I've been reading around a lot of blogs and articles, trying to get a more solid grasp on what exactly that unfalsifiable, untenable, unruly thing called feminism really is.

After all, NAFALT, right? As long as one good feminist who truly believes in equal gender rights and responsibilities exists, we can't go around criticizing all of the other feminists who don't...

One thing I noticed in my search is that there are a few individuals on the radical spectrum who prefer to call themselves "profeminist" instead, and that profeminist is treated as almost interchangeable with feminist. One is, after all, essentially "I am feminist" while the other is "I support feminists."

And I decided... why not? They've finally coined a term that we can use definitively, why shouldn't we be using it? And so, I present what I feel to be a relatively solid anti-NAFALT argument.

Firstly, one only needs to glance over the sidebar to understand just how horrible feminism-in-practice has been for men's rights. Sure, feminism-in-principle sounds great...

The big issue has always been sifting the chaff from the wheat, separating out the "not like that" feminists from the feminists whose advocacy and efforts have actually had any political or social effect - that is to say, those feminists who ARE like that.

And so, I offer up a small token, a word taken from our radical anti-egalitarian opposition, a word they provided, which we might henceforth use in the same manner as them, for different means.

Profeminist.

This merely requires us to define a word, feminist. What exactly is a feminist? I offer:

A feminist is one whose actual advocacy or efforts have led to systemic abuse of males and / or systemic privilege of females.

And it follows: a profeminist is one who supports that advocacy, whether blindly (feminism isn't like that!) or stubbornly (but not all feminists are like that!) or for any other reason while not identifying with the core tenets of feminism (I don't believe in Patriarchy or male privilege, but...)

And accepting those two definitions, we can then say with certainty:

All Feminists Are Like That.

But!

Not All Profeminists Are Like That.

I hereby suggest that we stop allowing NAFALT, and instead tentatively allow NAPALT.

I'd further suggest that we cease allowing our opponents to relabel their movement each time it becomes politically prudent, and nail down a solid definition of what feminism represents - and allow, of course, that there are people who might identify as a feminist, while not actually being a feminist.

(Example tongue-in-cheek argument: I can say I'm a cat all I want, and even ardently fight for feline / animal rights... but I'm not really a cat, no matter how much I identify as one. I simply do not have the necessary traits to be a cat, any more than a true egalitarian has the necessary beliefs to be a feminist. I am a profelinist, not a felinist.)

Your thoughts, fellow MRAs?