To what extent is feminism relevant today?

[Her]

Take the question as you wish.

 

[Esper]

Girls are still being kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria. I'd say feminism is still needed.

 

[Midnight shadow]

I would personally say feminism is never relevant, because you are merely swapping one form of sexual inequality for another.

 

[Esper]

I would personally say feminism is never relevant, because you are merely swapping one form of sexual inequality for another.

I'm assuming you're referring to the extreme forms of feminism that want women-only societies and that sort of thing. But since that's not what the overwhelming majority of feminists believe of want the criticism isn't all that valid. Almost all want equality.

 

[Wovoka]

Feminism (if my brain recalls correctly) was made before women had any rights in America so that they could gain equal rights to men. Seeing that they have obtained there goal and that is never going to go away, i don't believe that feminism is that important (in America anyway, not really sure how it is in other countries).

 

[gimmepie]

I really dislike feminism, but I dislike the vast majority of movements that focus on one group over others. Feminists can claim whatever they want, but the bottom line is that the very definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

We're never going to really have real equality when everyone thinks that their inequality is worse or more important than everyone else's. You can't have equality when you focus solely on one group. All these different movements should be working together, instead of shouting over the top of each other. Keeping in mind, this isn't even the radical extremist sides I'm talking about.

 

[stzy]

Well I'm a guy and I definitely think things are, what would be considered "unfair" to women. For example, a woman can't express her feelings towards feminism relative to HER life without having facts about Nigeria shoved down her throat every other second. I find that somewhat ironic. Things are never going to be perfect for anybody. Ever. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to help, by any means. But you have to look after yourself first.

I don't know where I'm going with this so yeah short and sweet.

 

[KetsuekiR]

Feminism, at least the "true" form of it, is very relevant and important today. Women are being trated unfairly in certain parts of the world (as are men, sometimes, but that's for another time) and it's a real issue that feminism addresses.

Feminazism, blegh, not so much.

 

[Esper]

I really dislike feminism, but I dislike the vast majority of movements that focus on one group over others. Feminists can claim whatever they want, but the bottom line is that the very definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

We're never going to really have real equality when everyone thinks that their inequality is worse or more important than everyone else's. You can't have equality when you focus solely on one group. All these different movements should be working together, instead of shouting over the top of each other. Keeping in mind, this isn't even the radical extremist sides I'm talking about.

But feminism doesn't just focus on women. I know that's sounds contradictory given the name. It's just that lots of unequal things tend to fall harder on women's shoulders and feminists don't want that fact to be glossed over by using a label like "humanism" or whatever.

There have been several waves of feminism which each addressed what the women in those movements cared about in their particular time. (First wavers were mostly well-off white women who wanted votes, for instance.) Today, although you can't lump all people who are feminists under one label, the broadest definition that would be shared by most feminists is that they want equality and fairness and don't want people discriminated against for their sex, gender, race, or anything else.

 

[Fannie]

For the most part yes. I think it was pie that said both MRAs and feminists should work together under the banner of humanism and I do agree with that. The people that tend to have the loudest voices in either group rarely do their causes any justice so even if I wanted to raise awareness of feminist issues myself, I would not call myself a feminist because I doubt many people outside of Uni campuses and Tumblr would take me seriously.

 

[gimmepie]

But feminism doesn't just focus on women. I know that's sounds contradictory given the name. It's just that lots of unequal things tend to fall harder on women's shoulders and feminists don't want that fact to be glossed over by using a label like "humanism" or whatever.

There have been several waves of feminism which each addressed what the women in those movements cared about in their particular time. (First wavers were mostly well-off white women who wanted votes, for instance.) Today, although you can't lump all people who are feminists under one label, the broadest definition that would be shared by most feminists is that they want equality and fairness and don't want people discriminated against for their sex, gender, race, or anything else.

The fact that you think women's issues are more of a problem than the things other groups face pretty much proves my point. Aside from that though, I've known and met a lot of people (both men and women) who identify as feminists and exactly zero of them have supported anything that wasn't about improving the status of women.

Feminism isn't the path to equality. Back in the twenties or thirties (probably up until much more recently in fairness) it made sense because women were pretty much oppressed. It's not like that any more and women's rights issues deserve no more attention than anybody else's. You can claim "we want equality for everyone" as much as you want, but that is the mindset of individuals not the mindset of the movement.

 

[Satanael]

Feminism is definitely needed, although not here in America. Third and Fourth wave feminism is generally about making men the new oppressed group. However it's very necessary elsewhere.

I take to equality regardless of the name it goes by. I believe the only determining factor in what your life should be like depends on who you are as a person, what you've done, said, etc.

 

[Elysieum]

We're never going to really have real equality when everyone thinks that their inequality is worse or more important than everyone else's. You can't have equality when you focus solely on one group. All these different movements should be working together, instead of shouting over the top of each other. Keeping in mind, this isn't even the radical extremist sides I'm talking about.

It's worth remembering that feminism aims to benefit the largest minority of them all - women. That's half the human population. While it is only one group, it is amazingly vast.

I think feminism will always be necessary as long as patriarchy, wage inequality and the precarious position women in mainstream media must uphold, exist. The trouble is that many people like to enforce their own brand of feminism, since it is such an open-ended movement. They take matters into their own hands and overcompensate, even with violence.

 

[gimmepie]

It's worth remembering that feminism aims to benefit the largest minority of them all - women. That's half the human population. While it is only one group, it is amazingly vast.

If your group consists of half of the planet's population, then you're not a minority. That's like living in Kenya and claiming that black people are a minority.

I think feminism will always be necessary as long as patriarchy, wage inequality and the precarious position women in mainstream media must uphold, exist. The trouble is that many people like to enforce their own brand of feminism, since it is such an open-ended movement. They take matters into their own hands and overcompensate, even with violence.

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't issues women deal with, but I think that people vastly overstate the magnitude and severity of these issues (at least in the western world) compared to others.

There is no "Patriarchy" conspiracy where the big evil men are preventing women from having positions of power. There are no laws or large pressure groups standing in the way of women entering politics or obtaining a job higher in the corporate ladder. I won't say that there are no people at all who are biased against women, but implying that we live in some sort of patriarchy is ridiculous and has been for a long time.

Again, whilst there are certainly some individuals who would pay women unfairly, the majority of society follows the laws that prevent them from paying unequal wages for the same work, and quite frankly would still do so even if the law didn't require it. The reason women on average earn less than men is because more women typically choose to work in professions that make less money.

I get very annoyed about this focus on women in certain industries being "forced" into portraying certain roles because the exact same thing is happening to men in the same industries. The only difference is, nobody seems to care about men being pigeon holed by the entertainment industry the way they do about women.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

Good old feminism, the fight for equality that only advocates for women.

I live in a world where charities set up to help male rape victims can get shut down and nobody bats an eyelid, women almost always win child custody cases, women go to jail for less time than men even when the crime is the same, women are the victims of random acts of violence far less often than men, workplace deaths are almost all men, women are allowed to be friendly with children without being branded paedophiles, women are being given positions because of their vaginas and not necessary because they deserve it, rape culture is considered to be real. I really could go on. Feminism won.

Girls are still being kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria. I'd say feminism is still needed.

Modern feminism uses things like this to explain why feminism is still necessary but then they never actually do anything about it, then they post about #manspreading or #fartrape on the internet.

 

[Satanael]

Definite agree with those last 2 posts. Also, the wage gap myth was debunked a long time ago. I'd like to reiterate: feminism is needed; but not here. There are plenty of other countries in which women are definitely oppressed, but not here. As mentioned above, men are currently the "oppressed" minority in that their issues are flat-out ignored. That's why I'll always be Egalitarian. There's no radical movement for it, there's no bias to any one particular thing; it's about equality for all. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Elysieum]

If your group consists of half of the planet's population, then you're not a minority. That's like living in Kenya and claiming that black people are a minority.

I don't believe being part of a minority in this regard is about the exact number of constituents. Whether females make up exactly half of the human population, slightly more, slightly less, isn't terribly important.

What is important is the relationship that that group has to whatever other group (men, patriarchy, call it what you will) sits outside of it. That civilisation is framed to favour men, even today, is undeniable. The asymmetry is clear. If the variable is sex alone, women are the minority and men are the majority of this world. Certainly, great strides have been made to balance things relatively recently, but I don't think that true equality will be struck soon.

There is no "Patriarchy" conspiracy where the big evil men are preventing women from having positions of power. There are no laws or large pressure groups standing in the way of women entering politics or obtaining a job higher in the corporate ladder. I won't say that there are no people at all who are biased against women, but implying that we live in some sort of patriarchy is ridiculous and has been for a long time.

I never mentioned a conspiracy, but patriarchy certainly exists all around the world. You can be sure of that. It doesn't require big evil men in suits to do so. Patriarchy exists in the most basic way in English, even. A bride usually adopts the surname of her groom (a global practice). Her maiden name (which isn't hers at all really, but the inherited surname of her father) ceases.

Take the words female, woman, she, her. They all contain the masculine counterpart, while the words male, man, he, his, have no hint of the feminine counterpart. It is as if to say, men can exist without women, but women cannot exist without men.

Whether you consider it a ridiculous claim or not, men take precedence.

The reason women on average earn less than men is because more women typically choose to work in professions that make less money.

Unfortunately there is a point-blank difference between the earning power of women versus men in many industries. Same job, same hours, different salary. There was a figure around 2013 that men earn 18% more money than women in North America (and that disregards the case of show business, where the gap is more of a canyon).

That 18% difference was hypothesised to be due to the fact that men tend to negotiate for higher pay more than women do, but it is also true that women who do attempt to negotiate for more money are far more likely to be penalised for it than men.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Feminism is relevant for third-world countries, as Satanael pointed out, but in first-world countries like the U.S.? Not exactly. Third and fourth wave feminists are actually ruining the true meaning of feminism, as no matter what you do, they'll accuse you of being sexist towards them and ask the government to give them special treatment over men. Even true feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers are sick of third/fourth wave feminists and their nonsense.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't believe being part of a minority in this regard is about the exact number of constituents. Whether females make up exactly half of the human population, slightly more, slightly less, isn't terribly important.

A minority will always be about numbers. You can be oppressed or mistreated but that doesn't mean you're a minority. Calling women the "minority" helps paint a picture that isn't there.

What is important is the relationship that that group has to whatever other group (men, patriarchy, call it what you will) sits outside of it. That civilisation is framed to favour men, even today, is undeniable. The asymmetry is clear. If the variable is sex alone, women are the minority and men are the majority of this world. Certainly, great strides have been made to balance things relatively recently, but I don't think that true equality will be struck soon.

I can't say that you're wrong about equality not being something we'll reach any time soon. Especially if people continue to adopt a narrow-minded and outdated ideology that ignores the suffering of the rest of us. You say feminism is great because it aims to help half the planet, I say it's ridiculous because it ignores the other half.

I never mentioned a conspiracy, but patriarchy certainly exists all around the world. You can be sure of that. It doesn't require big evil men in suits to do so. Patriarchy exists in the most basic way in English, even. A bride usually adopts the surname of her groom (a global practice). Her maiden name (which isn't hers at all really, but the inherited surname of her father) ceases.

Take the words female, woman, she, her. They all contain the masculine counterpart, while the words male, man, he, his, have no hint of the feminine counterpart. It is as if to say, men can exist without women, but women cannot exist without men.

You do realise that the words you're describing are the feminine counterparts, right? But hey, let me humour this notion for a moment. You know why the English language and marriage practices reflect a patriarchal society? Because when it developed there was one. You are essentially suggesting that we completely redevelop a language that took thousands upon thousands of years to develop based on an imagined modern inequality which is possibly the most ridiculous pro-feminist argument I have ever heard. Even if we did choose to do something so outlandish it's not going to happen over night, it would take nearly as long as it took to develop the words we have.

As for marriage, nobody forces the woman to take the man's name now. She has the option to keep her maiden name. The groom has the option to take her name. If she wants a name that belongs to her and not her father she is able to change it to something completely different if she chooses. The woman has a choice. The name argument is irrelevant.

Whether you consider it a ridiculous claim or not, men take precedence.

You've just provided me with pretty much nothing except suggesting that language oddly enough reflects the ideology of the era in which it came into being. None of that suggests unfairness to women at all. You have something more substantial below, so I'll get onto that in a bit.

Unfortunately there is a point-blank difference between the earning power of women versus men in many industries. Same job, same hours, different salary. There was a figure around 2013 that men earn 18% more money than women in North America (and that disregards the case of show business, where the gap is more of a canyon).

That 18% difference was hypothesised to be due to the fact that men tend to negotiate for higher pay more than women do, but it is also true that women who do attempt to negotiate for more money are far more likely to be penalised for it than men.

I don't know about the US or UK or wherever you live, but I know that discrimination like that here is illegal and that anyone who gets proven in court to have broken the law is going to be severely punished for those actions.

 

[Elysieum]

A minority will always be about numbers. You can be oppressed or mistreated but that doesn't mean you're a minority. Calling women the "minority" helps paint a picture that isn't there.

Then minority is too dubious a word to use here. I think you do understand what I mean to say, though. There is an unbalance of power between sexes regardless of numbers.

You say feminism is great because it aims to help half the planet, I say it's ridiculous because it ignores the other half.

Nowhere did I say feminism is great. I outlined the ease with which it is misused earlier. I believe it is vital to give women the power (especially young ones) that has been systematically withheld from them for centuries, sure. Feminism aims to do that, at least. I cannot speak for how that is performed in individual cases. There hasn't been a cleaner, better solution to that problem as yet.

You do realise that the words you're describing are the feminine counterparts, right?

Yes? And? My point is those masculine words are unique, uncontaminated. The feminine ones are not. They contain the masculine forms at all times.

You are essentially suggesting that we completely redevelop a language that took thousands upon thousands of years to develop based on an imagined modern inequality which is possibly the most ridiculous pro-feminist argument I have ever heard. Even if we did choose to do something so outlandish it's not going to happen over night, it would take nearly as long as it took to develop the words we have.

I am suggesting nothing. I offer no solution. I am just pointing out how deeply patriarchy runs. The history of it is so expansive, as you say, that trying to overturn it at this point would be quite ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as denying its presence.

As for marriage, nobody forces the woman to take the man's name now. She has the option to keep her maiden name. The groom has the option to take her name. If she wants a name that belongs to her and not her father she is able to change it to something completely different if she chooses. The woman has a choice. The name argument is irrelevant.

Of course in the enlightened world, the woman isn't forced to take the name. Many people have hyphenated names. I know that. I also know that in certain parts of the world, the woman has no choice in the matter to this day. And I only mean to highlight that it was until very recently the norm. It is not an argument for you to dismiss as irrelevant, but a fact of our history at large.