and you cant silence them all. I was wholly disappointed in the post about slurs on your blog, even more so when I saw comments getting deleted left and right, both here and on there. Some issues in feminism, like slurs or sex-workers, are more complex than others. Feminists arent a monolith, they have differing ideas. Some feminists believe that slurs can be reclaimed, some think that we should bury them. I hate to borrow from another movement, but the best comparison I can make is the n-word. I have met POC who think it should continue to be reclaimed, and others think it shouldnt. Thats an issue that will continue to be debated among themselves but what I am certain of, is that white people have no business inserting themselves into that debate, at all. I kind of feel the same way about men telling women what words they can use. Being an ally is great, and I hope you continue you to be one. Being an ally also means that sometimes you sit and listen a lot more than you open your mouth.

    The other problems I see in a lot of cis straight white hetero males, is the complete and total lack of intersectionality. Misogyny and patriarchy all affect us in different and varying degrees. It disproportionately effects trans women and WOC. Trans issues are going to be different than cis white woman issues.

    1. herp derp, forgot to add this part : I think its important that these debates happen amongst women without a man deciding what is and isnt a legitimate debate. And for the record, I wasnt always a bastion of liberal feminism I am now. I used to be a die-hard pro-life slut-shamer back in ye olden days, until someone on the internet came along and handed my ass to me a time or two and showed me the light. I learned. I am teachable. A lot of other people are too. Internalized misogyny is a helluva drug and people have to learn somehow.

    2. Thank you for summing up why I find him problematic.

      "The fact that you openly admit you want to be a leader in it makes me feel uncomfortable. This isnt a stepping stone to a political career for me or a lot of women, this is our you know, LIVES. I know the shiny appeal of fame and leadership might appeal to your ego, and thats great, but I find it kiiiiiind of...idk skeevy? that you're co-opting issues I've been fighting my entire life in order to support your rise to glory."

      It feels like it's more about him than the women he claims to want to support.

      I'd rather go to Jim Hines's page- he's an ally who isn't trying to co-opt.

  5. "I volunteer 30-40 hours a week at a feminist lobbying firm."

    Now that you, moderate a page full time and on your own, (that at least currently accepts donations for ads), how are you still able to do this volunteering? What's the name of this firm? Is there any back-up to this statement? It frankly looks like it literally would take you all hours of the day (and night) just to keep these women off your back.

  6. This guy freaks me out. I agree with his point that men can be feminists, but he sounds frankly dangerously drunk on his own power here. That threatening email to someone who was supposed to be his protege and one of the women he wants to support and let their voices be heard? Wow, wow, wow. That's scary fucking stuff. As a feminist, I am really uncomfortable with this man speaking for the movement I'm a part of.

    1. I completely agree! He talks about the 'hate group' who formed...People who were banned by Charles Clymer (and their friends). I would go back, on occasion, to see what was going on, after I was banned. Saw the crash of the site, and eventually became aware of this group. Piqued my interest, as a person banned, who had been one of the major contributors to the site at the time. I read the entire output of the group over a couple of days time. It was people sharing their experiences on the site. I didn't get a sense of attack, at all, by the members. On the contrary, the majority of the folks on that site felt (and so far as I could see, from captured posts and messaging that he had sent) were attacked by him. Some really virulent stuff came their way. It almost felt like an encounter group, or a group of abuse survivors...a couple were seriously shell shocked by his treatment of them. I would have to guess that parentwin hasn't actually heard from all of the mods...just a guess...but if I had been on the receiving end of some of the stuff I saw snaps of, I wouldn't have gotten in contact with anyone but the legal authorities....I don't know that any of that content still exists. FB took the site down a day or two after I'd found and read the content. I've seen incredibly agredous stuff left up by FB....violent, and obscene stuff encouraging of the rape culture, and this site didn't come anywhere close to that. Shoot, I've seen 'I hate so and so sites' on occasion that were pretty damn violent...these folks were angry, disgruntled and pissed but after my personal experience on Clymer's site, I could certainly understand that. The guy's declaimed himself to be a 'public figure' and a 'feminist leader' for god's sake! That is marrisvely narcisistic. And offering to take someone in as a protege'.....this guy has a seriously exagerated sense of his own importance. I have to say, getting banned actually turned out well for me. I hang at another site now, and it rocks! Great voices, great diversity, and a policy that refuses to erase or ban people because of disagreement (he can deny that all he wants, but it just isn't true). It's pretty interesting to see that the roster of people who contributes on his site changes with great regularity....people just....disappear....

  7. Let me correct something...if you can call attack posting the aggressively poisonous remarks messaged to them by Clymer as an attack, they he was attacked. People would post his attacks on them as 'proof' of his speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

  8. It all sounds so reasonable when he says it, but, from what I've seen, an attack to Charles is disagreement to everybody else. And if there's disagreement in a comment then it's automatically disrespectful and worthy of being deleted and the commenter banned. It all sounds so reasonable when he says it, but, in practice this is what happens over and over. His page is not a safe space for many women. Especially if they don't fall in lock step with everything he says.

    And yeah, I know. This is my second comment in less than a day. I'm obviously obsessed and playing out some vendetta against Charles. And sure, I don't like him. I also don't like that he has the audacity to tell women how to behave on a feminist page.

  9. I am the person who started the above mentioned, "People Banned by Charles Clymer (and their close friends)". I started it in a moment of passion after he deleted, berated and banned me for expressing my opinions about personal safety issues. I am not a person to be silenced. As time went on more and more people found my page and joined in. We were an open group, which could be read by anyone. We had nothing to hide. We were not a hate page, despite our reputation on the EFW page. Although Charles and his "advocates" eventually managed to get FB to shut us down, I am very pleased to know that I played an important part in bringing a lot of good people together who will continue the real fight for equal rights and will continue to speak the truth about the problem of Charles Clymer.

    1. Thank you <3 I am sick of people being silenced, I see it on the articles here too and it makes me soooo ANGRY.


  10. Well, I'm just one person whom was banned for so naively asking questions and trying to express that the group "People banned by Charles Clymer"..or whatever the group was, was NOT a hate group. People have the right to come together to share their experiences. Getting it deleted was just another way to silence the people. Yes, Charles DID tell his followers they could report the group or something. He's since deleted that post, btw. So when he says that he only deletes/bans trolls and the like, he is lying.

    Sure, there have been trolls on his group, what group hasn't had their share of trolls? But the women and men speaking out against him are not jealous, nor are they trolls. They are not slut-shamers, racist, or anything like that. In fact, many of them have way more experience with the feminist movement than he does. They are WAY beyond his version of 'feminism 101". Even so, many come to feminism with experiences, education, and understanding of feminism. Charles does not seek to educate or invite dialogue beyond what he deems acceptable. This is because he isn't honest.

    His behaviors are quite reflective of a textbook case of the 'charming abuser'. While nobody has felt comfortable enough to allow their names to be used or their experiences, due to fear of being harassed by CC and his followers, he does exhibit behaviors reflective of a predator. This is sad. We need male allies within feminism. What we DON'T need are faux male feminists whom are predators in disguise. I welcome male allies. I love them. But from what I have personally observed and read, he is not a true ally. How sad is that?

    Something I snagged from someone: “If your concern is that you as a man aren’t given space in feminism instead of the fact that women aren’t given space anywhere but feminism, then you are not a feminist ally. You’re an egotistical whiny dude.”

  11. Having just visited the "EFW" page to read the comments about this article I was astounded by the posts that said that the deleted posts, and people banned were due to the fact that their posts were somehow "disrespectful". That differences of opinions would have been allowed if they were presented "respectfully". Nothing could be further from the truth, but, then again, how would these posters know this since the posts are gone? And for the person who said that I was an advocate of "rape culture and victim blaming", you are telling a boldfaced lie. Would you like to quote anything I have ever stated to substantiate your clam? Nearly all of the 14 former moderators who left EFW because of issues with CC joined the page I started. Would they partner with an advocate of "rape culture"? I think not.

    Please,it's time the EFW "advocates" stopped attacking those of us who were victimized by the treatment we received by Charles Clymer. Are you all so foolish to follow the old adage of "if we didn't see it, it didn't happen?" Why on earth would we fabricate this? It's like the people who think gun control means that we want to take everyone's guns away. We don't need to take your "Charlie" away, but we do have a right to speak out against what we see as abuse. You can keep him, but don't expect that we will stop speaking the truth about our personal experiences. Most of us were once "followers" too, until we saw the light. And in time many of you will too. It is inevitable.

  12. So this just happened

    So much for open to criticism, eh? Seriously Charles, I gave your page a shot, but you have proved to be nothing more than a whiney douchebag looking for glory. And the way you attacked stephanie WAS disgusting, it was not "warranted" and if this is how you react when back into a corner or whatever you have absolutely ZERO business creating ~safe spaces~ for women.

    1. oh, i should add, it was deleted and i am now banned. BUT HES SO OPEN TO CRITICISM U GUIZ. I find it a real tragedy that women and feminists are SO desperate for validation by a man, that they'll take just about anyone with a dick, even if he proves to be a detriment.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. "This comment has been removed by the author. This comment has been removed by the author. This comment has been removed by the author." Whoever the author is, stop being a HYPOCRITE! Stop being like Clymer!

  14. Here's what's super obvious for male allies -- and I almost never see them doing it:

    Be an expert on feminism TO OTHER MEN.

    Thanks for filling me on on Charles. I don't have anything nice to say about him, so okbye.

  15. I made the mistake of reading this right before I went to bed! One other thing.

    I saw the "I need feminism because..." campaign, unaware of its origin. While I was glad to see pictures of people making positive statements about feminism, it didn't quite work for me somehow. I now understand why.

    "I need" is a weird come-from for feminism, IMHO. Feminism exists outside of you, and can be used to fill up some hole inside of you?

    I don't "need" feminism, I "am a feminist."

    Charles "needs" feminism. And therapy.

    1. I don't need feminism, I am feminism.
      I was uncomfortable with that campaign too

  16. I couldn't find the Facebook page. Has it been taken down?

    1. As of a few days ago, it became "unpublished." It had more than 100,000 followers at that time. That is all I know about it, though.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...