Feminism

[Jabberwocky]

Feminism remains relevant in western society because inequality continues to exist in western society.

It's a fallacy to assume that feminism attacks men or seeks to raise women above men. Rather, feminism seeks to equalize all sexes and genders and eliminate archaic and reactionary gender roles - and this may require a lowering of the comparative dominance of the cis male, which can be seen as an attack by those same cis males. I mean, that's the thing about equality: no one can be above anyone else in an equal society. So to say that feminism is no longer needed in a society so rooted and centered around male superiority as ours ignores the basic facts of the matter. Men, specifically cisgender men, continue to make more than women for the same jobs, continue to be considered more suitable for positions of leadership, and continue to be the "default" focus of almost all media. Western society is entrenched in patriarchal concepts and standards. It is the goal of feminism to eliminate these, which, incidentally, include such "men's rights" concepts as preferential treatment of women with regard to custody of children (rooted in the idea of women as suited to childcare) and lack of attention or empathy towards male victims of abuse (which, while an issue and rooted in the patriarchal concept of men as "strong" or "dominant," is frankly not very pressing compared to the statistical rates of female abuse victims).

So is feminism useful? Yes, it absolutely is, and necessary for the advancement and improvement of society.

 

[Luck]

Feminists are just people with good intentions, but a lot of them are very misguided. I don't have a problem with feminism as a concept but the louder members of the community are absolutely abhorrent and have no idea what they're talking about, but this isn't exactly unique to feminism. I wouldn't say feminism is pointless in western society, but it seems like a much bigger problem in eastern society. Not that I have any firsthand experience though, I'm nothing more than an ethnocentric baka gaijin.

Oh, and feminism definitely does push for female rights, but that's not a bad thing at all if women do actually have fewer rights in said society. Pushing for equal rights between genders makes you an egalitarian, not a feminist.

 

[professor plum]

Feminism is important.

Heck, there's even a thread that proves my point. People associate homosexuality with effeminacy - which in itself is weaker, and not masculine, and therefore the perfect subject for ridicule. (Or vice versa - it can also refer to extreme masculinity as a stereotype of lesbians, which are in the same boat as ~away from the norm~). With that logic, it's understandable to call something "so gay" and mean lame, because..yeah, sure, it is! It's saying that because these men and women are not conforming to their gender roles, they are lesser people.

Feminism isn't saying that women are better than men, it's that they deserve to be treated the same as men. It's that femininity isn't any way weaker than masculinity. If anything, it's the abolishing of these dated 'gender roles' that society enforces upon us.

 

[Briar]

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.

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.

 

[Dakotah]

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.

I'm sorry, I don't think any kind of "ism" is necessary in any part of the world. What I do think is important is equality for everyone. "Isms" of all types are exclusionary by nature which precludes the possibility of equality.

 

[Star-Lord]

There you go again, ridiculing the intelligence of someone just because they do not have the same opinion as you.

I'm getting the impression that you think I care.

The only thing I think feminism is necessary for is continuing social discrimination in terms of employment and wages, breaking the "glass ceiling", where women can't climb to the top of a business or political ladder simply because they are female. It also sucks that you'll have difficulty keeping a job if you choose to have a kid, from a financial perspective it makes sense to hire a male applicant with less "baggage" but females need to be compensated for the inequality that they have children, not discriminated against for it.

A+ tho. Although I'd also make arguments that we have to work on feminism to include intersectionality including lesbian/transsexual women. Also that we should work on eliminating rape in our culture... body image when it comes to girls... abusive relationships... the list sort of goes on.

Apart from what i've mentioned females have so much power in Western societies, being equal or greater than men, at least in my view.

Which is why women get harassed in the street, are constantly vilified for what they wear and are sexually assaulted a lot?

In heterosexual relationships females are definitely the masters of who they choose to engage with.

The inclusion of heterosexual in this phrase is completely inane. The way it comes across (I'm sure you didn't intend it to - but that's how it comes across so deal lol) is that somehow women in homosexual relationships are somehow not "the masters of who they choose to engage with" when the concept of feminism should include ALL women so I don't understand why you needed to add that at all.

I find anyone with a radical agenda abhorrent, whether that be a feminist, LGBT advocate, extreme right wing Republican, Communist etc. No matter how "good" your cause may be you're being an annoying dick. I'll support equality, but not any 'ism' that only serves the purpose of one group.

What's the problem with the concept of an "ism" only serving one group when they're the only group that needs help?

As for men being taught "not to rape", well, rape is a crime and not acceptable. Legality is all that I need to follow.

It's not so much a legality... since like you said it's obviously against the law but rather the fact that people aren't properly educated on consent laws. It's still happening, and that's a problem that we should try and work behind, not go "It's not acceptable that's all lol".

I'm sorry, I don't think any kind of "ism" is necessary in any part of the world. What I do think is important is equality for everyone. "Isms" of all types are exclusionary by nature which precludes the possibility of equality.

Isms... help oppressed groups...? They're trying to help people get equal to a society where they are not...? IT DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYONE well no ♥♥♥♥ it doesn't include everyone. If everyone was equal there would be no point for them in the first place.

 

[Dakotah]

Isms... help oppressed groups...? They're trying to help people get equal to a society where they are not...? IT DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYONE well no ♥♥♥♥ it doesn't include everyone. If everyone was equal there would be no point for them in the first place.

Anything that is exclusionary precludes the possibility that equality can be attained. These "isms" actually work against their own stated goals by being exclusionary.

And come on, do you really need to swear to get your point across? -_-

 

[Star-Lord]

Anything that is exclusionary precludes the possibility that equality can be attained. These "isms" actually work against their own stated goals by being exclusionary.p

How is a group working on a marginalized people that actually NEEDS help rather than focusing on everybody period a bad thing? Even with feminism the point was brought up in the thread earlier that feminism helps both men and women so I'm not sure if you just didn't read it or you're choosing to ignore it.

And come on, do you really need to swear to get your point across? -_-

Refer to signature.

 

[Dakotah]

How is a group working on a marginalized people that actually NEEDS help rather than focusing on everybody period a bad thing? Even with feminism the point was brought up in the thread earlier that feminism helps both men and women so I'm not sure if you just didn't read it or you're choosing to ignore it.

Let me answer your question by posing another: Is a group working to ensure equality of the sexes likely to me more successful than a group that works solely to focus exclusively on woman's rights? There is a distinct difference here that is very subtle, but easily seen.

Feminism, as a concept, is not, and never was, intended to promote equality of the sexes. Its primary stated goal was to promote the rights of women. Men were never included except to illustrate the many injustices done to women.

In my earlier post I said that 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. Radical feminism is one such example. It, demonstrably, does not simply seek to ensure equality of the sexes. It seeks to advance the status of women in society at the expense of men, and often to the detriment of men. In other words, it seeks to punish men for past transgressions and elevate women above men. Surely you can see how that does nothing to promote equality at all.

Refer to signature.

Yes, you don't care. So then, if you have so little concern about anything other than yourself, why do you even bother with subjects such as this? Because, as you so bluntly put it: you don't care.

 

[Keiran]

Anything that is exclusionary precludes the possibility that equality can be attained. These "isms" actually work against their own stated goals by being exclusionary.

And come on, do you really need to swear to get your point across? -_-

The end goal of Feminism is not to get everyone to love each other, it's to destroy power imbalances between all groups of people. If you feel excluded from Feminism and thus believe it's irrelevant take a moment and ask yourself: "why am I against equality? why is something not important if folks like me don't benefit from it?" Feminism doesn't actively seek to benefit people who already benefit from institutionalized racism, sexism, classism and homophobia - and it doesn't need to. Feminists aren't excluding anyone out of hatred - the people who feel excluded don't need feminism to be fully respected and treated as human.

But there are ways that even straight white males can benefit from feminism that I pointed out earlier in this thread (but I feel that it was ignored) - so whom exactly is being excluded?

Another thing I feel that is overlooked and not truly understood by a lot of people is about being told something is offensive. Offensive things aren't offensive mearly because they hurt feelings. They're offensive because they contribute to the societal harm of marginalized groups. This is a very important thing that a lot of people need to learn.

 

[Star-Lord]

Let me answer your question by posing another: Is a group working to ensure equality of the sexes likely to me more successful than a group that works solely to focus exclusively on woman's rights? There is a distinct difference here that is very subtle, but easily seen.

The problem with this line of thought is that it doesn't take into account that men are nowhere near as troubled as women as an issue, nor does it deal with the complexities that come with marginalized groups having to have deal with finding their voice over time. It turns into "Why would a group have to focus on men's rights?" Because men don't have problems that need to be worked on. (If you're a men's rights activist you don't even need to reply to me I'm not going to entertain you)

Feminism, as a concept, is not, and never was, intended to promote equality of the sexes. Its primary stated goal was to promote the rights of women. Men were never included except to illustrate the many injustices done to women.

You are ignoring posts that explain that gender roles are an intertwined issue which feminism wants to obstruct. You are ignoring the simple fact that because women were on a lesser view of men it is trying to support equality by raising them to to the same standard as men in a society. Equality can't be given to everybody with one broad stroke. Everybody has needs and considerations that need to be taken into account.

[words] Surely you can see how that does nothing to promote equality at all.

well duh but this is a very visible minority that everybody doesn't take seriously.

Yes, you don't care. So then, if you have so little concern about anything other than yourself, why do you even bother with subjects such as this? Because, as you so bluntly put it: you don't care.

oh honey

I care about the state of the world and feminism because I have women that I respect in my life and I would like to think that they can be seen on the same level on me. I think it's unfair the advantages that I have in life simply due to the fact I was born XY. I truly do have a love for liberal arts and looking at things like this in sociological and historical contexts. Don't get confused.

what I don't care about is when people like you or anybody else has a problem with my attitude on an online forum.

 

[Corrin]

Honestly, I couldn't read through some of the posts here without getting sick.

Feminism isn't just for women! Many men are assaulted by women too! Only to be told to "suck it up" or something along those lines. Men need feminism because the the typical image of "masculinity" is, in fact, harmful to men.

And honestly if your opinion is harmful it ceases to be "just an opinion".

 

[All Black]

I'll answer the third question because my answer will render the other ones moot to me by my way of an opinion.

Am I a feminist and do I agree with feminism?

I'm not a feminist and I don't agree with feminism. In creating a group that demands equality you have stripped your organization of its cause. I'm not saying that all feminists demand it, but it is the primary goal among actual feminists: equality.

I don't want to get into whether it is still relevant or not. I believe women will always be treated differently to men (and vice-versa) because we are somewhat different. By way of nature and evolution we are different. Men are generally physically stronger than women because throughout history the male's role among humans was to hunt for meat. Women show signs of better concentration because for generations they did more intricate tasks within homemaking. This isn't to say women can't be hunters or men can't home-make, but my point is relevant; there will always be a difference, not through environment but through general evolution.

My primary concern with the notion of feminists is that they have divided themselves for a cause. If you want true equality, it is like Morgan Freeman has said, "I'll stop calling you a white man and you stop calling me a black man." If people want to truly get along with one another as if they were one and the same then stop banding off and creating barriers between one another.

I think the movement was necessary, but I think feminists have created enough waves to now let the water settle. Feminists aren't needed in various parts of America, the UK, feminists should give feminism to where feminism is needed. Some parts of Turkey, Afghanistan, even some areas of France are very unfair and unjust. There are other causes about, in my opinion, far more dire than feminism. I think it was a worthy cause, but at the rate a lot of feminists are going (and should a lot have their way) it'll quickly become female supremacy as opposed to equality; overthrowing their initial cause.

 

[Dakotah]

The end goal of Feminism is not to get everyone to love each other, it's to destroy power imbalances between all groups of people.

More accurately, feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. It most certainly does not include "all groups of people."

But I can even demonstrate where feminism has in fact reversed the imbalances of power, not destroying it, resulting in the advancement of woman's rights to the detriment of men. And I can do it by saying two simple words: child custody.

 

[Star-Lord]

You do realize that if you ask most feminists (like actually talk to them) they will agree that child custody being so imbalanced is a bad thing, right? You know since they're trying to advocate the equality of both.

please get out of your bubble.

 

[Keiran]

More accurately, feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. It most certainly does not include "all groups of people."

But I can even demonstrate where feminism has in fact reversed the imbalances of power, not destroying it, resulting in the advancement of woman's rights to the detriment of men. And I can do it by saying two simple words: child custody.

Actually you have that backwards. Feminist goals have only brought positive change for men when it comes to child custody. Can you elaborate on where you think feminism harmed the rights of fathers?

I mean a baseball player that recently took a few days off after his wife gave birth is getting a lot of hate from men, while feminists are speaking up for him - saying stuff like fathers are just as important to children as the mother. Feminist bias towards mothers doesn't exist.

 

[Corrin]

More accurately, feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. It most certainly does not include "all groups of people."

But I can even demonstrate where feminism has in fact reversed the imbalances of power, not destroying it, resulting in the advancement of woman's rights to the detriment of men. And I can do it by saying two simple words: child custody.

Child Custody is another reason men need feminism and this goes with what Keiran has brought up. The idea that women should only raise the children goes against what feminists believe. I think you need to have discussion with more feminists. :/

 

[Star-Lord]

If you want to improve conditions for men you're an... idk, there's a word for it

it's called being a feminist since the movement is trying to make both parties neutral by abolishing gender roles.

 

[Dakotah]

Actually you have that backwards. Feminist goals have only brought positive change for men when it comes to child custody. Can you elaborate on where you think feminism harmed the rights of fathers?

I mean a baseball player that recently took a few days off after his wife gave birth is getting a lot of hate from men, while feminists are speaking up for him - saying stuff like fathers are just as important to children as the mother. Feminist bias towards mothers doesn't exist.

Please note that I used the dictionary definition of feminism in my response.

It's not the feminist movement per se but the consequences of the movement's actions over time that has caused the imbalances we are seeing today. We are seeing growing number custody battles in courts where women are favoured over men to have sole custody of children and where men are only allowed limited visitation rights even though these same courts have determined that the man and the woman both equally are capable of raising the children. For the most part, shared custody is only awarded when both parties are already in agreement. But this is not the majority of cases. It's the exception rather than the norm.

The feminists are recognizing this and are admittedly seeking to undo this harm, but the damage has already done. So entrenched are the courts in awarding sole custody to the woman (unless the woman is clearly unfit to be a parent) that it's going to take some very radical action to get things to become more equal.

This is the danger to which I was referring, where the advocacy of one group could be turned into a weapon to oppress the oppressors, even if that wasn't the intent.

 

[Meksal]

Are people saying men don't get raped? Because that is not true. In the united states, men get raped more than women. I didn't bother to view the statistics though.