"Feminism is useless in the first world"

He never said it was ok, he said it was immoral.

(Also I highly doubt they didn't know better, they most likely know better, but see no reason to not be a jerk, either way I'd like to know how this problem would supposedly be solved.)

Do you have any evidence of feminists campaigning against the preferential treatment women receive in the justice system?
What about DULUTH model, which was in large part contributed to by feminists, claiming that its the nature of a man to be violent and abusive?
Feminism is about promoting women in reality, these are merely a few cases of this off the top of my head but if you did research rather than quoting dictionary definitions it would give you a stronger argument.

No he said it's immoral and then went on to say "but...", that but implies some sort of justification or rationalization of the acts.

Doesn't mean he thinks it's okay, or acceptable, that would be contradictory.
I could say it's immoral but it's not that immoral.

I agree, no point in rationalizing or justifying their actions.

I think the first argument against feminism in the developed world that needs to be refuted is that of comparison with the less developed world. The suffering of one is not dispelled due to the more painful suffering of another.

Furthermore, to quote Adichie's definition of a feminist: "[a] person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." Following the modern wave feminism ideology, the issue is no longer "are men considered better than women" ( they are in many respects) however, it is also "are the sexes equal." And the answer is that the sexes are not.

Until the amount of women gaining higher education degrees begins to correlate to the number in professional positions, until the societal conditioning of man as breadwinner and woman as bread maker, and child bearer, is broken: until we raise our boys the same as we raise our girls. Until we teach our youth that boys do cry and girls do succeed: feminism is needed.

(P.S: Many questions often arise over why it is called "feminism" if it calls for equality of the sexes, I personally have not found an answer to that within myself yet; however, I did once come across an explanation I particularly like - however I believe it only begins to address a deeper issue. That is, it is called feminism, because it is the "feminine" qualities which are discriminated against. I however believe - irrespective of the mantel - that the many issues stem from the expectations we have of gender, and how we feel the need to rigorously comply with the stereotypical expectations of "what is man, and what is woman." )

One of the main issues I myself have with feminism is the lack of actual research many people put into it, wider reading is advantageous for your political beliefs: Simone De Beauvoir's The Second Sex should practically be your bible. Familiarise yourself with contemporary writings: Solnit, Adichie, Bates, Wolf - there's plenty. This is also something those against feminism should do, if only because the majority of people who are against it aren't familiarised with what "it" actually is. My ex thought it was all about a bunch of unattractive overweight women burning bras for goodness sake.

A double X chromosome, breasts and a vagina, and high oestrogen levels don't give magic powers over infants.

Beyond actual childbearing and breastfeeding, and general muscle make up because of testosterone levels, and ease of peeing standing up, there isn't really that
much I can think of that is genetic differences. I'd certainly fare better with the tyre than the child, but that's due to my socialisation and not my biology.

Note: I'm obviously simplifying here, there are probably some biological differences I'm missing here, and I would appreciate knowing what they are so I can use that in the structure of my argument. But the point is that most of these "key differences" between males and females and socialised, not biological.

The short answer: no
The long answer: To say that feminism in “the 1st world” is no longer needed shows a clear lack of understanding of what feminism means or entails. Feminism is the movement which fights for female liberation and, as you might’ve guessed; equality. And while at first glance women and men do /seem/ equal, with a smidge of critical thinking and a few minutes spent actually listening to women, you’ll soon find feminism is still sorely needed by women all over the world.

I do need to point out though that if you are a man, your opinion on feminism doesn’t mean s**t. You’re not a woman, so you will never be able to fully understand the experiences of women. What you can do is sit down and listen, and if you actually care about women you’ll trust their stories and respect their experiences.

Female oppression has definitely lessened in the past hundred or so years, that’s very true. We can vote, work, divorce an abusive partner, have abortions when we need and want to(Sadly not everywhere, not even in the “1st world”) and many other basic human rights! Thing is though women are still facing oppression on every level of society. We have the classic example of women earning less than men even though they’re doing the same job and have the same amount of experience (in sweden it has been reported that women earn around 17% less than men, for example), this a clear injustice, and yet it’s still happening.
In Sweden it was estimated(based on calls to women’s helplines and law bureaus) that 70 rapes a day go unreported. Why do they go unreported? Fear and lack of knowledge. “What did you wear? Did you drink? Did you lead him on? Is he your boyfriend/husband?” pretty much every rape victim that comes forward is shamed, humiliated or just plain not believed. This is what is often called rape culture at work. Rape culture says that a woman doesn’t know when she’s been assaulted, that it’s the victim’s fault because it’s “their responsibility” to not do anything that could EVER put them at risk, instead of men’s responsibility(A vast majority of rapes are committed by men, no matter the gender of the victim) to not ****ing rape. (this website explains it in a really good way, and provide lots of good links to examples!)

This is probably getting a bit to long for a simple forum post so i'll just finish by saying that as long as every single woman i've ever met has a story in which men touched them without permission, yelled something at them in the street or simply refused to take a no because they have been taught they are entitled to women and their bodies, then i'd say feminism is pretty ****ing needed.

(also like?????? oppression isn't a contest?????? "they need feminism more"????? it's entirely possible to fight for women in for example saudia arabia and sweden at the same time????)

I don't think affirmative action is an option.

You can't right a wrong with another wrong. In this case, elevating women above men.

Affirmative action is borderline socialism. Look at it this way.

And that's a reasonable pointless fight, since men will always be in work more than women because woman as a whole WANT to be the child bearer and biologically are. So in essence, not to disagree with feminism, but that your fight is actually with women. Do you support then overriding women to suit your view on feminism?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I am so triggered by what you wrote, and I'm a female. The pay gap is a myth, no serious economist takes it seriously. It's illegal for a woman to be paid less than a man, and if she does, that needs to be dealt with as an individual case.


Posted from TSR Mobile

1. Affirmative action is not elevating women above men, it's raising them to an equal level?

And I've said many times that affirmative action whilst not the best short term solution is actually a pretty good long term solution, in that it normalises the notion of women participating in what is now male dominated career roles, such as leadership roles. If you grow up with more women partaking in such roles that will normalise it for you, and the notion of a woman working in such a role would not come as such a surprise. Nor would it be perceived as "going against the grain" and achieving "against the odds" for young women themselves. If such a mechanism works, affirmative action won't even be required in the long term.

I don't think you grasp the concept of socialism. It's not about legislating the poor into prosperity, it has never been about making the poor rich! That's an insane conclusion to draw. It's about ensuring an acceptable quality of living for all. That most certainly does not equate to prosperity.

You are thinking about the concept of a pay gap on too much of a narrow level. Many economists may not take it seriously, but there's an abundance of psychological research out there attempting to identify why women are less likely to earn as much as a man in terms of the career fields they enter, in terms of promotions, pay rises, and opportunities within the work place.

To say that there is no pay gap because it is against the law, is as narrow as saying there is no sexism because there is no sexist law. You need to think of it on a different level.

There may not be a pay gap when you control for many factors, when you only look at the women who have entered the exact same career as their male counterpart, who have received the exact same opportunities, and goals, the women who have fought harder to achieve the same.

But by controlling for such variables you are erasing the explanatory variables into the pay gap in the first place. The fact is there are much less women in those types of roles with those types of opportunities in the first place. The fact that you look at the small minority of women who are in such roles and say they receive the same as their male counterpart is irrelevant. The issue is that they are a minority.


People are thinking too narrowly here. There is a pay gap. In that the average man earns more than the average woman.

The issue is not with man or woman, the issue is with our expectations of both - and the impact which this has on the individuals. We must avoid the reduction of a group of people to a sole viewpoint and look more to the holistic reasons as to why we believe this is the general view women take. Furthermore your assumption hinges on the fact that the higher level of degree attainment for women is simply for enjoyment(?) - I doubt thousands of pounds is put into a degree simply with the wish of having a child and becoming a housewife at the end of it.

The posited "overriding" of women is ironic in that the argument can be made many women are subconsciously overridden by society and goaded into this role as carer, and as child bearer. A woman unmarried is a spinster, a woman childless is also looked negatively upon. Therefore this then brings up the question, do women want to be the child bearer or are they conditioned to be?

I believe a woman is no such more inherently caring than a man; yes they biologically carry and birth young, resulting in greater psychological attachment. However, what are we generally taught from a young age?

We are taught that you'll grow up and marry a successful man if you are female. Or, if male, we are taught you will get a good job and marry a pretty girl because of your success. ( I understand this is not everyone's experience, however it is the experience most generally undergone.)

The main issue I believe requiring tackling is not disabling women's choice but in fact increasing it. Another reason women tend to opt for cushy family and home is that the world of employment is not a welcoming landscape for them: another issue which lies with the societal attitudes that are in place.

re: Economical issues with women earning less than men are linked more to the general lack of opportunities for promotion, and also a stigma against maternity leave.

And while I don't know the finer details of same work for less pay nor any exacting statistical figures....
It is illegal to pay one sex less for the same job, that is true. However, it is also illegal to take drugs, or drink underage. More topically, the "Marriage Bar" was outlawed in Britain during WW2 however many businesses still practiced this into the early fifties. As it goes: you cannot change hearts and minds with a law.

PS - I'm all for fighting the good fight and defending my views but again guys, if you don't want to believe in feminism then don't. Just be sure that when you make that decision you've researched enough to come to it satisfactorily. My personal belief is that if there wasn't an issue, then there wouldn't be a movement either.

That's not true at all.

My assumption hinges on the assumption that the mean time taken off work is greater than woman than in men. That on average women take more time off to raise children and of them some women go on to work part time or as a housewife. Very few men do that, thus it's a valid comparison. Many women take maternity pay and return to a normal work routine, some balance reduced hours with looking after the child. The fact is that should be between the mother and father or we should have a system in place whereby single mothers can return to work with government assistance in looking after the children.

You have in your first paragraph suggests we take a more individualised approach (like I've said) then in the next sentence generalised by saying that woman who get degrees are "workers" while woman who seek to be mothers don't.

Society overriding womens choice is an interesting one because women have control over whether to continue a pregnancy (not the father) I think it follows logic that if you are taking time off for maternity pay it would make sense that out of the two it would be mostly mothers who become primary carers. The way to change that is to encourage and not chastise men who become the carer while the wife becomes the main earner. We still have a society too where women "marry up," I think that's slowly changing but for now men on average earn more than their partner anyway, so that's another reason that it is more common. Key difference here is that I don't think there are many incidents where women WANT to work and are forced to look after the child. More and more we see both parents working anyway.

Like it not, women ARE the carriers, there is a societal pressure on women to have children because men can't and without it the population drops. It's unfair that women are seen as "sluts" and men "lads" and that women with no kids are frowned upon, but my point is that that isn't men criticising women. That's an attitude that men AND women have over childless couples, I agree it's unfair.

And yes, women are conditioned to be a child bearer because biologically men can't.

I do agree over teaching children though, schools and to a bigger extent Disney have made millions by selling the idea to girls that being pretty is better than being smart, that her key to success is to attract a male suitor. Parents should be teaching kids of both sexes that working hard and being smart is how to succeed. Disney however will continue making millions because parents will continue to let their kids watch it.

Please tell me why you think the workplace doesn't suit women. This is nonsensical.

The pay myth is false, the reason why on average men and women of the same earn different amounts is because of two reasons
1) Men on average work longer hours and apply for more high-risk high-pay, anti social hour jobs.
2) Women take time off for maternity, this means they are 2 years behind their male colleagues in terms of progression and pay.
The pay gap myth has been resoundingly busted. In todays environment men and women of equal ability and experience, earn the same amount and have equal chance of progression. If me and you are the same age, in the same profession and are the same academically, but I've taken two years out, isn't it right that you get the job before me?

I fundamentally believe in feminism, any genuine examples of discrimination against women I oppose, the breast-feeding in public is an example where I support the feminist movement here

HOWEVER, elements of the movement are eroding it's reputation by blaming EVERYTHING on men, I feel that there is very little inequality left in Western society over the issue of gender. The feminist movement is quite happy to fight for things to benefit women, but shows no interest in supporting issues that discriminate against men (no rape charge against women, women more likely to get custody of children (I've seen this first hand) women not serving the same duties as men in the army, fighting for equality on board rooms and male dominated fields but not on the frontline or as binmen. We have ridiculous stories now of feminists describing air conditioning as discriminatory, this is a detriment to a legitimate cause. Mansplaining is also incredibly hypocritical.

This is a sidenote, but it is kinda frustrating as well that the Western feminist movement doesn't extend to the international FGM, acid throwing, child marriages etc. across the world. Steps are being done and it's something EVERYONE should do more for (not just the feminist movement) but I do wish that some of the feminist leaders would focus more on International issues, rather than focus on petty British issues.

You need to EDJOCATE URSELV

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760417/Air-conditioning-in-your-office-is-sexist.-True-story.html

ITS 2016 SMH

I feel as though perhaps there is a wall between my expression and your comprehension.

Firstly, my second sentence generalises that if a person is working towards an academic qualification then I assume they want to go into employment. Key word was "housewife" as their career, why study for a degree in economics to spend the future simply managing household bills. I agree, which is why women don't intend on becoming housewifes, they want to find a career like men, but some then consider part time work and being the childs main carer

Secondly, yes women can have an abortion. They have the "choice" to abort; however, I feel as though the controversy surrounding that whole issue speaks for itself. Get an abortion and become a social pariah if you ever tell the wrong person. I'm pro-choice, so agree

Women "marry up" because of the inequalities in the employment industry, it's easier to become wealthy that way. Men are higher earners because that's their "traditional role" as with the "traditional role" of the mother remaining home: both unfair expectations. What workplace inequalities?

It's not about being conditioned to believe whether or not you can give birth: it's about being conditioned to seeing birth as your end goal. I don't think thats conditioning, its a choice that's planned, if you don't want to have kids you don't have to. Familial pressure possibly is a factor I guess

Glad we agree on the children thing, although you do seem to come across quite hostile. Disney make millions off telling girls that they can just marry and become rich, I find that immoral

The big scary male dominated business industry? Where the majority of the senior management boards consist of men? Yeah why would that ever put a woman off a career, especially when she's offered that or a cushy house and family. You ought to be more careful making unsubstantiated statements: "This is nonsensical" - is far from reaching any level of clarity or significance, and only looks to weaken an argument. So because men are in the majority in something that's intimidating? So your solution is to do what? Force businesses to make boards 50/50? Should we make nurses, hairdressers etc. 50/50 too? Why not?

"Women take time off for maternity, this means they are 2 years behind their male colleagues in terms of progression and pay." - Presupposition women are going to have children, reinforcing my prior point about the conditioning as having a child as the "end goal." On average, yes, they do. It's not compulsory, but in society MOST women take time off to have children. True or false?

Here all you have done is explain the issue? Furthermore, the possibility of women taking maternity leave is the issue I was originally pointing towards. Again, another issue I feel we can tackle by effectively eroding the idea that the divine purpose for a female is to reproduce and become a Martha Stewart incarnate. (An option which is obviously open to those that wish, but there needs to be more wiggle room: there needs to be more of an opportunity to say no. To say, I am not going to have children and that is okay. Or, to say: no, I am not taking maternity leave because my partner looks after the household and he will look after the baby. These need to be options more widely accepted, and this what feminism is fighting for. It's a fight for the right to choose.) Agree here

Selectively supporting anecdotal incidents while neglecting the holistic issues the movement is attempting to dispel is not a fundamental belief, it's a passing interest and a like on a FB post at most. So my supporting a legitimate a cause is wrong? I happen to agree that women should be allowed to breast feed in public. I can't support that?

Another common misconception. Feminism is for equality of the sexes. All of the issues you point out to be negatively affecting men are resultant from what exactly? Why are men less likely to get custody when women are expected to be the primary care takers of the children? Why are women facing lesser sentences when they are looked upon as meek, and defenceless? Why are women not taking the stereotypically "masculine" frontline roles in the Armed Forces?

Because all this time that's what society has taught them, and it's also what society has taught men as well. It has propagated the view that the genders are fundamentally different beyond the biological capacity. It has taught us men are strong and successful, and women are fertile and tender. And these presupposed notions are what must be deconstructed, not only for equality of the sexes, but an overall enhancement of the equality of human beings. So, what's the solution?

My belief is not against men or women, or any other gender you wish to identify with: my belief is that we're all against ourselves, without even knowing it most of the time.