Oh also, it was a joke.

Also, this was weird: “The thing is, choosing to opt out of calling myself a feminist somehow means that I don’t support women’s rights and am part of the “You can’t rape a slut” group, which is not much different than assuming that I would illegally purchase methamphetamines or use an escort service while touting family values because I’m not a Christian.”

I get that this was a joke, but the point still stands that the analogy doesn’t work. In order to be valid, it would have to be “…which is not much different than assuming that I wouldn’t believe Christ is God because I’m not a Christian.” The only thing inherent to feminism is believing in women’s rights, and the only thing inherent to Christianity is believing that Christ is God. So, sure, you can say you believe in either of those things without adopting the label— maybe because you don’t like its other associations, maybe because you just don’t like labels— but people are going to assume that if you say “I’m not Christian,” it’s precisely because you *don’t* believe Christ is God. That is, after all, the more logical assumption.

Yes–great point, and I think those qualifiers exist (in feminism) because there are so many sub-groups that are in some cases resentful and critical of other similarly posed groups, so there’s this constant need to root out those who are fer it or agin’ it.

Thanks, yeah it’s taken me some time to get here–but mostly just to get comfortable with the idea of rejecting this thing that I thought I had to hold on to in order to prove that I believed in something worthwhile.

It is absolutely a human issue. If more people had the same set of beliefs, I suppose there wouldn’t be a need to identify yourself one way or another.