Just why, bitch?

[Esquilax]

I understand that it's a small portion of the entire group that are what you would call radical feminists, but I feel as though that minority has almost complete control of your label. Unfortunately like you said they are extremely vocal and are the image many people think of when they think feminist. I also agree that people will follow the premise not the word, but I think you have a different premise than the radical feminists. The core of what you both believe are probably more similar, but these radical feminists have taken what they believe to an extreme level and now represent the entire group through public perception. Just as a recommendation I don't even think moderate feminists would need a full name change, rather just a specifier. Say you subscribe to "something-feminism (replace "something with an actual word) so you can retain your word, and also separate yourself from these radicals. For example: existential-nihilsm vs. nihilism or neo-conservative vs. conservative.

That's a fair point. In the end, I suppose I'd prefer that my actions speak for me, more than my labels, But I get what you're saying.

Just to be clear I get that your position is probably closer to the original ideology of feminism, I'm not saying you should change the name because I think you are different (at least not by much) from the original intention of feminism. What I'm trying to get across is that this may be one of those "cut your losses" times and your just gonna have to take the hit, unless of course you can somehow out vocalize the radicals. I don't necessarily agree all the time with feminism, but you at least deserve to not be lumped in with people that poorly represent you.

And I doubt anyone's going to out vocalize the radicals.

This is where I disagree with feminism and that it addresses the view points of men. I don't want to be part of an ideology that considers my best interests as a side effect.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong resolution: the aim is gender equality, and feminism is just pushing toward that from one side. Some are pulling toward that from the other, dealing with problems of male inequality; that doesn't mean feminism is against those dealing with male inequality (ideally, anyway. I'm aware it can happen, unfortunately), it just has its own focus. There shouldn't be a conflict between the two ideologies, nor should either one be diminished for not focusing on the issues of the other; it's for the same reason you wouldn't castigate a cancer research center for not working to cure AIDS. Good is still being done, just within specific wheelhouses.

Hell, I don't even think that rules out cooperation, on that score.

I know feminists look at the inequality in custody cases and look at it as unequal because in the custody system women have to bear the full responsibility as the caretaker. But many men look at the inequality and see the system saying that we are not capable of being caretakers. If women are able to change the system so they are not looked at as being the default caregiver that's great, but women not having as much responsibility to be the caretaker in the event of a divorce does not automatically change the view that men aren't equipped to raise children. It just changes the perception for women, not men.

That is... actually a really good point that I hadn't considered. Just off the top of my head, I'd suggest that the first step toward building better perceptions is to disengage the deathgrip we have on the old, worse ones. That's not the end of the process, I agree, and you've given me something to think about here, but it is a part of the process.