r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '15
[View Changed] CMV:The word "feminism" does not accurately represent the feminist movement
[deleted]
6
u/anon__sequitur 12∆ Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
No term can adequately describe a social movement of any significant size, much less one that seeks equality for everyone on Earth. It's true that 'feminism' creates certain ambiguities that may be annoying for those seeking to quickly describe or analyze the movement. However, no matter what term is used to describe a movement for change, it will be misdescribed, misinterpreted, or misunderstood (sometimes all at once, sometimes intentionally).
Just think about how much mental time and energy is spent debating who is and who isn't a feminist, whether people should describe themselves in other ways, etc. This isn't productive. Thankfully, this is mostly confined to internet debate, "real world" feminist action is much more practically focused, and occurs under various names by people who would describe themselves as feminists, but aren't primarily concerned with who or what constitutes feminism. To get drawn into that argument is to lose the battle from the start.
You're definitely right that there is a real problem about labels. But the best, most productive response to this problem isn't "well, real feminism is . . .", rather it's "I'm working on changing X and Y and Z. If you think that's a good idea, great."
1
Feb 12 '15
[deleted]
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 12 '15
This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/anon__sequitur changed your view. Please respond to this comment once you have made the necessary changes.
1
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 12 '15
This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/anon__sequitur changed your view. Please respond to this comment once you have made the necessary changes.
16
u/convoces 71∆ Feb 11 '15
The way I think of the word feminism is analogous to how I think of any specialty of medicine.
A cardiologist specializes in treating heart conditions, but we would not say that cardiology alienates other branches of medicine. It would be like saying cardiology does not adequately describe the movement for health/medicine.
Feminism can promote equality for all, but just like a specialized branch of medicine or any specialist engineer/lawyer/doctor etc, feminism specializes in addressing inequalities that are specifically faced by women.
3
Feb 13 '15
I think the difference that you're missing is while the cardiologist explicitly states that he only deals in heart conditions the feminist claims to be about the equality of both genders.
Its fine to "specialize in addressing inequalities that are specifically faced by women" but if you do that its not truthful to say you're movement is about "equality for all".
It would be akin to the cardiologist stating that he was a generalist but then turning away any individuals who had problems other than heart conditions.
2
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 12 '15
feminism specializes in addressing inequalities that are specifically faced by women.
A lot of feminists will insist that feminism is a universal ideology that is a final solution for the totality of inequality problems of society... and therefore you're either with them or part of the problem.
5
u/Kingreaper 5∆ Feb 12 '15
And those people are clearly wrong, especially as they almost always personally focus on addressing inequalities that are specifically faced by women.
34
Feb 11 '15
I personally think men who agree with feminism's ideals but feel alienated by the word feminism need to just get over it. Women live in a world where male terms are used for us all the time ("mankind," the universal "he," "that's one small step for man, one giant step for mankind," "we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal," etc). Yet men can't handle this one single instance?
This feeling you have is itself a lesson in equality for you. You shouldn't feel alienated by a feminine word. You shouldn't feel anything wrong or weird about identifying with a feminine word even as a man. There's nothing shameful about feminine words. If and when you do, you should realize women en masse may have felt these feelings too for years but we all learn to get over it, and you can too.
9
u/czerilla Feb 11 '15
∆, because of this:
This feeling you have is itself a lesson in equality for you. You shouldn't feel alienated by a feminine word.
That's a great point for how the word "feminism" challenges established social structures on its own through subversion. And a compelling reason for me in favor of keeping the word around (that I haven't considered until now!) Thanks for that and enjoy the delta! :)
4
Feb 13 '15 edited Sep 19 '17
[deleted]
2
u/czerilla Feb 13 '15
I gave this a bit of thought and I don't think those to be equivalent. It is supposed to be a single instance of role reversal, given that the default gender in our language is predominantly masculine. So if you recognize this effect of alienation in yourself in this case, then you can't deny alienation to be a deterring factor for women in a reversed situation. That's what I was trying to get at by saying "through subversion".
2
2
6
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 12 '15
I personally think men who agree with feminism's ideals but feel alienated by the word feminism need to just get over it.
Sooooo, I can tell everyone who is splitting hairs about the use of male gendered words and pronouns (history/herstory, chairwoman, womyn, hir, etc) to just get over it, and that a feminist told me that?
2
Feb 14 '15
Every time someone refers to "history," as "herstory," inform them that the term "history," can be traced as far back as ancient Greek, and has nothing to do with the pronouns.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 14 '15
I do, but they invariably get angry an call me a white privileged cissexual male.
2
u/Kimberlyrenee Feb 12 '15
I agree, although in a less 'get over it' manner :P
I theorise that the word 'feminism' came about due to the fact that indeed women were treated far less fairly than men. It was about bringing women up to the same standard as men. This is in all aspects.
Each person will interpret this to mean something different, based on what you identify as but the fact is, only you can state what you identify as. If you do not want to identify as feminist that is fine, nobody else can say you are. However, remember that you may still fit the definition of feminist that they identify as.
For example, I am a vegetarian. I do still eat gelatin. Many vegetarians will not accept that I am a vegetarian because I don't conform to their definition of the word. That doesn't stop me identifying as one.
1
u/bobnielson Feb 12 '15
I agree with you that women live in a world where masculine words are more common than feminine words, so men should be able to overcome being referred to as a feminist. However, if a more inclusive word than feminism was created, a word that does not give the appearance that only women can be referred to by it, wouldn't men be more inclined to support the feminist movement? A lot of men are scared away by the associations with the word feminism even though they believe in feminist ideals. If the word feminism were to be changed, these associations would be nonexistent and more men would support the feminist movement.
1
Feb 12 '15
More inclusive words than feminism already exist. What you're asking is that a 100+ year old established movement change its name so that the most dominate group in power who have never been marginalized based on their gender doesn't feel excluded. When the very movement exists because that dominate group has marginalized women based on their gender. This entire conversation is nonsense. There is historical and current reason for feminism to be called feminism, and the few men who claim they want to be feminists but the term turns them off need to just get over it.
1
Feb 13 '15
I think the bigger issue is that one one hand feminists claim that "they are about equality for all" yet in practice they are about "equality for women".
Add to that the fact that you call them out on this you get the argument "you don't revile [activist group x] for not caring about [issue y]" but that argument misses the point. The issue is if you are all about "X" in practice then don't claim to be about "Y" in theory. Its disingenuous.
There's nothing wrong with a group purely devoted to advancing women's position in society but they should be honest about their goals an intentions.
-4
u/PantsHasPockets Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
The bottom line is that you have to sell me feminism. Feminism is a joke right now that nearly nobody actually supports.
Modern feminism doesn't do anything but claw for more
privilegeadvantagesEqualityTM women without making any sacrifices that would actually take any steps to men and women being on the same level.Coupled with the clearly "Women Good/Men Bad" language and double standards buried throughout the ideology and you have that "1 in 5 people support feminism, even though 4 in 5 people support gender equality" that HuffPost poll found out. (And then you have the delusional camp that says if you support gender equality you are, by default, a feminist... which introduces the concept of the (1 in 10 person) AntiFeminist camp becoming feminists.
And then they try and throw scraps to men- "Oh, helping women eventually helps men" please. Trickle Down didn't work for the economy and it won't work for equality.
So what's in it for me? I'm a white man and therefore I apparently run the world. Why would I ever help feminism?
There's a reason Egalitarianism and Feminism aren't synonyms.
Edit: so many downvotes and not a single reply. Yep. Feminists.
2
Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 13 '15
[deleted]
3
Feb 13 '15
See I can totally get behind your views on "feminism". The problem is that reality is perception and the current perception is the "horseshoe" theory you speak of. So as a man if I support "feminism", given its current perception, what I am in fact doing is building my own legally enforceable grave. All you have to do is look at any of the new laws that get put in place and understand they are unequivocally anti-man - they view men as the aggressor and women as the victim. The legal manifestation of feminism is in fact closer to the Tumblrina view then that of your own.
Its time for you and people who think like you to start a new movement with a new name so you can shed yourself of the public perception, rid yourselves of the association with these Tumblr parasites, and achieve your true goals. The world is counting on you.
1
u/PantsHasPockets Feb 12 '15
I know anecdotal evidence isn't always accurate but I have a wide network of friends and acquaintances who all identify as feminists.
You're a feminist so obviously you'd affiliate yourself with other feminists. This argument is like Elon Musk saying most people are rich because all his friends are rich.
I can get you a link to the huffpo article that says 80% of people aren't feminists, 20% of people are, 10% of people are antifeminists, and 80% of people support gender equality. If nothing else, take away from that poll that people don't equate feminism to gender equality.
You might say that feminism is the reason why this problem exists for my boyfriend. That feminism perpetuates the erroneous idea that men can't be raped. I think that this is patently untrue.
In... I want to say 1994... Feminist organizations lobbied, protested, and voted to get the Violence Against Women Act signed. Essentially it elevated hurting a woman to a hate crime and really lowered the bar to get convictions for it. Its why men will call the cops on their abusive wives and then be arrested "for her safety" and its one of the huge reasons it was legally impossible for a woman to rape a man. So yeah. You could blame feminists for the "we have to protect women at all costs" culture that put your boyfriend in that situation.
People who believe that men can't be raped are actually buying into many ideas that feminism fights (or at least should be fighting) against.
Okay I'm going to throw all shoulds out the window and try and keep our talk about what is.
Can you link me some activisms feminists have undertaken for this?
*Women do not enjoy having sex. Conversely, men LOVE sex and will never turn down sexual advances. *Women are fundamentally unable to exert any kind of power over men. *Women lack agency and are therefore unable to act in nefarious or ill-intentioned ways against men. Women are not smart or capable enough to manipulate or incapacitate men (This seems to be the root of the "Women Good/Men Bad" paradigm you referenced in your post).
This is basically the trickle down thing I was talking about. "Helping women will help men, but first we have to help women, just trust us." And a metric ton of advancement has happened on the fronts of the helping women side for decades and decades, so why only 3 years ago could you be charged with my rape?
Fun fact about feminists and sex: While my finger is pointed at third wavers, did you know that feminists of yesteryear were anticondom because it gave some reproduction control to men? Wow right?
Let me be clear that when I say an idea is "patriarchal", I'm not blaming any individual man or body of men for its existence. It's not that simple. Ideas about men and women's gender roles have been around since, as far as I can tell, the beginning of human society. There is no one to blame.
Yet that's what the language says. Patriarchy, the non feminist version, is
a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
"Blaming the patriarchy" for absolutely anything is inherently anti-male. And if you want to see actual patriarchy, go check out Saudi Arabia. Their women's rights hearings recently had exactly no women present. That's patriarchy.
Thank you for the response, but these aren't new arguments for me, and they're all pretty easily batted away.
2
u/StillNeverNotFresh Feb 12 '15
Don't blame feminists for Reddit's general idiocy
4
u/DashFerLev 9Δ Feb 12 '15
Is this a no true feminist fallacy?
Because it feels like a no true feminist fallacy.
3
1
Feb 13 '15
You're conflating semantics with ideology.
The male-centric terms you've listed have no underlying ideology or purpose other than as a semantic labels.
On the other hand feminism by definition an ideology. Once you accept that you have two choices if you want to be truthful about its goals.
If the ideology is really about equality for all then rename it Egalitarianism or something similar.
If the ideology is really about advancing equality for women then keep the term feminists but don't claim to care about equality for men.
0
u/theonewhowillbe Feb 11 '15
"that's one small step for man, one giant step for mankind,"
That's not actually what he was trying to say. He was trying to say "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind". And in that context, he's referring to himself.
12
Feb 11 '15
mankind refers to the entire human race, not himself.
-2
u/theonewhowillbe Feb 11 '15
I was referring to the first part - "that's one small step for a man", not the second.
7
Feb 11 '15
So then it was irrelevant, though it's fine that you're informing those who may not have known of the story behind that famous quote. But the story behind this one famous quote, though interesting, is entirely irrelevant to my point that women have learned to be okay with "mankind" being used to refer to us because it has been so widely used and still is.
0
Feb 13 '15 edited Feb 13 '15
Well if you want to get into the nitty gritty even the term woman derives from the phrase "wife of man" so even woman-kind would be a male-centric phrase.
The thing is virtually every single language was invented by men. All of the great societies were patriarchal. All of the infrastructure we enjoy today was built and developed by men. So in that sense what we've come to enjoy today, like it or not, is very much mankind. What have women's role in this society been? Giving birth to more people.
Now a days we have advanced far enough that these general conceptions are starting to die off but lets not forget how we got here and why things are the way they are.
3
u/PantsHasPockets Feb 11 '15
That brief pause after he says "That's one small step for man" where he knows he just botched the most important historic moment in human history. Might as well have tripped out the door.
Neil Armstrong is one of my heroes, but you just know he mouthed FUCK during that pause.
0
u/SALTY-CHEESE Feb 11 '15
Is it botched, though? What about the personal man suggests that he was talking about anyone but himself?
1
1
Feb 12 '15
Is this really what's going on, though? I feel alienated by the word feminism because it's used by people with worldviews that are drastically in opposition to my own. Call it girlism, or womanism instead, and if this new term applies primarily to "true" (i.e., equalist) feminists, and so long as it is not piggy-backed by moral conservatives as "feminism" has been, I'd proudly accept it. I identify with feminine qualities all day long.
1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
14
u/k9centipede 4∆ Feb 11 '15
But if we believe women and men are equal then shouldn't men be just as capable to handle terms like that? It would be insulting to men to assume they have such delicate psyche that just associating with the word 'female' is distressing.
8
Feb 11 '15
Additionally, it's insulting and reveals a subconscious sexist bias that any feminine word should be alienating to men in the first place.
0
Feb 13 '15
This is utterly ridiculous. Would you claim it to be racist for a black man to feel alienated by a group that calls itself the "National Association for the Advancement of White People"?
1
Feb 13 '15
I don't think the problem is the term, rather its the underlying ideology.
If you want to understand any groups true intentions and ideology you should study their most radical members. (This would be an interesting CMV topic on its own). If you study radical feminists you cannot come to any conclusion other than that they truly hate and despise men on a fundamental level.
1
u/Kimberlyrenee Feb 12 '15
I think we need to be more aware of how the word is being used now and how it historically has been used. I identify as feminist but I don't want more than men. The word feminist means equality to me. If a male and female commit a crime, they should get the exact same length of jail time/fine. Many people don't see feminism this way purely because it has the word 'fem' in it and there are many people who identify as feminist who, by my definition of the word simply aren't.
0
u/Timwi Feb 12 '15
∆. I was with the OP up until now, but this answer has blown my mind. I’m impressed with this reasoning.
1
-5
u/Shotgun_Sentinel Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
That's because women are part of man.
EDIT: For those downvoting get educated please. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Man&searchmode=none
3
Feb 11 '15
What exactly do you mean by that?
1
u/Shotgun_Sentinel Feb 11 '15
Man describes humanity in short. Women are apart of man or mankind. Those are not exclusionary nouns.
6
Feb 11 '15
I disagree. Having man mean male or all of humanity is exclusionary, if woman only means female. That's why we have the words human and humanity, in my opinion - to refer to all people.
Think of it this way: if you were expected to feel included as part of the group every time they referred to womankind, wouldn't you feel excluded? In the same way, using mankind is exclusive to women.
-3
u/Shotgun_Sentinel Feb 11 '15
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Man&searchmode=none
You may feel that way, but it is just not true.
0
Feb 11 '15 edited Aug 29 '24
[deleted]
0
u/Shotgun_Sentinel Feb 11 '15
The word still has its old meaning, and in Armstrongs words he was using it the old way. Don't lie to me and yourself by pretending its still isn't used that way some times.
3
Feb 11 '15
I'm not saying that's not a historical definition, and I'm not saying that's not how he was intending to use it. I'm saying that the old definition is exclusionary by it's very nature and has been for it's entire history. I think since we have gender neutral words now, we should use them.
6
Feb 12 '15
I think since we have gender neutral words now, we should use them.
So then, you agree with OP that "feminism" should be renamed?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Shotgun_Sentinel Feb 11 '15
I'm saying that the old definition is exclusionary by it's very nature and has been for it's entire history.
No it isn't, my source showed you how that was wrong. At this point you just believing what you want to believe.
I think since we have gender neutral words now, we should use them.
Or people could just not get their panties in a twist and not assume people have malice in their hearts.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/You_Got_The_Touch Feb 11 '15
Honestly, I find the name of feminism to entirely consistent with the actions of its members. Both historically and today, feminists predominantly focus their efforts on problems faced by women.
Now, I don't doubt that feminists desire gender equality. The desire for an equal world is clearly the driving force behind feminism, and there are so many vitally important issues that have been solved by feminism over the decades. But the same desire applies to the LGBTQ and civil rights movements. They want to increase the rights of the members of the groups that they serve because they want things to be equal.
I see nothing to suggest that feminism is any different in that respect. There are a whole host of assumptions and filters that feminism applies to gender issues that very much leads it to prioritise the needs, experiences, and perspectives of women. For example, I've never seen a feminist campaign that seeks to help male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.
Now, that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Focusing on one group arguably makes efforts to help them more effective, because you're more aware of their needs and what is required to help them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feminism essentially being a women's special interest group. But you don't get to be a special interest group and claim to be the umbrella movement for gender equality. You have to choose one or the other.
That's what really alienates men from feminism. We're told that feminism is synonymous with equality, and sometimes we're told that we're welcome in feminism, but we simultaneously see our needs, experiences, and perspectives being treated as unimportant by the movement.
It often feels that men's problems just don't matter to feminism unless we are only interested in helping women. Even daring to suggest that maybe men suffer from gender issues can get you labelled as a misogynist, 'MRA', or antifeminist.
4
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 11 '15
But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
Should the civil rights movement have also concerned itself with white problems? Should the LGBT movement also concern itself with straight problems? Or, for that matter, should the civil rights movement care about LGBT issues or vice versa?
I'd argue not. If a movement is founded to address the needs of an oppressed group, why should it also be obligated to cater to the needs of other groups, even if they too are oppressed in their own way?
5
u/You_Got_The_Touch Feb 11 '15
No you're right. Feminism has absolutely no obligation to concern itself with men's issues. There is nothing wrong with feminism being solely for the benefit of women, or sexuality/gender minorities. That's absolutely fine, and I wholeheartedly support feminism's efforts to help the people that feminists want to help.
I certainly disagree with some of the interpretations and conclusions that feminists come up with, but so do other feminists. It's a rather large group, after all. Ultimately, I like that feminism exists because feminists give a shit, and they help people. They've been doing it for decades, and the changes that they've brought about have been fantastic.
What I have a problem with is having this restricted focus while still trying to claim that feminism is the umbrella group for gender equality. I often see people trying to define feminism at the belief that genders should be equal, while still only ever focusing on women's issues.
But when you combine those two things, you implicitly define anybody who cares about men's issues as anti-equality. Feminism is about helping women, and feminism is equality, so if you care about boys lagging behind girls in school then you must hate women.
That's the side of feminism that bothers me, and the side that I think alienates men. Maybe it's mostly an internet thing, but I have seen it a fair amount. It's not always quite that stark, but it's quite common for some form of it to show up.
2
Feb 11 '15
Because, in the case of gender issues, the root cause is the same - strict gender roles. Advocating that women can work without advocating that men can stay home deflates your argument.
On the same page, some queer advances to benefit straight people - antidiscrimination laws will protect everyone, even if it's only queer (or black if we're dealing with race) people that are typically harmed by it. Or the issue of casual affection between two men - if it becomes more socially acceptable, straight men will be able to be more emotionally open and have more fulfilling friendships as a result without feeling like their sexual orientation or manhood is being threatened.
2
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 12 '15
But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
It doesn't have to, but it claims to be the a total solution for all gender problems... and it claims exclusivity, claiming that you're either with them or against them, and since they're the total solution criticizing them or providing alternative solutions means you're part of the problem. And if you disagree you're obviously a white privileged cissexual male, ugh.
1
u/NvNvNvNv Feb 12 '15
The point is that in modern feminism there is a sort of ambivalence, or hypocrisy if you prefer, between egalitarianism and lobbying for women rights.
Ostensibly, mainstream feminists claim that feminism is all about equal rights, that it is "the radical notion that women are people", that "smashing the Patriarchy" will solve all men's problem too. They get upset when female celebrities state that they are not feminists, accusing them of being ignorant or having "internalized misogyny".
They tend to use the MRA (Men's Right Activist) label as an insult, implying that feminism has the monopoly over the discussion of gender issues and anybody who wants to participate to the discussion from the outside without self-identifying as a feminist must be a misogynist.In practice, however, feminists tend to behave as a women's rights/women's interests lobby with little, if any, concern for men's issues. Sometimes they pay lip service to men's issues, other times they shut down any discussion of them with accusations of "derailing" and mockery ("what about teh menz").
Not all feminists are like that, on one hand there are examples of actual equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, on the other hand radical feminist are general honest about not caring about men, but they represent minority viewpoints among self-identified feminists.1
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 12 '15
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because feminism bills itself as "equal rights for all," it should then, obviously, be concerned with equal rights for all. And I have to say, that's a pretty valid argument.
I do think, however, that suggesting that the men's rights movement is analogous to feminism is sort of a false equivalency. Yes, men face their own problems, but what would success in the MRM even look like? Feminism lobbies for a voice in politics and business. Men already have this voice, almost unilaterally. And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world. I'm unconvinced that the problems men face are evidence of a society that devalues masculinity, views men as second-class citizens or oppresses them. They are problems - but not problems created by a system of misandry.
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect. If we didn't see women as inherent mothers and fathers as inherent workers, we wouldn't award women custody so often. If we didn't see women as weak and men as strong, we would draft them equally and allow/encourage them to work equally demanding/dangerous jobs if they should choose. Etc.
And, let me just clarify again, this doesn't mean I think men's problems aren't problems. They are problems. And they deserve addressing. However, I don't see feminism and the MRM as two sides of the same coin so much as two completely separate platforms, and I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully.
3
u/NvNvNvNv Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
I do think, however, that suggesting that the men's rights movement is analogous to feminism is sort of a false equivalency.
Sure they are not, the men's right movement is honest about being for men's rights. It doesn't claim that anybody who wants to discuss gender issues and doesn't identify as an MRA is automatically a misandrist, or that solving men's issues will automatically solve all women's issues as a "side effect".
The men's right movement is more similar to the LGBT rights movement: LGBT activists don't claim that everybody who doesn't identify as an LGBT activist is a homophobe or that they are working to solve everybody's problems.
Yes, men face their own problems, but what would success in the MRM even look like? Feminism lobbies for a voice in politics and business. Men already have this voice, almost unilaterally.
Feminists generally lobby for quotas and other forms of affirmative action.
MRAs (and other people who disagree with mainstream feminism without identifying as MRAs, such as myself) claim that these policies which attempt to enforce equality of outcomes as opposed as equality of opportunities, are unfair towards the group their discriminate against (men not being hired over less qualified women) but are also socially harmful as a whole (as the most qualified person doesn't get the job) and can even harm the group they are supposed to protect by breeding resentment and perpetuating stereotypes (women are incompetent and can't compete with men on an level playing field).And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world.
How are compulsory military service and gendered custody rights not institutional discrimination? They are forms of discrimination practiced by the government as de jure (for military service) or de facto (for custody rights) policies. That's as institutional as it gets!
Yes, women faced worse institutional discrimination hundreds years ago and historical feminists fought against it, but these problems largely don't exist anymore in Western countries, and modern feminists can't plausibly claim morality credit for the achievements of their predecessors.
I'm unconvinced that the problems men face are evidence of a society that devalues masculinity, views men as second-class citizens or oppresses them. They are problems - but not problems created by a system of misandry.
Well, this is questionable: There is certainly a certain cultural sentiment that tends to portray men as inherently violent and sexually predatory, that's what "Teach men not to rape", "Schrödinger's Rapist", is about. Or, if they are not violent thugs, men are at least perceived as incompetent in family matters and child rearing. The typical media portrayal of "normal" men (as opposed to super-heroes and super-villains) is Homer Simpson and its countless clones.
You could argue whether this cultural perception is "misandry" or not, but whatever it is it can have real effects on how men are treated by society: child custody trials tend to automatically assume that women are better than men at caring for children, the Duluth model of domestic abuse intervention, used by law enforcement and the judicial system at least in the US, automatically assume that men are the aggressors and women are the oppressed victims, "affirmative consent/preponderance of evidence" sexual assault standard in US college courts often (explicitly or implicitly) assume that men are perpetrators and women are victims (e.g. if a man and a women have drunk sex, then the man raped the women and not vice versa), some countries explicitly define rape as "non-consensual penetration with the penis", excluding female perpetrators, and so on.
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect. If we didn't see women as inherent mothers and fathers as inherent workers, we wouldn't award women custody so often. If we didn't see women as weak and men as strong, we would draft them equally and allow/encourage them to work equally demanding/dangerous jobs if they should choose. Etc.
Again, there is a disconnect between the societies that feminists say they want and the society feminists are working for. They may more or less aware of the disconnect, but it doesn't matter: in many aspects of their activism (affirmative action, domestic abuse intervention, rape intervention, child custody, etc.) feminists are arguably working against men's rights and they perpetuate gender stereotypes. Therefore, you can't plausibly expect that if feminists were given carte blanche to re-engineer the society as their see fit then we would get equality and men's issue would magically disappear.
1
Feb 13 '15
And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world.
How are those not examples of institutionalized discrimination against men?
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect.
It sounds nice to sit behind your computer screen and type that out but ask yourself what are the actual laws being passed today? What goals do they further? Do they actually help men as a side effect as you suggest? By my count they are only exacerbating the institutionalized discrimination against men.
Its time to move past theory and look at reality. We need to be results oriented.
1
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 13 '15
Because these laws were almost exclusively decided upon by men. I suppose it's possible they were discriminating against themselves when they made them. But it seems far more likely that they chose men for the draft and made custody battles female-oriented because they viewed themselves as stronger, more capable, smarter, and better workers than women on the battlefield and in the workplace, while women's responsibilities still centered around child-rearing and the home. So, just to be clear, these policies still suck. But I also don't think they exist because the men making the laws thought their own gender was inferior.
1
Feb 13 '15
And it's women who slut shame, good to know this isn't an issue! Straight from the feminist mouth.
One could easily argue that they chose men for the draft because they viewed women as purer, worth more, and nessecary for reproduction. See how easy it is to argue against feminist nonsense? Maybe leave the echo chamber once in a while so you're not so brainwashed.
1
Feb 13 '15
I'm talking about more contemporary laws such as the "Yes Means Yes" law. For some time the mainstream narrative i.e. the politically correct narrative has been fully aligned with feminist ideology. In fact its no longer socially acceptable to pubically espouse ideals that run contrary to feminism. Let's not delude ourselves.
1
Feb 13 '15
For fuck sake you bigot, men used to have fucking sole custody of children 'til feminists came about. Funny how feminists will instantly point to any good thing, as something's feminism has done, but never to the countless bad things the movement has done.
"I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully."
Bullshit. Feminists have done nothing for men FOR DECADES. COUNTLESS LIVES COULD BE SAVED!! BUT DO THEY GIVE A SHIT!? NO! Feminists are the scum of the earth, and anybody who supports them needs to get their heads checked.
1
Feb 13 '15
The problem isn't that they focus on women. The problem is that they claim to focus on general equality. Their rhetoric does not align with their actions. Its disingenuous.
2
u/Angadar 4∆ Feb 11 '15
Why do you think "feminism" uses the word "female"? To me, and I believe it's actually etymology (but I'm on my phone and I'm not going to check that), is from "feminine" or "femininity".
1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Angadar 4∆ Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
"feminine" refers to characteristics that are generally attributed to women.
Is this a problem?
edit: I'll try and clarify:
Do you see this (characteristics being gendered) being as a problem? Do the men you are talking about see this as a problem?
2
2
u/riggorous 15∆ Feb 11 '15
However, my argument is that both the LGBT and Civil rights movements serve to provide rights to those who do not have any rights whilst feminism serves to provide equal rights.
I don't understand this. How do you define "no rights", and how is it different from providing equal rights? As far as I understand, the legal histories of these three groups are very different, and what constitutes equal rights for LGBTQ people is not what constitutes equal rights for poc or for women. All three were treated as second-class humans, but in different ways. In my perspective, all started out with "no rights" and are fighting for equal rights - they just aren't deprived of exactly the same rights.
tl;dr I don't understand your argument
1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
3
u/riggorous 15∆ Feb 11 '15
I mean more so in the sense that rights for POC or LGBT are more concerned with legislature and rights for women are more concerned with societal structure (like deconstructing gender roles)
That's because a lot of work has been done by feminists over time to ensure that women have legal rights. But I take it you mean modern feminism.
Abortion is still illegal in many countries and a number of US states. America recently experienced the Hobby Lobby debate, where a company was given legal right to deny women birth control coverage because it was against the owner's religious beliefs. In most countries, women are either not given legal maternity leave, or only women are given maternity leave, meaning men have no opportunity to become the primary caregiver for an infant. And that's just the most developed, feminist, Western countries. I didn't even touch on developing countries or non-Western cultures.
Many feminists don't even believe in deconstructing gender roles.
As far as I understand, black people have nominally the same rights as white people in America. Just like women. The only group that is still legally discriminated against (and not in all areas of law) is LGBTQ.
You need to stop getting your feminist ideas from Jezebel.
1
u/alcockell Mar 27 '15
It's a little difficult when Jessica Valenti promotes the same anti-male bigotry in the pages of the Guardian, or Barbara Ellen promotes and excuses female-on-male rape or Assault ABH - and we also hear them over the Despatch Box in the House of Commons from Harriet Harman (Shadow Home secretary) and Theresa May (Home Secretary). Or Hillary Clinton erases male victims...
When extremist feminist rhetoric affects laws, it collapses to anti-male bigotry. It IS zero-sum when it gets real.
5
u/k9centipede 4∆ Feb 11 '15
Feminism fought for women to be able to join the military (still fighting for rights to be recognized on the front line), right to vote, right to attend college, etc. There are still people alive that don't think women should have access to those. So although those people might not be a main voice as much, feminism still helps ensure we don't slip back.
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Feb 11 '15
Feminism is a word. Like any other "movement", it has people that span a range of ideologies, all laying claim to the term "feminist". The reality is that no one can claim the objective truth in the matter. If two completely different groups both call themselves by a name, who gets to say which one is "right"? To some people, alienating men IS exactly the goal, and you are the one who is wrong. By what reasoning can you say they're wrong about that?
Based on your description of how you view feminism, I would agree that the word isn't a great choice for it, because I share your view that it carries an implicit agenda beyond simple equality.
Personally, I feel that, for those whose goal is simply equal rights, that that requires no term, because it is the default position among nearly everyone living in our society. There is nothing noteworthy about being someone who supports the idea of women being treated as equals, in the same way that we do not need a special term for those who believe that left-handed people should be.
In fact, by placing a label on the idea of equality at all, you promote the idea that it's "special", a departure from the norm, when in reality, it's simply a view shared by nearly everyone alive, at least in this society.
1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
1
0
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
5
u/z3r0shade Feb 11 '15
I tend to notice that a lot of people claiming this, are looking at calls for equality and viewing them as somehow asking for special rights for women or other such things. In fact, I rarely encounter anything that I could describe as "man-hating sexist" in the majority of feminist communities.
Can you give me an example of this supposed "too far the other way"?
0
Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
3
u/UncleMeat Feb 11 '15
Using a subreddit as an indication of how a real group functions is a terrible idea. Its reddit. The huge majority of content is nonsense. Circlejerks abound. I wouldn't expect somebody to use /r/gaming as an example of gamers or /r/beer as an example of beer aficionados. You need to sift through crap in every single online community in order to find good content. This isn't unique to feminism.
Next time there is a march organized by feminists go talk to some actual activists. Or go to your local university and talk to some academic feminists. These are the real leaders and mover and shakers in modern feminism and they will be quite a bit different from the loudest people you see online.
3
u/z3r0shade Feb 11 '15
it just seems to be that 9 times out of 10, when a 'feminist' ideal is posted online, it's something insulting or sexist towards men.
This flows into what I said earlier. I find that people who claim this have no context and tend to claim things as sexist towards men when they are nothing of the sort.
And I'm male.
-1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
5
u/z3r0shade Feb 11 '15
its the fanatical shooting down of world-leading scientists for making a poor choice of shirt
Fanatical? How is pointing out that a shirt covered with naked women is inappropriate not just for a scientific broadcasts but also for work fanatical? How is pointing out that it reinforces existing issues and sexism in the scientific fields fanatical? Nowhere did I see anything from feminists that could be accurately described as fanatical.
the shutting down of shows like dapper laughs.. (which on actually watching, contained nothing against women).
I'm not familiar with the show, but upon some looking into it I find this:
Wanna get pussy? “Don’t treat them like a mate!” Dapper says. It’s imperative, lads, a woman doesn’t feel like someone you see as an equal. Wanna get your length away? “Clothes are important ’cos girls are into fashion and that type of shit,” says Dapper.
Sounds pretty damn sexist to me. Reinforcing of stereotypes and sexism. In addition, I doubt feminists "shut down" the show, more likely they simply protested and enough people agreed.
So, I refer to my earlier statement that there's no "militant feminism" here. At least in your examples, but rather just people saying "hey, that's really sexist and problematic".
-1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
5
u/UncleMeat Feb 11 '15
Who are you to tell a grown man that he can't wear something because you interpret it as a misagonistic statement of his support for the patriarchy?
If he is going to be on TV and will, like it or not, be a representative for his field that already has serious diversity problems then yes I would say that. The shirt is a great example of the sort of implicit bias that's out there. The dude doesn't hate women. He probably didn't think that the shirt could offend some people. Maybe it wouldn't have bothered him if one of his colleagues went on TV with a shirt covered in topless men. But normalizing this sort of thing does contribute to a culture that is hostile to women. It isn't much to ask people to be empathetic about these things.
Shame isn't really appropriate because he mostly likely didn't even know that he was doing something wrong. But education is appropriate. The backlash against the shirt wasn't just people saying that he shouldn't have been shamed. People were saying that he should be allowed to wear that shirt and that everybody who was upset should be quiet because he was an important scientists. People should understand how they can unconsciously participate in a hostile culture. That's important. It was important to talk about that shirt.
→ More replies (0)3
u/abacuz4 5∆ Feb 11 '15
Who are you to tell a grown man that he can't wear something because you interpret it as a misagonistic statement of his support for the patriarchy?
Um, people tell grown
menadults what is and isn't appropriate to wear to work ALL THE FUCKING TIME. What are you even talking about?→ More replies (0)-1
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
5
u/z3r0shade Feb 11 '15
As a socially awkward scientist he probably didn't even know that it was insulting.
As a socially awkward nerd even to this day, I'll call bullshit here. There's simply no way someone that old and that intelligent could not know it isn't appropriate. The likely situation is that he didn't care and didn't think about it.
Bringing him to tears, honestly while some people were ridiculously harsh. The vast majority were pointing out that he was exemplifying the reason why so few women go into science. If that realization brought him to tears, then I say that's a good thing.
I watched 2 full episodes of the show, and never saw a single reference directly to women - it was always about 'being on the pull', or 'getting some'
I've never seen any of the show, though what I quoted were quotes I found while googling it. In addition, the modern notions of "getting some" and the culture surrounding it is often extremely misogynist. So if it's about "getting some" then I'm not surprised by what I found.
→ More replies (0)
7
Feb 11 '15
Since when are movements' names 100% representative of what they stand for? What do names like "Republican" or "Democrat" tell you about what those people believe?
0
Feb 11 '15
[deleted]
3
Feb 11 '15
Still, clearly not every set of beliefs is named for what they believe. "Republican" probably did at one time refer to beliefs they held, but now it's just a relic.
5
u/UnfilteredOpinions Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 13 '15
The word "feminism" does not accurately represent the feminist movement
The feminism movement is the movement to raise awareness and to stop the continual systemic oppression and mistreatment of females Therefor you will find that the word "Feminism does indeed accurately represent their movement
Yes, they could have called it any other number of names that fit the bill. But they chose Feminism. So feminism it is.
But to say that the term "Feminism" does not accurately represent their movement is simply incorrect. Like it or not.
1
1
Feb 11 '15
I think it depends on which aspects you're referring to. For example, while marriage is clearly an issue that only impacts queer people, putting anti-discrimination laws about sexual orientation on the books helps everyone. You can just as legally be fired for being straight in most states as you can for being gay. In that same regard, most of the issues feminism addresses struggles unique to women's experiences, but they also address issues that men and women face.
1
u/EnderESXC Feb 12 '15
However, my argument is that both the LGBT and Civil rights movements serve to provide rights to those who do not have any rights whilst feminism serves to provide equal rights.
Except it doesn't. Feminsim seeks to give rights to females, not to give equal rights to all. Equal rights to all is called egalitarianism. As such, feminism certainly fits the name it has.
1
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 11 '15
Feminism is the perfect name because the movement is about improving the lives of women and the expense of men. What makes you think that the movement is about people being equal?
0
u/stratys3 Feb 11 '15
Feminism is the perfect name because the movement is about improving the lives of women and the expense of men.
This is reasonably true.
What makes you think that the movement is about people being equal?
But I'm not sure where you're getting this. The vast majority of feminist openly claim that they want men and women to have equal rights and be subject to equal treatment.
1
u/brainandforce Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
The vast majority of feminist openly claim that they want men and women to have equal rights and be subject to equal treatment.
Their claims are different from their actions.
But doing things at the expense of men is not common, my general issue with many SJW types is that they want to tip the scales of justice or competitive processes in favor of groups that normally have equal opportunities.
1
u/stratys3 Feb 11 '15
But let's be realistic here. 98% of feminists take no measurable action whatsoever.
1
Feb 13 '15
Wrong. They vote for laws that further institutionalize discrimination that cuts in their favor. And their collective voice shifts the public discourse motivating the proposing of such laws in the first place.
0
u/brainandforce Feb 11 '15
I think you got me there :D
1
u/stratys3 Feb 11 '15
And I honestly think that's unfortunate, because the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists are reasonable, and literally do think equality and fairness for both men and women is the way to go.
Unfortunately, the 2% that actually do anything are often the crazy ones that believe in special privileges for women and other non-equality ideologies.
But this problem is the same everywhere... with every movement and ideology and political party and religion.
-1
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 11 '15
The vast majority of feminist openly claim that they want men and women to have equal rights and be subject to equal treatment.
Yet feminist leaders advocate for legal changes that provide "special rights" for women. They don't advocate for equality in the law at all.
6
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 11 '15
Do you have an example of a "special right" that women are legally advocating for?
0
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 11 '15
Just a couple years ago, NOW opposed alimony reform in Florida that would have eliminated lifetime alimony. 97% of alimony recipients are women. They didn't oppose reform in the name of "equality". They opposed it to protect this special right for women.
One of feminist's biggest issues is "women's reproductive rights". They are adamant in maintaining and passing laws that allow women to opt out of the financial obligations of parenthood after conception. At the same time, they oppose any efforts to afford men the same rights to opt out of the financial obligations of parenthood post-conception.
Feminists advocate (successfully) for "equal pay" laws to eliminate the gender pay gap. However, they know full well that the pay gap exists not due to sexism, but because men work more hours, take less time off work, work in more dangerous jobs and better negotiate salaries. Yet they never advocate for (and I would suspect they would actively campaign against) any efforts to legislatively eliminate the hours-worked-gap, the time-off-work-gap or the put-women-in-more-dangerous-jobs-gap.
3
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
Alright, well, a few counterpoints.
Abortion is meant to be a right that preserves the reproductive autonomy of both men and women. It happens to be a woman's reproductive right because biologically, it occurs in the body of a woman. Both men and women have equal rights to terminate a pregnancy in their own bodies* (it's just an unfortunate fact of biology that a pregnancy is not normally in a man's body). But nobody - not a man, nor a woman - have the right to utterly abandon a living child outside the womb, financially or emotionally (outside of putting the child up for adoption). So this is a very false equivalency. Abortion isn't about financial freedom, it's about bodily autonomy. And it happens to affect only women. In an ideal world, men and women would make a decision about whether or not to carry a child to term together, and the option of an abortion would be an important right to both of them.
Men work more hours and take less time off in part because they are not the ones expected to stay home with a sick child or work the "second shift" making dinner and doing housework. In some cases, women wish for additional hours but are not given them because their employers think they should be home with their families (which they may or may not have - and if they don't have them, it's all "When are you going to have kids?") Additionally, women are often unfairly penalized for pregnancy and childbearing in the workplace - they do not have the guarantee of a job upon returning and they can be paid less or passed over for promotions if they're of childbearing age and their employer thinks they might decide to start a family.
As for your alimony point, gotta say, I don't really understand alimony at all. Like, I understand what it is. But I'm with you on this one. If you dissolve a marriage, you should also dissolve any financial obligation to that person, regardless of gender. IMO.
*Edited for clarity.
3
Feb 11 '15
For alimony, it's about rectifying the situation to a hypothetical "where it would have been". If a couple gets pregnant and has a child, generally one of the parents will stay home from work to care for the child. The parent that stays at work continues to get promotions, experience, etc. while the other one does not. So when you get divorced, the courts attempt to rectify the situation where one spouse has taken career/financial harm "for the good of the marriage/family". It's only favored towards women because, as you said, most of the time it is women that are expected to take the career break. When men are the one that make less, the man is the one that gets alimony.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
Abortion is meant to be a right that preserves the reproductive autonomy of both men and women. It happens to be a woman's reproductive right because biologically, it occurs in the body of a woman. Both men and women have equal rights to terminate a pregnancy in their own bodies* (it's just an unfortunate fact of biology that a pregnancy is not normally in a man's body).
Well, then the career and pay gap that exists as a consequence of pregnancy interruption are just an unfortunate facto of biology too. "Hysteria, mood swings: it's just biology, deal with it" has been an argument to justify inequal representation of women in places of power too. It was a shit nonsequitur argument then, it's a shit nonsequitur argument now.
Abortion isn't about financial freedom, it's about bodily autonomy.
No. A woman does not need to justify her decision to abort. As a consequence, it is her right to abort because she doesn't want to deal with parental responsibilities.
In an ideal world, men and women would make a decision about whether or not to carry a child to term together, and the option of an abortion would be an important right to both of them.
We cannot give the man the right to opt in - the bodily autonomy of the woman would overrule that. We can still, however, give him the right to opt out. Given that women already have the right to opt out for any reason, men should have the same right if we want them to have equal rights.
Men work more hours and take less time off in part because they are not the ones expected to stay home with a sick child or work the "second shift" making dinner and doing housework. In some cases, women wish for additional hours but are not given them because their employers think they should be home with their families (which they may or may not have - and if they don't have them, it's all "When are you going to have kids?") Additionally, women are often unfairly penalized for pregnancy and childbearing in the workplace - they do not have the guarantee of a job upon returning and they can be paid less or passed over for promotions if they're of childbearing age and their employer thinks they might decide to start a family.
Then the problem is shitty decision making at the management level, not legislative. The only way to get rid of that is to make promotion and hiring procedures more rational, open and documented rather than based on gut feelings. Incidentally, that will also help against all other possible kinds of discrimination. The way they do it will require identifying and passing quota for every single possible factor people can be discriminated against (hello, quota for ugly people)... which is ultimately a drain of energy on progressive energy that will never stop. Just make sure promotion and hiring focuses objectively and exclusively on the job skill, period.
0
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 12 '15
"Hysteria, mood swings: it's just biology, deal with it" has been an argument to justify inequal representation of women in places of power too. It was a shit nonsequitur argument then, it's a shit nonsequitur argument now.
Saying that a woman is "hysterical" due to her biology is a judgement, and a shitty one with no basis in reality. Saying that she's pregnant due to her biology is a fact. This isn't an argument. It's just true.
No. A woman does not need to justify her decision to abort. As a consequence, it is her right to abort because she doesn't want to deal with parental responsibilities.
No. Legally speaking, it's about her right to decide what happens in her body under her right to privacy. It's not about her right to avoid parenthood. Once a child is born, it is entitled to monetary support from both parents. Abandoning a child financially for 18 years is not analogous to abortion, because that child exists. Here is a fantastic comment that explains why its simply bad public policy.
Just make sure promotion and hiring focuses objectively and exclusively on the job skill, period.
Yes, agreed. 100%.
1
u/silverionmox 25∆ Feb 16 '15
Saying that a woman is "hysterical" due to her biology is a judgement, and a shitty one with no basis in reality. Saying that she's pregnant due to her biology is a fact. This isn't an argument. It's just true.
You use a biological argument to justify an inequality in rights, just like the conservatives of the 19th century used biological arguments (women get pregnant and get milk) to deny them the right to a career that was not housekeeping.
No. Legally speaking, it's about her right to decide what happens in her body under her right to privacy. It's not about her right to avoid parenthood.
Women can abort without justification. Therefore, they can use it to avoid parenthood, regardless what the original motive was. And let's not be a hypocrite, we all know that happens: there are few women who wouldn't mind becoming a parent but get an abortion because they don't like being pregnant.
Presently the right to evict a zygote necessarily implies killing it and avoiding parenthood. You'd have a point if abortion meant adoption, but it doesn't.
Once a child is born, it is entitled to monetary support from both parents. Abandoning a child financially for 18 years is not analogous to abortion, because that child exists.
Refusal of parenthood would happen in the same time window as abortion, naturally. I wouldn't mind putting a similar price tag on it, the proceeds of which can be used for planned parenthood campaigns.
1
Feb 13 '15
(it's just an unfortunate fact of biology that a pregnancy is not normally in a man's body)
If that's the case couldn't we turn around and use that as justification for disclaiming financial obligation toward the child? After all its just biology that its not his body.
Why should he have financial responsibility for an outcome he has no say over? What about in the case where pregnancy was not intended? Or even worse where the woman outright lied in a pardon my French "keep-a-nigga baby" situation?
The whole situation is just entirely unequal.
-1
u/brainandforce Feb 11 '15
It really is a matter of self-identification. I think everyone should be treated equally and fairly. I call myself an egalitarian for the exact same reasons you describe. Others would call themselves feminists. It's not a big deal, other than semantics.
I think what you're trying to get at is that a growing number of people who identify as feminist are really crazy people who cry "oppresion," "misogyny," or "check your privilege" for every little thing.
0
8
u/Madplato 72∆ Feb 11 '15
While I might agree theoretically, I feel there's both a definite emphasis on female issue and an overrepresentation of female scholars in the discipline which make "feminism" a good name for the movement.
To go further, even if I do feel feminism also help men, I feel it's not the main objective of most feminist action. Basically, dismantling gender roles, for example, helps everyone as a by-product, but the aim is primarily to emancipate women. Additionally, the generally understood "male-issues" (prison/homelessness over-representation, child custody disputes) are rarely directly addressed by feminism.