Feminism and Gender Equality

[BLADE]

Better, though I'm not trying to get you to adopt any theory in particular (hence why I haven't put my thumbs on the scale by sharing my own thoughts), but suppose you were to extend your thinking to later epochs up to and including today.

What would you find? Is there one cause or many? Do they interact with each other? How so? What political prophylactics does their etiology suggest?

 

[Nor'baal]

That's fair. I think TV has gotten a lot better in recent years too.

Take Arrow for instance. The entire Arrowverse is still largely male centric but when you look at the core cast of hero characters in that show (as of season 4), it's actually 3 women and 2 men. Normally it's the reverse, 3 men and 2 women, so that's very positive to see, especially in a typically male-dominated genre.

I know other stuff has been written - but Superheros.

Anyway, I like arrow (it has John Barrowman in it, and anything with him in it is awesome).

However, one thing that really made me cross was the popular series of movies "The Avengers" which has ONE female Hero in it in the majority of films - and she has no powers and they only really focus on her looks. It annoys me.

But- why aren't they're more female Superheros? Because the comics they're based on where written in an age when boys played with action man, and girls played with Barbie.

As a note: If I ever have a daughter, and she wants to have an action man - I'm fine with that. That's cool. I'll join in.

 

[Kiro]

I know other stuff has been written - but Superheros.

Anyway, I like arrow (it has John Barrowman in it, and anything with him in it is awesome).

However, one thing that really made me cross was the popular series of movies "The Avengers" which has ONE female Hero in it in the majority of films - and she has no powers and they only really focus on her looks. It annoys me.

But- why aren't they're more female Superheros? Because the comics they're based on where written in an age when boys played with action man, and girls played with Barbie.

As a note: If I ever have a daughter, and she wants to have an action man - I'm fine with that. That's cool. I'll join in.

Actually, in comics today, there are tons of strong and independent superheroines, many as equal or superior to any of the male characters within their own universes. Two prominent examples being Wonder Woman, arguably the strongest superhero within the DC universe (strength and durability to match Superman, flight, magic weapons, and no true weakness), and Captain Marvel for the Marvel universe. Supersonic flight, can operate in space without space suits, super strenght, superhuman durability, capable of producing very powerful energy blasts... then you have a whole slew of other superheroines, like She-Hulk, Power Girl, Jessica Jones, Black Canary, Thor, Medusa, Wolverine, Storm...

And the Avengers have another female Heroine now. Scarlet Witch. Not arguing the cinematic Avengers could use more, but on the whole, females are pretty well represented within the comic book universe. Not saying it's perfect, and that several of them have somewhat... revealing, outfits, but they're there, and they're strong.

 

[Pureblood-Sin]

Better, though I'm not trying to get you to adopt any theory in particular (hence why I haven't put my thumbs on the scale by sharing my own thoughts), but suppose you were to extend your thinking to later epochs up to and including today.

What would you find? Is there one cause or many? Do they interact with each other? How so? What political prophylactics does their etiology suggest?

Whilst the Roman Empire began the spread of sexist ideas in Europe, I'd argue that it was ultimately the advent of Christianity that began to cement the ideas. It supplanted the female priesthoods of the old gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon, depriving women of one of their few chances of social mobility and eventually spreading to the Germanic peoples in Germania, Post-Anglo-Saxon conquest Britain and, in due time, Scandinavia and Iceland. It would also spread to the Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples as well, assimilating and supplanting the religions originally practiced by the locals. Anywho, at the time, Christianity varied very heavily at the time, but all would eventually be overpowered by the Church in Rome; the one we know of as the Catholic Church. As we approached the Middle Ages, the Church spread the doctrine of "Original Sin"...and it was women who sinned first. With this perception in place, the patriarchy had a much more convenient excuse for the treatment of women; that they were inherently untrustworthy, that they were inherently less virtuous than men and that they were easily corruptible. Such sentiments would continue to exist, even with the advent of Elizabeth I's reign and, considerably later on, the Industrial Revolution. Whilst society had grown more secular, the ideas of the past had been heavily ingrained in much of Europe's mindset; instead of religion though, it was Pseudoscience that came to be used to justify the attitudes of the time. If a woman came to be too rebellious or began spouting terms such as "votes for women", they'd be diagnosed as having "Hysteria".

:(

 

[Marf]

What I'd add to that, is that it's even worse if you also happen to have another "tag" in addition to being a woman.

We might have more in common than you'd think ;)

I didn't touch on that a lot because it's been pretty sensitive to me lately, lots of paranoia and anxiety, which I'm sure you can understand. When I was in high school, I wasn't open about the fact that I liked girls, but it was a very poorly kept secret. I also have Asperger's, which made it even worse. At that age I had absolutely no concept of social cues or boundaries, so I would try and dance with girls at school events, rub up to them, lie on their laps etc. I had never, or have never, been sexually attracted to a man. Being gay had never crossed my mind, it was just what felt normal to me. I was bullied/harassed relentlessly, not just for liking girls but for my weird, non-feminine interests. I would wait until recess was over to get changed for sport so I could have the changing room to myself, and spend all of lunchtime/recess in the back of the library.

When it did cross my mind and I started to tell people, their response was that I doing it to get attention, ignoring the fact as a person with Aspergers', I'm brutally honest, I tell it how it is and can't lie or exaggerate. That also means that I interpret things directly and literally, so I spent the rest of my days, up until recently, convincing myself I was straight and trying to make myself look attracted to men, which of course, just felt so wrong. Of course it felt even more uncomfortable when men cat-called/harassed me, when my friend tried to emotionally manipulate me into sleeping with him.

It stole a massive part of my life which I haven't quite recovered from. I could have had experiences with girls or found somebody special, but lived in confusion and dysphoria instead because I was refused the support I needed. It is my sincere hope that in the future, schools will teach and enforce tolerance and understanding regarding LGBT students. Looking back now, there was absolutely no mention in educational programs or presentations, we were dismissed and shut off like we didn't exist.

That may sound off-topic, but it really isn't. International Women's Day is supposed to acknowledge the issues all women around the globe face, which includes homophobia.

I uh, wasn't going to bring that up, but your post kind of inspired me and instilled some confidence, Kiro.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

Whilst the Roman Empire began the spread of sexist ideas in Europe, I'd argue that it was ultimately the advent of Christianity that began to cement the ideas. It supplanted the female priesthoods of the old gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon, depriving women of one of their few chances of social mobility and eventually spreading to the Germanic peoples in Germania, Post-Anglo-Saxon conquest Britain and, in due time, Scandinavia and Iceland. It would also spread to the Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples as well, assimilating and supplanting the religions originally practiced by the locals. Anywho, at the time, Christianity varied very heavily at the time, but all would eventually be overpowered by the Church in Rome; the one we know of as the Catholic Church. As we approached the Middle Ages, the Church spread the doctrine of "Original Sin"...and it was women who sinned first. With this perception in place, the patriarchy had a much more convenient excuse for the treatment of women; that they were inherently untrustworthy, that they were inherently less virtuous than men and that they were easily corruptible. Such sentiments would continue to exist, even with the advent of Elizabeth I's reign and, considerably later on, the Industrial Revolution. Whilst society had grown more secular, the ideas of the past had been heavily ingrained in much of Europe's mindset; instead of religion though, it was Pseudoscience that came to be used to justify the attitudes of the time. If a woman came to be too rebellious or began spouting terms such as "votes for women", they'd be diagnosed as having "Hysteria".

:(

And this is why I'm non denominational.

 

[Kiro]

We might have more in common than you'd think ;)
-SNIP
I uh, wasn't going to bring that up, but your post kind of inspired me and instilled some confidence, Kiro.

No worries, Marf. *does the Secret Lesbian Handshake*

 

[Pureblood-Sin]

And this is why I'm non denominational.

I'd say its why I'm Heathen/Northern Germanic Neopagan/Asatru (ish), but alas that's a different reason entirely; though of course, it still makes me look at that and shake my head.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

There is a long history of political institutions corrupting belief systems for political gain. Discrimination of genders, discrimination against race, discrimination against other beliefs, etc. have all attempted to be justified before in this way. Ideas can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and since Religion is literally made of ideas, it is involved a lot. This is not to say that the justifications make any sense sense in the context of the beliefs themselves. That's why we have extremist Buddhists involved in all of that craziness in Asia when someone with a laymans knowledge of Buddhist teachings know that everything they are doing is absolutely idiotic and hypocrative from the standpoint of their own religion. Heck, I'm pretty sure Jesus himself would want to give the almighty backhanded pimpslap to half of the people trying to run his religion. The point being that people have used all kinds of beliefs, even secular beliefs, to rationalize and justify all kinds of things. That doesn't necessarily mean hatred is a natural extension of them. It is more likely a basic result of any group being in power. We just have to learn as a species to stop letting social norms tell us what to believe when they honestly shouldn't.

Side Note:

Ironically, a lot of early Christianity was actually very progressive on women's rights. One might even argue that Jesus displayed an early feminist attitude (the good kind with the equality and acceptance). Those sentiments, however, were corrupted over time.

 

[Pureblood-Sin]

If you ask me, Christianity would not have the shadow that hangs over it if the Romans hadn't adopted it; yes, it may have been just as patchy as the Empire's Jewish inhabitants, but it would not have the legacy of bloodshed it has today. That's happens when a growing religion is adopted by a culture of Patriarchal warmongers.

 

[Sinbi]

Saw this thread, skimmed it (because it's seven pages cheezus) and I'm just going to leave my opinion here for anyone who cares to read.

I am a genderless squid creature of indeterminate age and ethnicity.

Modern feminism in the western world (specifically the United States of America, Canada, and the UK along with some members of the EU) is a movement that originated in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that was focused on dealing with legal inequalities. You know, women's suffrage and all that good shit. It eventually rolled into a second wave that dealt with societal norms, what femininity even is, etc. The first wave of feminism accomplished its job, and women now have (At least in the US and UK to my knowledge) literally every right men have. All of them. Good on all those dead grandmas and grandpas for helping make the world a better place.

The second wave was also pretty cool, even if it was a bit obnoxious. That tends to be how you get the point across to the masses. Gotta jingle keys in front of their faces.

Now, for the part that triggers all the kiddies: Modern Feminism is veritable trash. It's terribad.

Allow me to preface this with a few quotes from very popular, and looked up to or influential figures in the Feminist movement:
"The more famous and powerful I get, the more power I have to hurt men." - Sharon Stone
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." - Sally Miller Gearheart
"If life is to survive on this planet there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." - Mary Daly
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion, which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Barbara Jordan
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved into his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." - Andrea Dworkin

lol I love this one: "I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn't be able to fight - we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back." - Julie Bindel

Here's a popular feminist graffiti: "Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."

Onto the non man-hating ones.
"everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time..." - Anita Sarkeesian
"Literally everything, and everyone is problematic." - Laci Green.

I could go on.

Feminism is a hate group. Oh? What's this? What is this I see? The definition of feminism!?-- OH NO! -- " Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Oh gosh dang, you got me. Oh wait.

The majority of modern feminists are inter-sectional. That means they, for some reason, want to include the opposition of race discrimination, the advocacy of gay rights and trans-folk and pedophiles and whatever letters you add onto the end of LGTBQPLMNOVXYZ Now I sayz my A B C's. Being a humanist pretty much encompasses all of that, but people tend to not like that term because then they don't get their nice little umbrella to hide under when facts are pointed out. Anyway, men are discriminated against legally and economically to a ridiculous degree when compared to women in the Western world. Women have more legal rights than men. They have social dominance over them as well. That's right ladies and gentlemen, women have all the rights men have (and some), are generally cared for more, are less likely to be physically assaulted than men, can strike a man with impunity, are less likely to die in workplace environments than men, are favored in divorce settlements and domestic abuse cases, are steadily growing in numbers in universities while men decline due to lack of assistance, can sue men for disgreeing with them on Twitter and banning them from the internet while an investigation takes place, and feminists continue to whine about the fairy tale that is the wage gap, and them being discriminated against because they're a woman and the law can't help them. Wow, that was a long-ass run on sentence.

I forgot where I even was- Oh that's right, the definition. The definition of a word, and those who identify by the ideology of the same name, are not necessarily one in the same. That is the case with modern feminism. This is shown by the actions and words of a lot of people in the movement. Go on Etsy. Type in "Misandry". It's hip and trendy to hate men, guys! Lovely world we live in.

Now, you might be cracking your shaking fingers, foaming at the mouth as you read this, ready to reply with a vitriolic key-cracking posting of the words
"NOT REAL FEMINISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
If we ignore the no true Scotsman fallacy, sure. Okay. I get it. Not all feminists are bra-burning degenerate cave-people who want to rid the world of the dreaded penis. But, then, what do all feminists believe? Well, according to Wikipedia, they all believe in the patriarchy. The non-existent patriarchy that allows them all the shit listed above, screws men over with all the shit listed above, and allows them to even protest The Patriarchy itself. What a shit Patriarchy.

They also believe that masculinity (which is bad of course) is a socially constructed concept and is not biological at all, while also believing men need to be taught not to rape because it is natural for them at the same time. These statements are just doubleplusgood.

What's that you say? Wikipedia isn't a good source? I'd say the same thing, if there weren't Wikipedia edit-a-thons (By the way that's Orwellian as fuck) that are hosted by ton of feminists. That means, a wide variety of feminists go there and edit shit until there's a resounding shrug and snapping (because clapping is triggering) as they all agree on what they wrote.

Saying, "If you believe in equality for men and women, you are a feminist." is stupid. You can't just shove someone into an ideology because their beliefs line up with what the ideology says on the tin. Nobody can accidentally choose to be a feminist. A bunch of them are straight up more concerned with getting people to join the board than actually dealing with genuine cases of sexism and discrimination.

This is why it's so easy for young men and women in college campuses to get sucked into the wormhole. They see wage gap statistics.They see rape statistics on college campuses. They see these pretty numbers and graphs. They see that men make more money than women on average and they assume SEXISM, get scared, freak out, and take up arms against something that they've not actually looked into.

(I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post off-site links on the forums, but if I am reply so I can just list miles of actual studies taken)

Look. Feminism isn't inherently bad, in fact it is still needed. Just, not in the West. Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, some Island Nations, THESE are the places that feminism is truly needed! But, where are the feminists? Sitting in starbucks, typing about how a man looked at her for too long or how his female friend got harassed by a guy asking for directions "too aggressively". You there. Reading this. I get it, you want to help the disenfranchised. I do too. The thing is, the people you probably got all these ideas from are fucking con-men and con-women who profit off of outrage by writing articles and making videos and giving speeches about toxic masculinity and the systematic oppression of women, the wage gap, the need for safe spaces on college campuses where ONE IN FIVE WOMEN ARE RAPED YOU GUYS (False, by the way. Straight up lies.), and it's eaten all up.

So, yeah. Words can't invalidate your experiences, so if you read this thing I quickly sneezed out and feel like your personal dealings with people harassing you based on your gender are being attacked, buck up, because bad things happen. There are bad people. There will always be bad people. Whether that badness manifests as misogyny, misandry, racism, religious extremism, rape, lies, betrayal, whatever... it's not because of some underlying magical Patriarchy, or a Systematic oppression of women, any of that. It's because there are always the few bad eggs who would rather hurt than help those around them.

If I repeated things other people already said, my bad. Again. long thread. Couldn't be bothered to read it all.

Please don't ban me. I like roleplaying.

 

[Xtremenerd]

I have read this forum and I mostly agree with @Sinbi

 

[GABA]

SNIP

Well, maybe you should have taken time to read because I believe the radicalist in feminism was addressed and it was concluded they were not an accurate representation on what feminists are. The ladies you had listed, most I never heard of, nor do I find influential.

Feminism is a movement in human rights and civil liberties, we follow people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Mia Hamm, Sandra Day O'Connor, Michelle Obama, Rosalind Franklin, Emma Watson and Malala Yousafzai. These are the people who influence and look to make a difference instead of complaining about the problem; they defy the norms so things are equal and humane for everyone (not just men).

 

[Sinbi]

Well, maybe you should have taken time to read because I believe the radicalist in feminism was addressed and it was concluded they were not an accurate representation on what feminists are. The ladies you had listed, most I never heard of, nor do I find influential.

Oh. I didn't realize a conclusion was come to and that no other opinions were allow-Snrk.
Look. The thing with ideologies is this: When you put yourself in a box, you can wrap that box in fancy golden wrapping paper and stick a big red bow on it and make it look pretty. But the actions and beliefs of the majority, or loud minority the majority can't seem to control, are always going to manifest as shit seeping out of the bottom of the box. You can tell yourself and others you have nothing to do with the shit seeping out of the box, and that might be totally true, but the fact remains it's still there... seeping out of the bottom of the box.

Also, who you find influential doesn't necessarily line up with who other feminists find influential.

Feminism is a movement in human rights and civil liberties, we follow people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Mia Hamm, Sandra Day O'Connor, Michelle Obama, Rosalind Franklin, Emma Watson and Malala Yousafzai. These are the people who influence and look to make a difference instead of complaining about the problem; they defy the norms so things are equal and humane for everyone (not just men).

"We follow". Yeesh. Hivemindy.

Emma Watson's He for She thing was straight up damage control, like a ton of the other feminists who do the same shit: Do damage control as a result of their fellow feminists' nonsense. This is what I was talking about. "NOT REAL FEMINISTS!!!!!!"

But, they are. They say they are, other feminists agree with them, and lot of non-feminist people see them that way. If a movement looks radical, acts radical, and are perceived as radical, and proclaim themselves as radical-- does that image not deserve to be how feminism is understood?

Christina Hoff Summers, Malala Yousafzai (Who you mentioned, and who I'm pointing out is from a place where feminism is actually needed), and others like them are fine examples of what feminists aught to be. But if most of the goldfish in the aquarium are piranhas, what do you expect the movement to actually accomplish?

 

[Empress]

It stole a massive part of my life which I haven't quite recovered from. I could have had experiences with girls or found somebody special, but lived in confusion and dysphoria instead because I was refused the support I needed.

on the plus side love, you know that here you can find alot more support and understanding than most of us ever get or got present or past - with experiences that range wildly but all offer different aspects and tools and the likes by which to look into and understand oneself, then let those go and simply enjoy being yourself. not an easy thing to do...but not as difficult as we like to make ourselves believe.

Ive never hid myself here and hell, I love having skype calls when my wife is with me and I get to hear her teasing the hell out of johnny or graham, or Bac refusing to acknowledge she has a name and so on. This is one of the reasons I so lovingly call this place home

 

[BLADE]

*Snips*

And how old are you dearie?

 

[GABA]

Oh. I didn't realize a conclusion was come to and that no other opinions were allow-Snrk.

No one said that. However, as I pointed out, it was discussed, and a good observation was made:

I can't speak to what goes on in Sweden, but from a US-centric POV at least I do feel I have to reiterate that the conversation shouldn't be about those people see as extremists. It obscures the actual conversations about equality and the importance of feminism. I mean, look at the first post of this thread (it's a good post). It asks three things:

1. How is it in your country?
2. Do you think International Women's Day is still needed?
3. Do you consider yourself a feminist?

#1 has been touched on a little. #2 has been barely touched at all. #3 is where the conversation has gone, but it's turned towards "I'm not a feminist because some people are mean." The men of this site have largely hijacked the conversation to say that feminism is bad in general because there are some people who identify as feminists who they consider extremists.

Try to take that logic to other places now.

"Radical Islam is a problem so we shouldn't have Islam anymore."
"The far left is a problem so we shouldn't have left-wing politics anymore."
"The far right is a problem so we shouldn't have right-wing politics anymore."

etc etc

Would anyone honestly follow the logic in those examples like they are about feminism? I don't think so. Well, maybe a few people in the first example, but largely the answer is no.

"Extremist feminists," whatever that means, are not in this conversation. Not a single person has expressed any "extremist feminist" views in this thread. But dudes are certainly allowing the idea of "extremist feminists" to dictate the conversation, and have therefore dragged the entire conversation towards "extremist feminists are bad so we shouldn't have feminism."

That's unfortunate.

Look. The thing with ideologies is this: When you put yourself in a box, you can wrap that box in fancy golden wrapping paper and stick a big red bow on it and make it look pretty. But the actions and beliefs of the majority, or loud minority the majority can't seem to control, are always going to manifest as shit seeping out of the bottom of the box. You can tell yourself and others you have nothing to do with the shit seeping out of the box, and that might be totally true, but the fact remains it's still there... seeping out of the bottom of the box.

I'm pretty sure a majority, if not all, of women want basic human rights and liberties and be respected as a human being. If our voices are loud enough they will be heard and the same for the she-woman man haters, the squeaky wheel gets heard, there's no denying it. However, maybe we should take a step back and look at the reality of why they are like that. Maybe they were raised in an environment where men have hurt them or had someone close where men had hurt, it doesn't deny them from expressing their views, even if they are extreme. We can only control ourselves, we cannot control any actions from another individual; if they want to say men are the scum of the universe and deserve to rot, then okay, they can say that and if someone agrees, then well, what do we do about? Easy. We educate, we inform what is the better choice, we show how we are able to make changes without abusive words or actions.

Also, who you find influential doesn't necessarily line up with who other feminists find influential.

True, but I'm pretty sure those who I listed are some pretty amazing people, who a lot of feminists would also agree.

"We follow". Yeesh. Hivemindy.

Emma Watson's He for She thing was straight up damage control, like a ton of the other feminists who do the same shit: Do damage control as a result of their fellow feminists' nonsense. This is what I was talking about. "NOT REAL FEMINISTS!!!!!!"

Damage control for what? She spoke up because she knows she has the influence, she knows that gender discrimination is still a very real thing that needs to be addressed globally. I mean why is it even though we still have the opportunities that there are still barriers to hinder? Why are girls told, you can dress however you want, but if dress a certain way that's not modest and you look like slut? Why is it that girls are told they can do whatever they want to do with their body, but multiple partners make them look like a whore? Why is it if a woman joins the military that she is harassed by her male counterparts? However, with the he for she movement it includes everyone, men and women, because why does society have these ridiculous double standards and why can't everyone be treated like a human being without the harassment.

But, they are. They say they are, other feminists agree with them, and lot of non-feminist people see them that way. If a movement looks radical, acts radical, and are perceived as radical, and proclaim themselves as radical-- does that image not deserve to be how feminism is understood?

That's because you're generalizing and minimizing the issue. Just because they're radical, doesn't mean they're right.

Christina Hoff Summers, Malala Yousafzai (Who you mentioned, and who I'm pointing out is from a place where feminism is actually needed), and others like them are fine examples of what feminists aught to be. But if most of the goldfish in the aquarium are piranhas, what do you expect the movement to actually accomplish?

To be honest, I ignore the radical feminists, their beliefs make them look like assholes and the world is going to have assholes. They don't influence what I believe nor do they influence a lot of other feminists I know also because we know this. Feminism isn't about burning bras and man hating, its civil liberties, basic human rights to be treated fairly without stereotypes and discrimination. Its not an issue just for women, but for men also, for example, why is it such a taboo for men to be home caretakers for their children or be unmanly because he cries; or even as someone pointed out the standard for men to hold open doors, why can't we all as men and women hold open doors for others so we're not asshole? This seems like pretty common sense stuff and one can say, well, that's the society we live in, but that's the fortunate thing, we live (or most of us) live in a country where our voices can be heard, we know we can make a change knowing we won't be stoned to death for our voices.

I believe you have pessimistic view of feminism and I'm sorry that your opinion has been clouded by the aggressors, but if you believe that men and women should be treated with respect, then it makes you a feminist, it doesn't make you the stereotype that you see feminists being. I personally don't expect to move masses with my beliefs, my goal is to aspire others to respect themselves and respect others and not let anyone walk over them or tell them they cannot do something.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Just gonna jot down the date and time that GABA said I made a good observation.

For posterity.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

However, maybe we should take a step back and look at the reality of why they are like that. Maybe they were raised in an environment where men have hurt them or had someone close where men had hurt, it doesn't deny them from expressing their views, even if they are extreme.

Reverse the genders in this statement and you have an excellent explanation as to why many people hold a grudge against feminism. I don't hate feminism, because like I have said before, the ideology itself isn't the root cause of these issues. Used properly it is beneficial and needed, especially in less developed countries. But, I suppose if there is an objection I have, it's that there isn't much being done to counteract these negative attitudes other than just people stating they don't agree with them. At least, that's what I've seen. Feel free to show me different, though.

Its not an issue just for women, but for men also, for example, why is it such a taboo for men to be home caretakers for their children or be unmanly because he cries; or even as someone pointed out the standard for men to hold open doors, why can't we all as men and women hold open doors for others so we're not asshole? This seems like pretty common sense stuff and one can say, well, that's the society we live in, but that's the fortunate thing, we live (or most of us) live in a country where our voices can be heard, we know we can make a change knowing we won't be stoned to death for our voices.

As a male who spends a lot of time with children, likes to be polite to people when in public, and is not scared to cry about something when it is appropriate, I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Gender stereotyping can be so freaking annoying. One funny thing is that the supposed intelligence gap between men and women based on a bunch of biased studies has actually been understood nowadays as a product of male children receiving less help than females when they are having trouble with an assignment. This has been recorded on numerouse instances. Why is this? The explanation they give is simple. It comes down to people subliminally assuming that boys are supposed to be tougher than girls, and tough people figure their own problems out. Result: Slightly lower test scores on average.

 

[Noirceur]

Oh. I didn't realize a conclusion was come to and that no other opinions were allow-Snrk.
Look. The thing with ideologies is this: When you put yourself in a box, you can wrap that box in fancy golden wrapping paper and stick a big red bow on it and make it look pretty. But the actions and beliefs of the majority, or loud minority the majority can't seem to control, are always going to manifest as shit seeping out of the bottom of the box. You can tell yourself and others you have nothing to do with the shit seeping out of the box, and that might be totally true, but the fact remains it's still there... seeping out of the bottom of the box.

Also, who you find influential doesn't necessarily line up with who other feminists find influential.



"We follow". Yeesh. Hivemindy.

Emma Watson's He for She thing was straight up damage control, like a ton of the other feminists who do the same shit: Do damage control as a result of their fellow feminists' nonsense. This is what I was talking about. "NOT REAL FEMINISTS!!!!!!"

But, they are. They say they are, other feminists agree with them, and lot of non-feminist people see them that way. If a movement looks radical, acts radical, and are perceived as radical, and proclaim themselves as radical-- does that image not deserve to be how feminism is understood?

Christina Hoff Summers, Malala Yousafzai (Who you mentioned, and who I'm pointing out is from a place where feminism is actually needed), and others like them are fine examples of what feminists aught to be. But if most of the goldfish in the aquarium are piranhas, what do you expect the movement to actually accomplish?

Like others before you, you're confusing feminism (2nd wave, 3rd wave, it doesn't matter) with misandrism, a term our head admin was kind enough to define a few pages back. You are also generalizing an entire movement based on a few people. While I don't doubt that there are misandrists (which is the right way to call them) who shield themselves behind feminist movements to spread their hate for men, this is not characteristic of feminists, especially considering there are many male feminists like... *gasp* Myself!