As you mentioned in your article, it’s hardly an act of accurate storytelling when one blurs the lines between a belief and a group-identification. Though some feminists may encourage the belief that anyone who believes in equal rights is automatically a “feminist,” that line of thinking is certainly not the dominant definition in the academic feminist discourse of the radical American left today.

Roughly speaking, First Wave feminists, who struggled for political rights and the right for women to enter the labor force and get an equal education – are generally more likely to agree with your Critical Feminist Corgi. Second Wave feminists, also known as “difference feminists,” struggled for women to be recognized “as women,” who have different concerns than men; their main interest is to elevate the social valorization of “feminine things,” such as household labor and childcare, and to give women special provisions for issues particular to women, such as maternity leaves and access to free birth control. These two waves contend over many different issues, and I thought it was interesting that you brought up the two examples that you did – you have, indeed, put your finger on one of the key disputes within feminist thought throughout the last few decades: the ongoing conflict of ideas between Equality Feminists and Difference Feminists.

The Third Wave is a whole other mess of ideas, heavily influenced by postcolonial thought and identity politics. Questioning all gender roles as being inherently oppressive, and believing in the “constructive” nature of gender (misappropriation of Judith Butler’s ideas), the Third Wave of American Radical academic feminists is opposed to gender itself, and gender is not the only issue that a Third Wave radical feminists cares about. For this particular group, of which I am a self-identified member, a “Feminist” is someone who is opposed to oppressive structures and institutions in society: from racism to sexism, to environmental degradation and class inequalities. Among this group of Feminists, it is not even a question that men can be, should be, and are, strong feminists; men are, of course, Feminists, because who cares if they are men or women? (Gender is a social construction that is inherently restrictive of behaviors and inclinations – remember?)

Gender inequality is only one of many issues that a Third Wave feminist seeks to address. Any issue which involves a dominant group and an oppressed group is considered a Feminist concern, regardless of whether it has anything to do with gender, is a Feminist issue. One popular strain of thought in the Third Wave is Ecofeminist ideas, such as the belief that since nature has historically been associated with the feminine, and since historically, there have been many bifurcations that are “gendered,” wherein the feminine is considered inferior, and the inferiority of one idea to another is directly linked with gender oppression – For example: in historic bifurcations such as reason (masculine) and emotion (feminine), hierarchy/dominance (masculine) and cooperation/care (feminine), strength/warfare (masculine) and kindness/generosity beyond the logic of the market (feminine), the valorization of one side over another is due to the general degradation of all things feminine in society; i.e. the way society values Masculine/Logical/Dominant/Market-based things above Feminine/Emotional/Caring/Gift-economy based things is directly linked to deep-seated sexism. So for these Feminists, the struggle against oppression, hierarchy, the exploitative nature of Capitalism, racism and postcolonialism – all of these issues are Feminist issues. A Feminist society is one that values “feminine” or anti-masculine things: cooperation, kindness, non-market-based collective economies, peace, and living in harmony with the environment and diverse groups of people. There are plenty of men who are feminists of this brand, working alongside women on these issues.

Of course, this is also an example of an ideology that seeks to blur its boundaries, and tries to take on ALL THE LEFTIST ISSUES under its wing, as “Feminist.” It fits in your description of inaccurate persuasive tactics quite well, though in a different form, for a different function.

For Third Wave American Radical academic feminists like myself, there is a lot of suspicion towards the pop culture “feminists” who devalue what it means to be feminist with trite phrases that are embedded in Capitalist market logic. You can see from the debates around Sheryl Sandberg’s attempt to coopt Feminism as an identity around her brand of white collar success – that Feminism is clearly a very divise battlefield of competing ideas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/17/facebook-sheryl-sandberg-lean-book

You put it well when you called it “an largely-overlapping set of people: those who consider themselves feminists.” Certainly, there are many different ideologies competing for dominance in the group-identity. The persuasive tactics you see in the media come from just one of those camps of feminists; and one shouldn’t confuse those messages with the beliefs of all Feminists. Feminism is largely a self-identified phenomenon; the only commonality I see between these groups, and the only rule I can derive about Feminism, is that one is Feminist if one claims to be. Thus, if a man were to call himself Feminist, no woman should be able to tell him otherwise. If he acts in a manner that contradicts other tenets of feminism, he would be a bad feminist; but if he can rationalize his actions under the banner of feminism while maintaining his feminist self-identification, he’s probably simply Feminist – as there are many Feminists who fall under this category of hypocritical action.

On a separate note, another interesting point you made was about short-term vs. long-term relationship strategies and attitudes towards abortion. I think that is certainly one factor among many (and an interesting explanation). However, religious tenets against abortion, such as in Catholicism, certainly also plays a huge factor. Furthermore, people’s desire for long or short-term relationships change with age; as people grow older, they tend to adopt a more favorable attitude towards long-term relationships, even if they enjoyed short-term relationships in their youth – according to your model, this would mean that people would become more anti-abortion as they get older. However, that is not the case. People’s attitudes towards abortion tend to follow political lines, which are influenced by geography, religion, class, education, and a number of other factors, not correlated to gender, and also not correlated to desire for long or short-term relationships.