Feminism annoys me

You and I share opinions on feminism. However, the main arguments you'll see soon enough are that A) that's not "real" feminism, just sexism and B) females deserve a greater focus because their gender roles are more hindering than males' and face more unfair instances of inequality than males.

 

While I agree with most of your points I also don't believe that is real feminism (there
s A for you plasticcrows) as any real type of feminism actually has to be about equality.

 

I think some "feminist" are sexist towards men. I believe in rights for men and women. I am more passionate about female rights because women are still treated different in a lot of jobs. But I get just as angry when men are misrepresented in media as stupid idiots. I hate all the male stereotypes. Not all men are pigs and not all girls are manipulative bitches. Sure a lot are but not all..

 

My opinion is that your understanding of the term feminism is outdated. You should look into modern feminism (or variously called third-wave feminism) which focuses on intersectionality, and how human rights issues include issues faced not only by women, but men, trans* people, the poor, people of color, anyone who is not straight or fully able-bodied.

Frankly, I couldn't give any less of a shit about the misandry of some feminists. It is out there, and I can name the subgroup: it's lesbian separatism. Nevertheless, it's pretty much adhered to only by a handful of people. Its immediate superset is radical feminism, which is actually male-affirmative depending on who you're looking at. In my time, I've read bell hooks (yes, lower case), and her writings have always been male-affirmative as far as I'm aware. (See "Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics." I haven't read any radical feminists who are problematic in the ways described except for the lesbian separatists. If you want to argue that "feminism is inherently misandric," or "most feminists are misandric," or "feminism is going too far," then I basically don't even want to talk to you about it until you educate yourself, because I don't have the energy for that right now.

A quick perusal of the blog Feministing (and the fact that I follow it daily) shows me that modern feminism is not focusing on women to the exclusion of everyone else.

Furthermore, I believe that it's important for queer folks to pay attention to feminism, as that movement has been an ally of the LGBT movement. It is also strongly my opinion that homophobia is directly caused by sexism, which feminism is also fighting.

Also, MRAs are stupid. Just throwing that out there in case anyone wanted to say anything about it.

 

Just today I was talking about feminism in class. I feel that your opinion makes a good deal of sense, and that focusing more on women won't create gender equality. I, myself, am a feminist, but I don't like feminists who say that women are better than men. No gender is better than the other! We are all equal, thus should be treated accordingly.

 

I agree to some extent with what you've said. While feminism does work to seek equality, in some cases I just don't think equality is possible because generalisations are always made. in part of your argument you said that domestic violence against men is not taken seriously. IMO the reason for this is because women are still and probably always will be seen as inferior to men in terms of physical strength. Its the same with child custody, I imagine the bias is based on the traditional gender roles. Its becoming more common these days to see stay at home dads with working moms but until that becomes the norm, there will always be that discrimination against men.

 

Yeah, I agree with you. Feminism is smothering the fact that guys have rights too. When there's a custody battle, sexual harassment, or a domestic violence case, the law is almost always on the women's side. A lot of people don't think men can get raped by women as well since society deem men as sex-hungry creatures. However, things will change. People will realize men's rights too. It's realized in my school, other places may follow. But don't get me wrong, I support women's rights too, but I'm not all crazy about it.

 

my point exactly.
thank you.

---------- Post added 13th Mar 2013 at 11:04 AM ----------

Which is why I am an egalitarian.

 

That's exactly what contemporary feminism is. Your account of feminism sounds like you've gotten your info about feminism from those who seek to undermine the movement, rather than from actual acting feminists. Contemporary feminism does seek to recognize and solve the systematic disadvantages men have, because they're caused by the same thing that causes a lot of systematic disadvantages women have: patriarchy.

People, educate yourself about what feminism actually is before you say it ignores the injustices men face. Because it doesn't. And your saying it doesn't makes it harder for us to fix them.

 

Perhaps modern feminism wouldn't meet such disdain if it wasn't called "feminism." If it's true that modern feminism doesn't just focus on women's rights and expands into the rights of races, sexual orientations, etc why call it feminism?

 

That's not what feminism is, and opinions like this perpetuate the negative connotation tied to the word.

1) Women did not ask for, and do not need, protection. Women never asked for special treatment. Like you said, that's just how the gender roles developed over time, but that doesn't justify the inequality.

2) On the whole, men were and still are treated better than women. In general, men have more opportunities than women and are paid more for the same job. That IS the issue. Whether freedoms were "reduced," taken away, or never given doesn't matter; women still share less freedoms than men. Then on the rare chance that these issues are being voted on, the ultimate decision is made by a bunch of male politicians.

There are organizations dedicated to helping fathers gain rightful custody of their child(ren). We can spend all day measuring which gender has it worse, but there's no point. I just think it's ignorant of anyone, especially women, to shrug off a movement that has given us the rights we squander every day. If you turn on the news, I guarantee you'll hear a dozen stories about women in third world countries standing up against societies that see them as nothing more than sexual objects and tools of war.

If you take the time and do a little research, you'll find that gender roles change throughout history and vary greatly among cultures. If you went on a date a few decades ago, the man would normally pay because he is paid more. Now that men and women are closer to equality in the workplace, it is becoming less common to assume that the man should pay. That's what I've seen, anyway.

I'm a feminist that wants equal rights for everyone, including women. That's what feminism is.

 

If we called it anything else, e.g. egalitarianism, those who benefit from patriarchy would seek to make egalitarian just as shameful of a label as feminist is now. In due time, you'd have people saying, "I'm not egalitarian, I just think men and women should have the same rights, opportunities, and responsibilities."

Which is exactly how ludicrous it is when people say the same thing but replace "egalitarian" with "feminist". Because, in case you didn't know,

feminism is egalitarianism.

 

Why not call it something like "equalism?" The word "feminism" denotes females.

So? If feminism already has such a shameful label, what's the harm in changing the word? As I've said, the word "feminism" denotes females, which I think contributes to a lot of these 'misconceptions' about it. It's akin to the US wanting to prevent conspiracy theories while insisting on having masonic and jewish imagery on their symbols and currency. If it actually is egalitarianism, then why choose a word that, at first glance, implies a focus on females?

 

The root of most of these gender disparities, both those that hurt men and those that hurt women, is patriarchy, the institutionalized concentration of power in men. Patriarchy is why women have a harder time moving up in the work force, and patriarchy is why male survivors of domestic violence aren't taken seriously (the reasoning goes that they have power, so they can't possibly be victims). Keeping the "fem-" root in the name helps us stay mindful of the fact that patriarchy is what's hurting us all. Once that changes, I'd be all for a new name.

Plus, we'll do a lot more by educating people about the issues that feminism seeks to rectify (which will simultaneously make them understand what feminism is really about, and they won't be ashamed to call themselves feminists) than by changing the name to convince people to support the movement because of the surface gloss without educating themselves about what's really going on in the world.

 

I agree with you. I don't like feminism as it is represented today by some of the more politically vocal activists. I think it's completely lost the plot.

Straight from the dictionary:

Feminism: a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Egalitarianism: Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

So yeah. I'm an egalitarian. Not a feminist.

 

Exactly. If modern feminism really is about equality for, then it shouldn't even be called feminism in the first place, because only the label on its own already permeates the fact that one gender is being favored over another. And it would also consider that, for example, that mean earn more than women in general because they work much more than them, and therefore get less time with their families and a self worth that is much more focused on how much he can bring to the table. Any wonders on why men die earlier than women, due to stress, or kill themselves much more (specially the younger ones now)? You can't get both things without sacrificing something in the process. The fact is, feminism is all in for equal rights, but not for equal duties.

 

1. No self-respective feminist is asking for equal rights without acknowledging the necessity of equal duties. I challenge you to point me to one feminist activist who's advocating for such things.

2. In this day and age, men and women are often both required (not expected, but required) to work full-time jobs to make enough money to make ends meet. However, women are still expected to raise the kids, so they have to work a full time job AND spend time looking after children. They're basically working two full-time jobs, but only being paid for one. So you're right that there are unequal duties in our society right now, and women are the ones taking on more of them.

 

Feminism is a broad spectrum of philosophical and political ideology. The important point to make is that the characterization you are applying to feminism can't possibly apply to all feminism.

Many modern feminists feel strongly that patriarchy oppresses men as well as women, just in different ways.

I will say though, that in my opinion, a lot of homophobia and transphobia is ultimately rooted in misogyny. As, in fact, are many of the injustices experienced by men.

For example, you mentioned that men are not supposed to show their emotions. If you examine why they aren't supposed to show their emotions, I think you will find that doing so is considered feminine or like a woman. And because of misogyny, being like a woman is bad. Therefore, for a man to do something that makes him more like a woman is bad.

Men, generally speaking, are punished far more severely than women for gender non-conforming behavior of any kind, because of misogyny. This includes being the primary caregiver of children, or being a survivor of domestic violence--a man is likely to be mocked in either case, precisely because he is doing something that is a woman's role. Being like a woman is bad and deserving of ridicule.

So, while both men and women are penalized by patriarchy, it is misogyny, the idea that women are not as good as men, that underlies all of the penalties. And that's why the political effort to address the problem necessarily focuses on promoting the idea that women are equal (and, by extension that femininity is equal to masculinity), and why it is referred to as feminism.


As an aside...
Where in recent history have you seen the women getting into the lifeboats ahead of men? To the best of my knowledge, modern rescue efforts do not rely on that principle.

Of course, in a real crisis, especially in a small community where there is concern that the society might actually be annihilated, there are simple biological reasons to do with reproduction why it's important for greater numbers of women to be saved--if you are trying to repopulate, wombs in which to grow babies become an important resource, while a single man can impregnate many women. So the number of babies that can be in gestation at any one time is constrained by the number of women there are, but not by the number of men there are. This is less relevant in a well-populated society, and I think modern public policy usually reflects that. Do you have an example of this as a policy currently?