The key thing to remember is that feminism is a very broad term that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I don't think it's possible to have a sane discussion about it without breaking down what you mean by it.
Personally, I take issue with the word itself. It's basically "female-ism." Proponents try to say that it advocates equality, but the word itself suggests otherwise. That's why I prefer the term "egalitarianism" if that's what you really mean.
I don't have the time nor the mental fortitude to read through all 90+ posts in this thread, so I'll address a few things I saw in the first several.
Feminism is the former, and the latter is obviously something that needs to be taught. 0___o
I think the point was that certain segments are advocating teaching it specifically to men. Rape is wrong universally. Singling out men is extremely demeaning to men and reinforces, to a degree, a very problematic and obviously untrue notion: that men can't be raped by women.
I think most people figure out that rape is unethical as a matter of course, but if it's something that's going to be "taught," it should be taught to everyone and not with an emphasis on male-on-female rape (and probably as a larger curriculum on ethics in general, since rape is a form of coercion, which is unethical 9 times out of 10 anyway.
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.
Feminism's a very broad term. There are a lot of people, like me, who would simply ask what you mean by it. There are some who assume you mean something you probably don't mean. And then there are others who are legitimately sexist. You're being unfair to the first two groups and for the third, I'd suggest reading
this. You'll never convince anyone of your beliefs if you do nothing but demonize anyone who espouses the opposing viewpoint, and insulating yourself with others who agree with you will change nothing.
lmao, i'm a radical feminist, and i would like to know your sources for those claims.
it's a bit funny how it was stated that radical feminists "has introduced concepts such as patriarchy" as though these are recent topics -- even before the advent of radical feminism (which was in the 1980s to 1990s), the concept of a patriarchy was already much established in formal feminist analyses and critiques. if anything, the perception that the concept of patriarchy was recently established only shows that contemporary "feminists" are moving away from the already-established political body and movement. it also shows that the word "feminism" has become a sort of umbrella term for anything that suggests equality between the sexes and female ""empowerment,"" rather than a political movement that relies on critical analyses of gender, sex-based oppression and, yes, patriarchy.
and to answer the main question, yes, it's still relevant. i can't speak for people living in western societies given that i'm not a westerner myself, but even given *legal* equality, one can't say that we are already living in a post-patriarchal, liberated society -- a society is made up much more than it's laws, and i think that's obvious enough. that there exists a differential treatment between the sexes in terms of roles and socialisation, that there exists structures of power (religious institutions, etc.) that seek to police the bodies and behaviour of one or both sexes, only shows that the problem is social and cultural, and will take much more than a few legislations can fix.
First, what do you mean by "patriarchy?" Because the word "patriarchy," as far as I understand it, literally means "a society led by men." It's true a lot of our political leaders are men, but that could just indicate a lack of will by women to get into politics. I can't say I blame them.
But what people seem to mean by this is that there is a systemic favoring of men over women. I hardly think this is true. It is true that there are some constructs in society that favor men over women, and I think we need to fix those. The converse is also true: there are some constructs in society that favor women over men, and we need to fix those, too.
I think you're misunderstanding what people mean by "radical feminism" because it's nearly as vague as the word "feminism" itself is. We're talking about the ideas like "women's issues are the only important issues" or "anyone who suggests a supposed issue isn't an issue is sexist." Stuff like that. There seem to be more of these people lately and it's unfortunate.
There's another issue that I think plays into "radical feminism" and it's this whole idea of every single thing needing to respect women. There are certain things that won't respect women, and that's fine. Fictive works, where the world is mostly likely grounded in some way in our own, and nobody would be able to relate if it didn't share the same kinds of problems ours has. Historical works, where it's merely describing what has already happened. Comedy, where offensive jokes are often self-ridiculing or making a larger point. And private conversations (which nobody else has any business listening to anyway), where people are often either expressing first (often instinctive) reactions to something or just joking. All of these things, they are not areas where anyone should be focusing their efforts, and despite that, a lot of people do. This kind of thing borders on thought-policing, really, and I think that only serves to work against their ultimate goal (or what it should be: equal opportunity and fair treatment).
