Feminism

[gimmepie]

So, the other day a friend of mine and I were debating the various pros and cons of feminism, it's relevancy in the modern era and possible undertones of sexism that could be present.

My questions to you are

• Is feminism still relevant in contemporary western societies? Why?
• What are some pros and cons of feminism?
• Are you a feminist? Do you personally agree with feminism? Why?
• Are there sexist overtones in feminism?

I'll post my own perspective later, sorry for the short OP.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Feminism in its core is more about equality of the sexes than anything. However, it has been transformed by some people (usually called "radical feminists") to promote concepts such as the "Patriarchy" and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ like that. Yes, we live in a patriarchal society, that much is true. However, blaming individual men for something that they may not be responsible for shows hatred against the sexes, and no, flipping the tables doesn't make you right.

Is feminism still relevant in contemporary western societies? Why?
Yes, because inequality between the sexes still exists.

What are some pros and cons of feminism?
By definition, none, really, besides the dissolving of some traditional practices (most traditional practices restricted to genders though are still valid with gender equality)

However, there are problems induced by radical feminism. Radical feminists try to promote the idea that females are the "superior" gender, or that men should have the tables flipped on them. Such generalist policies cause their own string of hatred in something that originally was about equal rights.

Are you a feminist? Do you personally agree with feminism? Why?
I agree with feminism, but I struggle to call myself a feminist, because of the negative influence induced by radical feminists. I call myself an Equalist when asked.

Are there sexist overtones in feminism?
In radical feminism, there is a ton of misandry, fueled by a superiority-by-oppression complex.

 

[Kanzler]

What is feminism? If it's treating men and women as equals, I agree with it. If it's about things like "men should be taught not to rape", I don't.

 

[Blu·Ray]

Here in Denmark we have had a lot of debates on feminism being no longer necessary. I kind of agree with that, but not fully:
I do not think feminism is relevant. Promoting the feminine gender is not needed in the way feminists do is no longer necessary, because we have a general awareness that equality needs to be present in a modern society, and we are working towards the goal of integrating gender equality in our culture and general awareness. What we don't need is a radical group of feminists that wants women to rule the world.

Equality is necessary for both men and women. Feminism concentrates on getting women as high wages as men. They concentrate on women being able to wear jeans, which they have accomplished. They want more women is the boards of corporations and governments, and they want women to be seen as something else than the traditional family roles of mothers. However, while all of these this are extremely important, the feminists forget to look at the men.
Equality means for men to be able to be nurses. For mento be able to work in a kindergarten without being looked down upon. For men to be able to decline a beer without being declared gay because he is not masculine enough. Equality even means that men are allowed to take the traditional mother role. To be able to look after the kids while his wife is at her job.
There was a time where feminists were necessary. Necessary to create awareness, to do huge demonstrations demanding equal treatment of women. But in our society, as the situation is today, we need to promote equality for women, for men, for blacks, for whites, for Asians, for gays, for lesbians, for bisexuals, for transsexuals, for disabled, for mentally disabled, for fat people and for skinny people. We need to broaden our view - feminism is no longer necessary.
Disclaimer: Feel free to disagree with me, this is just my humble personal opinion, feel free to take all that you want from my ideology and stuff it onto your personal ideology on everything. ;)

 

[£]

Oh Tumblr.

I think having a word for this movement is a bad idea personally. With the way certain members of the Tumblr Police® act, it kinda gives the impression that feminism and chauvinism are two ends of a scale; which is a very easy misconception to make. Why have a new word when we have the word "equality"? (Which I'm sure most reasonable people would agree is a fine word with a fine meaning which we should do our damnedest to make a reality!)

There's ALWAYS a need for equality, and there's always going to be women hard done by. I think that men have their own problems too though that often get overlooked. What we should do when we do find out that someone's sexual freedom is being oppressed, or what we should do when we find out someone is losing their lust for life is not to band together and see what their label is and then to start supporting them for that label, be it female, male, gay, straight, trans, anything, but rather, supporting them because they're a fellow person with their preferences and such. I don't believe in fighting for equality under a load of smaller separate labels. As long as there's labels involved in the fight for equality, we've got a long way to go. (though we've come a long way I guess) One of the only labels I'd ever happily accept for myself is "a person who believes in fair treatment"

 

[Keiran]

First off, Diagonite pretty much said everything I wanted to say.

What we don't need is a radical group of feminists that wants women to rule the world.

Equality is necessary for both men and women. Feminism concentrates on getting women as high wages as men. They concentrate on women being able to wear jeans, which they have accomplished. They want more women is the boards of corporations and governments, and they want women to be seen as something else than the traditional family roles of mothers. However, while all of these this are extremely important, the feminists forget to look at the men.
Equality means for men to be able to be nurses. For mento be able to work in a kindergarten without being looked down upon. For men to be able to decline a beer without being declared gay because he is not masculine enough. Equality even means that men are allowed to take the traditional mother role. To be able to look after the kids while his wife is at her job.

Men's rights, like you listed, are issues that Feminism seeks to end. It's just unfortunate that there are large, vocal groups of men that think stuff like "the friendzone" are men's rights issues and they usually drown out the minority of men seeking to open dialogue about real problems. I don't know what things are like in Denmark, but America seems to be much farther behind in equality and I don't really feel that feminism is irrelevant.

What is feminism? If it's treating men and women as equals, I agree with it. If it's about things like "men should be taught not to rape", I don't.

Feminism is the former, and the latter is obviously something that needs to be taught. 0___o

 

[Kanzler]

I don't know, I find those words highly demeaning. Nobody taught me not to rape, should somebody step up to the plate? It's like saying "black people should be taught not to steal".

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

What the ♥♥♥♥ kind of logic is that? Society teaches you not to rape or steal because it hurts other people. Plain and simple. What kind of point are you trying to prove?

 

[Kanzler]

It says in the above post, that I find those words demeaning and insulting. It's a pretty undignified way to talk about a group of people. Yet it's a phrase thrown about quite carelessly. I find my comparison to be pretty logical, actually. Where's my fallacy?

 

[Tek]

It's getting fiery in here! I have to say that Kanzler's point is valid in my estimation. An example:

A conservatively-minded group of individuals declares: "Women need to be taught not to be ♥♥♥♥s!" Implicit in this statement is that all women are ♥♥♥♥ty by default. Which is obviously offensive.

What would be better is a more nuanced approach, such as: "Safe sex is important to our community's health!", and "We need to address the problem that many men forcibly dominate women!" Neither statement assumes anything about a certain gender in a blanket manner, while still speaking to a real need in human relationships.

EDIT:
To the topic of feminism, I personally get really irritated when people talk about male superiority having been forced upon women by our ancestors. I have heard the argument made more than once. This completely disregards historical context. Let me elaborate.

In the distant past, men hunted and women picked berries. This was not because the men forced the women to stay at home. It was because that arrangement was the one that held the best chances of survival for human beings. Additionally, and this is very important, male physical strength was equated with male cultural strength. It was how we understood the world at the time.

What has happened since is that the family no longer depends on male physical strength to survive. And our culture is slowly learning to deal with this societal development. I think it's wonderful that we are able to have this discussion. For all our mistakes and missteps, we truly have come a long way as a species. Humans are smelly, flawed, beautiful, and amazing beings.

 

[Dakotah]

The dangers of feminism, or any group advocating equality of a disadvantaged group, is that it can quickly become a tool to discriminate against the oppressors. It does not matter if it is a group seeking equality for women, or for the LGBT community, or for racial minorities. Once advocacy for equality becomes a weapon with which to attack others, it ceases to be a force for good.

Advocating for equal rights is good. But it should never be used as a justification for discrimination.

 

[Sandslash Fan]

Any time one defines or labels themselves with an -ist or -ism, it's a very self-fulfilling prophecy for failure. The human mind categorizes concepts and stimuli in life as a necessity, but when we lazily apply that mechanic to advanced topics... it's bad m'kay.

Essentially, by definition, any title or label immediately sets you/them/us apart from anything without that title/label. It would be so much better to affect agenda by engaging people as if they are part of your community, instead of making them feel like they will receive some kind of punishment, ridicule, or other kind of negative reciprocation for not agreeing or assisting the chosen cause.

My personal belief: We aren't equal. Each one of us has differences. If nothing else, I would like the feminist movement to stop using the world equal as a blanket term.

1) Compete for equal salaries? Check.
2) Be allowed to serve in combat? Yes, but being capable is a different story (many male military members don't belong in combat - I was one of them)
3) Force businesses and social clubs to accept you just because you want the chance? Very much an illusion that men automatically get that privilege. It's all about who you know, not what you know or who you are.

At the end of the day: People are more of use to society for their strengths. There are already mechanisms in place to evaluate people and deny them based on lack of skill.

Example #1 - A woman wants to join an NFL team. Did she pass the trials? Great. Is she better than the others? Maybe. Does she perform for the team? Who knows, but if not... players get fired all of the time for not getting wins.

Example #2 - Hiring practices. I don't agree that anyone - except maybe the Government for transparency purposes - should be forced to hire someone they do not want to work with (I hate Equal Opportunity laws btw), but they should pay people with equal qualifications the same. That is a relatively easy fix. Simply have a law that businesses set pay a range for a job based on qualifications (level of degree, certifications, and experience) and that's that. The pay range doesn't have to match competing businesses, but shouldn't be changed based on gender.

That's all I can think of for now (or care to blab about on the Internet hehe).

Disclaimer: I was raised by strong women. I have zero issue with a woman doing all the things she wants to in life. The one thing I don't agree with is women (or anyone for that matter) being allowed to do something they simply have no business doing (due to lack of skill, knowledge, or aptitude) simply because they demanded they be allowed to.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Any time one defines or labels themselves with an -ist or -ism, it's a very self-fulfilling prophecy for failure. The human mind categorizes concepts and stimuli in life as a necessity, but when we lazily apply that mechanic to advanced topics... it's bad m'kay.

Essentially, by definition, any title or label immediately sets you/them/us apart from anything without that title/label. It would be so much better to affect agenda by engaging people as if they are part of your community, instead of making them feel like they will receive some kind of punishment, ridicule, or other kind of negative reciprocation for not agreeing or assisting the chosen cause.

I find this quite interesting, actually. Quite the revelation you have there.

My personal belief: We aren't equal. Each one of us has differences. If nothing else, I would like the feminist movement to stop using the world equal as a blanket term.

1) Compete for equal salaries? Check.
2) Be allowed to serve in combat? Yes, but being capable is a different story (many male military members don't belong in combat - I was one of them)
3) Force businesses and social clubs to accept you just because you want the chance? Very much an illusion that men automatically get that privilege. It's all about who you know, not what you know or who you are.

At the end of the day: People are more of use to society for their strengths. There are already mechanisms in place to evaluate people and deny them based on lack of skill.

Example #1 - A woman wants to join an NFL team. Did she pass the trials? Great. Is she better than the others? Maybe. Does she perform for the team? Who knows, but if not... players get fired all of the time for not getting wins.

Example #2 - Hiring practices. I don't agree that anyone - except maybe the Government for transparency purposes - should be forced to hire someone they do not want to work with (I hate Equal Opportunity laws btw), but they should pay people with equal qualifications the same. That is a relatively easy fix. Simply have a law that businesses set pay a range for a job based on qualifications (level of degree, certifications, and experience) and that's that. The pay range doesn't have to match competing businesses, but shouldn't be changed based on gender.

This an important thing to consider. Too many people haven't fully moved past the notion of inequality to realize that gender-based aptitudes are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and that we simply need to mentally move on from gender inequality as a society rather than fix it. It's not the machine that's broken; we're just using it wrong.

Disclaimer: I was raised by strong women. I have zero issue with a woman doing all the things she wants to in life. The one thing I don't agree with is women (or anyone for that matter) being allowed to do something they simply have no business doing (due to lack of skill, knowledge, or aptitude) simply because they demanded they be allowed to.

For a large part of my life I was raised by feminists (whether they were "radical" is questionable), so I think I can understand where you're coming from (you did word it a little crudely). I'd agree with your last condition, but I want to note that skill, knowledge, and aptitude are by no means set into a specific gender, which is where a lot of people are confused.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Advocating for equal rights is good. But it should never be used as a justification for discrimination.

Exactly. It is self destructive from within. Other -isms also can do this as well and it just makes me want to head desk. Just because right now you're disadvantaged doesn't mean equality comes when you make someone else disadvantaged.

 

[Sandslash Fan]

For a large part of my life I was raised by feminists (whether they were "radical" is questionable), so I think I can understand where you're coming from (you did word it a little crudely). I'd agree with your last condition, but I want to note that skill, knowledge, and aptitude are by no means set into a specific gender, which is where a lot of people are confused.

The women (mother, grandmothers, aunts) were not feminist in my family - at all. There will still respected and capable women though. The salary differences were always there, but a lot has changed since then.

I did rush a bit at the end of my post, so sorry for any confusion. My thought was the same as your comment, that the only qualities that should be associated to gender are medical care and function of anatomy.

 

[CelticsPhan]

Oh no Reddit is here

As a male, i still believe I have the privelage to answer to the issue of feminism. How I feel is that women have made strides in society, especially in the modern age. I'm jumping into a pool of ignorance here, but why is it such a big movement today? Women get jobs with increasing salaries and as a majority, have ditched or reduced the "house slave" life.

There is still discrimination, but I believe that it is not on the same level as racism and homophobia (At least where I live. Massachusetts has a lot of feminists by the way.) The main issue is still salary, that men still get paid *on average* more than women.

How do I really feel? I feel that these movements set them back, and damage their credibility. It deepens the rift between gender, as females excessively point out that being born a woman is special, and how different yet the same as men. The treatment of women before said movements was inexcusable, but since these movements I've seen women treated better and have a larger role in society.

(I'd ask that we please the "Check Your Privelage" and "White Guilt" arguments, as those only criticize rather than help any causes)

 

[zakisrage]

Is feminism still relevant in contemporary western societies? Why?

By and large, I don't think feminism has the same relevance that it did years ago because women have made so many gains because of it, and plenty of laws give women favourable treatment. There is still some relevance, though, since double standards that favour men still exist.

What are some pros and cons of feminism?

I think that feminism helps encourage women's education and success, but at the same time, radical feminism often paints a negative image of men and some feminists take offence to men being courteous towards women. They might also interpret things as sexist even if they aren't. One of my main criticisms of Western feminism is the bulk of it consisting of white, middle class, liberal women. Minority women and conservative women can be feminists too. Plus feminists can have very differing opinions on certain manners. There are pro-pornography feminists, despite most of the movement being anti-pornography. There are also feminists who incorporate religious teachings in their feminist beliefs, while other feminists view all religion as sexist. Feminism is not monolithic.

Are you a feminist? Do you personally agree with feminism? Why?

Somewhat, but my feminist beliefs tend to focus more on Muslim women. After all, I think feminism could really benefit Muslim women. At one point, Muslim women had a lot of freedom compared to Western women, but Western women's rights have progressed very significantly compared to the ones that Muslim women have. And being a Muslim myself, I'm sick of seeing Muslim men abusing their wives and daughters (or worse, killing them). This cruel treatment has no basis in Islam.

For example, I strongly discourage polygamy, which I see as archaic. I also think that Muslim women shouldn't be required to cover their heads (though they can cover their heads if they want to). Muslim women should also have equality in divorce and inheritance, and domestic violence and honour killings should be outlawed. Muslim girls also deserve the right to education.

Despite this, I think feminism should benefit all women. I personally agree that feminism is a good idea. However, I am opposed to the radical feminism preached by women such as Andrea Dworkin. Women treating men as inferiors is no better than men treating women as inferiors.

Are there sexist overtones in feminism?

Depends. In equality-based feminism, there are usually no sexist overtones and men are accepted in the movement. Though feminism is obviously dominated by women, men have played a significant role in feminism as well. In radical feminism (or "feminazism"), on the other hand, I think that there is a lot of misandry that encourages women to act rude towards men. These women treat all men as criminals, rapists, and misogynists. Men and women should be equal - one gender should not be superior to the other.

Besides, not all feminists in history were social justice people either. Take a look at good ol' Rebecca Latimer Felton, who is nowadays more known for her extreme racism than her feminism: https://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/feminist-fun-facts-rebecca-latimer-felton/

(I think we need more female users in this thread since feminism is about women.)

 

[Entermaid]

Sometimes equality is not always fair.

For instance education should not be equal between a person of a 140 and 80 IQ.

Men and women are mostly similar genetically. Though, men have a higher propensity toward violence. You can give counterexamples of women commiting violence, but I am referring to a broad stroke of difference in propensities due largely to genetic/hormonal differences which can be easily explained by natural selection/human nature. Just look at crime statistics across a variety of nations.

Women, most, have the ability to give birth to a child and have ovarian cancer, whereas men do not. It's these little differences of which laws, policies, and programs should be not be equal. Women are also more likely to be raped and men are more likely to commit rapes. As such, criminal analyst target groups that fit a profile. Profiling in some cases, for differences, may be important. This may apply to other situtations in life. Perhaps some women will be uncomfortable living with another man, as an equal, and thus bunk up with a female room mate. We all treat different sexes/genders differently, sometimes for "arbitrary" and for other times "good" reasons.

The point being, there are inequalities in law/policy/programs/social mores that are irrelevant to the common differences between the sexes. These arbitrary inequalities, such as paycheck disparity, are what should be targeted by feminist groups since these arbitrary inequalities are inefficient. The most qualified person should get the job and paycheck. If that happens to be more women or more men *shrugs*. But, certainly no one should be denied similar pay if they are just as qualified, in that respect gender or sex are irrelevant. If I need a surgeon, I really don't care if that person is black, female, male, white, Jewish, transgender...I just want to see their body of work!

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Feminism use to mean something (getting the same equal amount of rights as men), but nowadays, you have radical feminists who kicked the movement's original message to the curve by being easily offended by things they find as sexist (common on tumblr) and trying to dethrone men as the most dominant gender of the species.

One of the worst offenders of a radical feminist is Anita Sarkeesian, who is on a crusade to end sexism in the video game industry. She finds the damsel in distress trope, women getting killed in video games, and women wearing bowties, the color pink, and other girly accessories as sexist and wants them to be abolished. She claims to be a gamer, but according to old video, she never played video games. Other feminists also question if she's even a real feminist at all. Then there's her infamous Kickstarter camepaign, where no one is sure where did all the money Anita obtained went, further suspecting that she's a con artist. Despite this, she's caught a lot of attention from the gaming media, and she has gotten several companies, including the once respected Escapist website, home of MovieBob/Game Overthinker, Yahtzee, and Jim Sterling, on her side, and they're starting policies to never use female enemies in their games in support. I was originally going to make this as its own separate thread, but since this thread exists, might as well talk about this here.

Yes there's still sexism in this day of age, but the radical feminists have only made it worse despite already getting what they've want years ago.

 

[Star-Lord]

I'm sorry but if someone doesn't think that feminism is necessary in the western world then they are a moron. There is no question about it. Feminism as a concept attacks the double-edged notion of gender roles among other things. I've given up on trying to entertain those who sincerely doubt the impact and importance of feminism.