What's In a Name?: The Problem with "Feminism"

The least binaristic representation of gender equality I could find. (Source)

As you've probably noticed, the "F-word" has quite the sordid reputation. "Feminism" can mean so many different things that the concept to which it refers is often misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misappropriated, to the detriment of all genders. Among contemporary feminists, the generally agreed upon definition of feminism  - quoted so eloquently by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in her book and her TEDx Talk - is the belief in "the social, political, and economic equality of the [genders]” (I've replaced “sexes” with “genders” to align my work with theories distinguishing between the two). The popular perception of feminism, however, ranges from minor confusion to downright ignorance: that feminists hate men, that we think we are better than men, that we willfully ignore intersectional concerns, and even that gender equality should no longer be an issue because it has supposedly been achieved, are all allegations that stem not only from mislabeling certain people (like those who unequivocally hate all men) as feminists, but also from a misconception of feminism itself.

Clearly this is just one of many cases in which the connotative and denotative meanings of a word are so disconnected that they indicate the need for serious reassessment of certain aspects of our language. I propose that the backlash against feminism is partially a function of the word "feminism" itself: it not only excludes genders other than feminine, it also represents the concept as monolithic, as if all feminists and non-feminists agree on a single definition (which they clearly don't) and as if it has always meant the same thing. Arguments against this idea are varied, coming from feminists and non-feminists alike, although there are definitely proponents on both sides as well (as evidenced by this Debate.org page).

One of the main arguments against my position (found in articles like these) is that changing the word will do little to assuage the resistance against gender equality, that the word we use is irrelevant when confronting a population in denial about the persistent systemic and institutional gender inequality historically entrenched in some of "Western" culture's most basic values and assumptions. Aside from the disturbing pessimism inherent in this argument, it also makes little sense from a contemporary sociolinguistic perspective. Another argument is that using umbrella terms (like gender equality or equalism) further marginalizes already marginalized groups, like women, and focuses attention only on the dominant population. I'd respond (with just one of the many possible counter-arguments) that reactionary ideologies like men's rights activism, which has been steadily gaining traction (much to the dismay of people who actually understand gender issues), do even more to marginalize, silence, and erase non-dominant groups than an inclusive, catch-all term would.

Suffice it to say that this is an issue that requires more redress than space currently permits. The "F-word" creates more barriers than it opens opportunities for frank, productive conversations about gender issues. It is practically as alienating as that other ubiquitous f-word, and alienation is the exact opposite of what feminism is supposed to be promoting. This is by no means an original or unique position; I would simply like to examine this issue from a more analytical and theoretically-grounded perspective than I see public intellectuals engaging with.