Here's the thing from my perspective.
Your definition provided on the opening post is broken.
Feminism is about securing equal rights for women in both law and society.
It is emphatically NOT about race, ideology or revolution.
This is where I disagree i.a. with UncleBuck about Feminism 101, at least as I have experienced it. There are some actual feminists there, and some hyperfeminists as suggested by your OP definition. These are the overreachers.
Let me be clear: there is a war on women. (Although I suspect you and I would strongly disagree about its shape.) I want it to end. I am very suspicious though of tagalong agendas. You implied that to be a feminist, one needs to be nonwhite and Marxist. This I reject.
I saw your Bell Hooks quotes in a different thread. I find them good and true. Have you read them? Isn't she asking for equality? is there even a hint of crosstalk in there about race and economic politics? I admit I haven't read more of her, but going just by those two quotes, I like what I've seen. I'll stop that the moment I see any trace of political agenda (such as a demand for socialism) or the sort of sly reverse bigotry that says women are better than men. I've seen that viewpoint championed, and I see that as swapping one ill for another - patriarchy for matriarchy. Only through equality in rights and opportunities, combined with a respect for the real physical differences between the sexes and a willing to leverage those by cooperating, men with women and women with men, and all within their sexes too ... do I see a stable way forward.
I am a feminist.
But I reject hyper- and radical feminism.
Thank you for your well put response.
i completly understand everything you said.
if i implied that marxism and being not white is part of feminism, i apologize, this is not what i meant, im simply implying that most of todays problems is caused by capitalism, who runs these CEO companies? Who runs the majority of the senate? Or government, white hetro sexual men.
Im going to leave the marxist debate behind because i feel it will go off track, and thats not what i want in this thread. Would i would like to see is pist like yours, and unclebucks.
Now this might b confusing so i will do my best.
No feminism is NOT necessary equality. Bare with me please, equality would mean that women have the same rights that oppressive men currently have. this is not what is the ultimate goal, the goal is to reshape (revolutionize) how opression comes into the daily lives of all people, especially those of color, lgbtq, women and children. Make sense?
Yes i have read many bell hooks books. Here are some books in my arsenal
And some more qoutes from bell hooks
Feminism is for everyone
"As all advocates of feminist politics know most people do not understand sexism or if they do they think it is not a problem. Masses of people think that feminism is always and only about women seeking to be equal to men. And a huge majority of these folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media."
Last but not least
"Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and preactice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving."
