"Most" feminism isn't sensible. For the good stuff, you need to look at the edges
There has always been a misandrist element of feminism. The suffragettes sent white feathers to men who didn't fight in the first world war. Radical feminist writers from the 60s and 70 such as Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin are often considered by feminists to be very important and respected figures, and no list of greatest feminist literature is complete without works by them. Both of them could be extraordinarily misandristic, with Firestone claiming that men are incapable of feeling love, and Dworkin believing that all men intrinsically hated women.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by KingBradly
There has always been a misandrist element of feminism. The suffragettes sent white feathers to men who didn't fight in the first world war. Radical feminist writers from the 60s and 70 such as Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin are often considered by feminists to be very important and respected figures, and no list of greatest feminist literature is complete without works by them. Both of them could be extraordinarily misandristic, with Firestone claiming that men are incapable of feeling love, and Dworkin believing that all men intrinsically hated women.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
There has always been a misandrist element of feminism. The suffragettes sent white feathers to men who didn't fight in the first world war. Radical feminist writers from the 60s and 70 such as Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin are often considered by feminists to be very important and respected figures, and no list of greatest feminist literature is complete without works by them. Both of them could be extraordinarily misandristic, with Firestone claiming that men are incapable of feeling love, and Dworkin believing that all men intrinsically hated women.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
An example of one of these feminists?
Original post by KingBradly
There has always been a misandrist element of feminism. The suffragettes sent white feathers to men who didn't fight in the first world war. Radical feminist writers from the 60s and 70 such as Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin are often considered by feminists to be very important and respected figures, and no list of greatest feminist literature is complete without works by them. Both of them could be extraordinarily misandristic, with Firestone claiming that men are incapable of feeling love, and Dworkin believing that all men intrinsically hated women.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
There have also always (and there still are) good subdivisions of feminism, but actually they aren't mainstream. The idea that it's only the radicals, the whackos who no "true" feminist takes seriously who are bad, is untrue. As I say, Firestone and Dworkin are two of the most widely read, and widely respected, feminists ever.
If you want to find feminism that isn't riddled with spite, hyperbole, underlying tones of slut-shaming (even and sometimes especially when they're apparently most ardently protesting against it) and tacit or even explicit misandry, you need to look at the feminists on the sidelines, who are often pushed out by the rest, and even considered "not true feminists" (because when feminists say feminism means equality they usually have their own, often very particular idea of what "equality" is).
Individualist feminism is the place to look.
Unfortunately feminism exhibits the "no true scotsman" fallacy on a daily basis. However, the bigoted sexist feminists are usually called "3rd wave" feminists. They are the marxists that go to "LGBT against islamophobia" demos, supporting the religion that commands to kill them. Stockholm Syndrome.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Galaxie501
Unfortunately feminism exhibits the "no true scotsman" fallacy on a daily basis. However, the bigoted sexist feminists are usually called "3rd wave" feminists. They are the marxists that go to "LGBT against islamophobia" demos, supporting the religion that commands to kill them. Stockholm Syndrome.
Love your avatar
I remember calling it "sex" and not "gender".
Original post by F.Nietzsche
An example of one of these feminists?
Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, and Christina Hoff Summers are good places to start. I've also strayed across a few bloggers who are good, but I can't remember their names.
Original post by Dodgypirate
Love your avatar
I remember calling it "sex" and not "gender".
I remember calling it "sex" and not "gender".
Tbh, I think the sex and gender distinction is useful. But the idea that there is no such thing as biological sex is utterly ridiculous (yes, some people genuinely believe that), and also there is plenty of evidence to back up that men and women think and behave differently, regardless of their culture.
Original post by KingBradly
Tbh, I think the sex and gender distinction is useful. But the idea that there is no such thing as biological sex is utterly ridiculous (yes, some people genuinely believe that), and also there is plenty of evidence to back up that men and women think and behave differently, regardless of their culture.
I know the differences between gender and sex.
In biology lessons, you expect to here the term "sex".
In Sociology classes, you expect to hear the term "gender".
I too have heard those who think biological sex doesn't exist or is a "social construct". They're fruitloops.
Original post by KingBradly
Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, and Christina Hoff Summers are good places to start. I've also strayed across a few bloggers who are good, but I can't remember their names.
Yeah I know her. I think you're referring to factual feminists. (don't know is that's an official name).
Original post by F.Nietzsche
Yeah I know her. I think you're referring to factual feminists. (don't know is that's an official name).
They're called individualist, libertarian, or equity feminists.
This is precisely why I despise the Suffragettes but I like the Suffragists. Also, don't leave out Valerie Solanas.
Original post by KingBradly
They're called individualist, libertarian, or equity feminists.
So what are the issues they are concerned with?
Original post by F.Nietzsche
So what are the issues they are concerned with?
Usually they are against slut-shaming and victim blaming, but often they're also against some forms of feminism, as they feel that most feminism is actually against women making choices for themselves, and also implicitly slut shames. For example, they're usually very against the anti-pornography crowd, whether they be the Christian right or feminists. They also generally don't think "sexual objectification" is a bad thing, or they may even go as far as to say that the term itself is quite meaningless or at least hyperbole.
Original post by TercioOfParma
This is precisely why I despise the Suffragettes but I like the Suffragists. Also, don't leave out Valerie Solanas.
Yeh, she was a headcase. Andy Warhol was hardly the epitome of the patriarchy as well.
Original post by Mr.cool
Feminism promotes the ideology that women live hard lives and men have it easy. *
No, feminism promotes equality between men and women. At its core the movement is pro woman not anti man. That's the distinction you need to look for. Anyone spouting otherwise is just deluded.
Original post by KingBradly
Usually they are against slut-shaming and victim blaming, but often they're also against some forms of feminism, as they feel that most feminism is actually against women making choices for themselves, and also implicitly slut shames. For example, they're usually very against the anti-pornography crowd, whether they be the Christian right or feminists. They also generally don't think "sexual objectification" is a bad thing, or they may even go as far as to say that the term itself is quite meaningless or at least hyperbole.
Ohh okay. Thanks (:
Trying to pinpoint what feminists "think" is the same thing as trying to say what Catholics "think" or Kenyans "think" - it's a massive movement with a ton of different waves, people who think completely differently to each other and will bicker constantly about it. It's not the Borg hivemind. The easiest thing to do is to actually look at the history more than anything, from then you can go into the splinter groups. That is if someone is explicitly interested in that.
Original post by 1010marina
No, feminism promotes equality between men and women. At its core the movement is pro woman not anti man. That's the distinction you need to look for. Anyone spouting otherwise is just deluded.
Actually, they're not "deluded", it's just highly subjective. Not all of the feminist movement promotes equality between men; some implicitly doesn't, and some explicitly doesn't. In fact, I'd argue that it's only really the individualist/equity feminists that are truly interested in equality these days.
Original post by Sorani
Trying to pinpoint what feminists "think" is the same thing as trying to say what Catholics "think" or Kenyans "think" - it's a massive movement with a ton of different waves, people who think completely differently to each other and will bicker constantly about it. It's not the Borg hivemind. The easiest thing to do is to actually look at the history more than anything, from then you can go into the splinter groups. That is if someone is explicitly interested in that.
Yes, well that is what I have done, and I have come to believe that it is only the individualist feminists who are truly interested in a liberal idea of equality where people should not be shamed or belittled for their personal choices, and where both men and women's feelings matter to the same degree.
Original post by KingBradly
Actually, they're not "deluded", it's just highly subjective. Not all of the feminist movement promotes equality between men; some implicitly doesn't, and some explicitly doesn't. In fact, I'd argue that it's only really the individualist/equity feminists that are truly interested in equality these days.
And I'd argue otherwise.
Like any similar movement the majority support the idea and then there are the rest that take it too far.
Some things make sense eg removing pay gaps, but then there are people that go further and demand equal pay over a lifetime factoring in the years women take off for children. Well, that's ridiculous IMO. If you're not working you don't deserve the pay (but state maternity should be increased instead). So for doing the same job people should be paid equally but only if they're actually doing it...There's a few things like that that bug me I guess.. Can't think of any better examples off the top of my head
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- MoDesignss's New car Thread
- whats the nicest car a 17 year old could get insured on?
- Othello
- Everything extends past the edge of the post
- Blackbox in an automatic first car
- St James Accomodation
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- Slim Essay question - Of Mice and Men
- A level english literature essay technique
- English literature coursework a level-feminist critical theory
- Nat 5 going to highers
- A level physics
- what's the best way to spend last 24-48hrs before GCSE english literature exam?
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- Can't reply to a thread
- last minute yr 10 mock revision HELP!!
- Going from a C to A in english lit A-level
- A-Level English Lit Revision Tips
- Revision notes and rescourse
- Does Oxford care about GCSEs if you wanna do law there?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
