This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
i want to be a feminist but i'm conflicted.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Izzyeviel
If you only wanted women to reply you should've said. Would've saved me typing up that awful banana analogy.
If you only wanted women to reply you should've said. Would've saved me typing up that awful banana analogy.
no, it was just an analogy of my own, I want both sexes heard here.
Original post by damoni
would they be okay with me disagreeing?
Well if they aren't prepared to explain and defend their views then they probably shouldn't be putting them out there. I'm not saying every one likes to be questioned but anyone reasonable will not object to a logical debate.
And men can be feminists too, which proves that misandry is totally illogical and useless.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by mojojojo101
To me the word 'egalitarian' has just many negative connotations also. Mainly of frustrated men who see feminists as the enemy and women who think because they have been successful that there are no barriers to other women doing the same.
For what it's worth I'm an anarchist, which pretty much automatically makes me a feminist also (illegitimate hierarchy based on gender) so the whole thing is pretty simple for me.
For what it's worth I'm an anarchist, which pretty much automatically makes me a feminist also (illegitimate hierarchy based on gender) so the whole thing is pretty simple for me.
I think it's more the case that I find the issues raised by contemporary feminists to be often trivial, yet defended with such fervour that it alienates people away from the whole movement. Take the recent case of the scientist with the raunchy shirt as an example. Or the propogation of a 'rape culture', and other hyperbolic stances such as 'male privilege', 'internalised oppression' and the seemingly omnipresent 'patriarchy'. Not to say that these views are completely wrong, indeed they may have some truth in them, but they have been applied to a ridiculous extent to all areas of life, so much so that they are just becoming farcical.
Also, the hesitancy of feminists to acknowledge and engage with discrimination issues facing men as well as women really undermines the supposed aim of gender equality. That's why I prefer a neutral referent considering gender related issues, be it egalitarian or equalist or whatever.
Original post by damoni
so really, if i'm a egalitarian or feminist, i'm going to upset someone ?
You shouldn't base your views on whether they upset a certain party, they should be based on what the truth of the matter is. Look into the different issues brought up by contemporary feminists, see if you agree that the issues are genuine. Basically, think for yourself!
Original post by damoni
i'm sorry guys, but I think the people I follow on twitter are right, this is just your male privilege talking. don't worry, I used to think that way too, now I've matured, I see the way things are.
So it took you a grand total of 15 minutes to 'mature'
Seems legit r0fl.
Original post by damoni
even by making this thread upsets someone, i just cant win with anyone.
Why do you care so much about upsetting people?! The truth is the most important thing surely!
Original post by xMr_BrightSide
Why do you care so much about upsetting people?! The truth is the most important thing surely!
I've tried looking into myself, to find what the right , moral thing to do is and i just don't know. both sides have good and bad things, it's a stalemate.
Original post by damoni
no, it was just an analogy of my own, I want both sexes heard here.
Original post by damoni
i'm sorry guys, but I think the people I follow on twitter are right, this is just your male privilege talking. don't worry, I used to think that way too, now I've matured, I see the way things are.
By wanting equal rights for Woman this also means equal rights for men surely?
You cant ask for male opinion then shoot it down and call it male privilege talking.
Especially as the feminist movement is about equal rights for woman and therefore men too as else wise it wouldn't be equal. By doing such things you are against what the movement is originally about surely?
Here is this for an idea. Be your own person. Have your own views. Why label yourself as anything?
The issue with feminism and anti-feminism is its blurred where the lines stop and everyone has their own personal interpretation of what the terms mean.
Also on both sides of the camp information gets skewed to back up statements.
Whom is right? Whom can decide that? I don't think any one can.
I'm not sure where I would stand within that spectrum. I tend to treat people based upon what I think about them. If they are a tool then they will get treated appropriately. If they are sound then they will get treated with respect. Regardless of gender.
This is why it steals my goat to read things on twitter like you were stating in your first post. It doesn't really achieve anything.
Talks like the one Emma Watson did, they do.
Original post by damoni
if I'm completely honest, I don't really know what to do, what side to take or what. both sides have good and bad points.
Look, it's simple.
- Do you think it's good to call people 'girls' when they're acting childish or shy about things?
- Do you think it's fair that women are assumed to be best for a child just because 'maternal instinct'?
- Do you like it when you get assumed to be a potential rapist when walking home at night?
- Do you think it's justified that women are told they can't get into a position of power because they menstruate?
If you've answered no to any of these questions, you're on the right track
- Do you think that as guys, despite 'getting laid' may not be as 'easy', we might actually have it easier because there's more to life than sex?
- Would you agree that arguing about the word 'feminism' instead of about the actual topics is pointless semantics that get you nowhere because when all the names are stripped back, we're all actually aiming in the same direction?
- Do you understand that this entire movement is focused on women and that we kinda take a back seat in it all.
- But also despite that it is very female-focused, the movement will solve many of the issues brought up by men that they use as an argument against feminism?
- Are you aware that feminists are NOT men-haters and they do not plan on overtaking mankind and destroy men despite that scientists have found a way of making artificial sperm?
If you've answered yes to any of these questions, welcome to being a feminist. You don't have to wear a badge, just don't be a ****.
[[PS: On top of that, this is only the basic version of feminism. There's much more to it but the general gist it to basically treat women as people and everyone gets the same opportunity, despite whatever those physical differences may be since that's irrelevant really - Everyone knows their own strengths and weaknesses, you don't tell them whether or not they can.]]
(edited 9 years ago)
Feminism is not just the second wave of feminism (you know...the bra-burners, pro-choice, "get out the kitchen" feminazis which have become the caricature in the form of the tumblr feminist).
Which is a real shame. Because everyone should be a feminist.
The first wave, was primarily concerned suffrage, and increasing political power; the second reproductive rights, ensuring equality in the work place. The third wave, is concerned with reducing the divide between the genders and ensuring gender equality, which still hasn't been fully achieved.
That's why I'm a feminist.
Which is a real shame. Because everyone should be a feminist.
The first wave, was primarily concerned suffrage, and increasing political power; the second reproductive rights, ensuring equality in the work place. The third wave, is concerned with reducing the divide between the genders and ensuring gender equality, which still hasn't been fully achieved.
That's why I'm a feminist.
Original post by xMr_BrightSide
I think it's more the case that I find the issues raised by contemporary feminists to be often trivial, yet defended with such fervour that it alienates people away from the whole movement. Take the recent case of the scientist with the raunchy shirt as an example. Or the propogation of a 'rape culture', and other hyperbolic stances such as 'male privilege', 'internalised oppression' and the seemingly omnipresent 'patriarchy'. Not to say that these views are completely wrong, indeed they may have some truth in them, but they have been applied to a ridiculous extent to all areas of life, so much so that they are just becoming farcical.
Also, the hesitancy of feminists to acknowledge and engage with discrimination issues facing men as well as women really undermines the supposed aim of gender equality. That's why I prefer a neutral referent considering gender related issues, be it egalitarian or equalist or whatever.
Also, the hesitancy of feminists to acknowledge and engage with discrimination issues facing men as well as women really undermines the supposed aim of gender equality. That's why I prefer a neutral referent considering gender related issues, be it egalitarian or equalist or whatever.
I'm not a fan of modern feminist tactics by a long shot. While many claim victories in places like page 3 and representation in parliament increasing the core issues are ignored in favour of quick, easy headlines. That's not exactly exclusive to feminism though is it.
How one defines oneself is your own business, not for me to say. For me feminism must be part of a greater transformation in society, as part of an end to discrimination against all by destroying the instituions and ideas that continue to prop up those divisions for financial and political gains.
Just don't become an anti-male feminist who only has hatred for men. Be a believer of gender equality and not a man hater. Too many of these already
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jammy4041
The first wave, was primarily concerned suffrage, and increasing political power; the second reproductive rights, ensuring equality in the work place. The third wave, is concerned with reducing the divide between the genders and ensuring gender equality, which still hasn't been fully achieved..
Suffragettes were not feminist's FYI.....
They didn't want equal rights, they purely wanted the right to vote. They actually felt they had more of a right to vote over disabled people, coloured people etc etc etc. Also they got their male partners jailed when they refused to pay tax themselves(seeing that's how the law worked back then). All in all it actually made them a fairly nasty group. In fact more nasty than a certain amount of the radical and academic feminist's you see today.
And most of all they were not feminist's seeing most wanted the gender roles of the day to stay the same. It's a fairly modern idea to think they wanted to be seen as 'capable' as men as the modern media portray them.
Women realistically got the vote because there was a universal call for everyone getting the vote, especially seeing around three quarters of the entire population at this point did not get the vote until 1918(including men). In fact one reason the age in 1918 was capped at 30 for women has partially been suggested due to the number of men killed during ww1.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DanB1991
Suffragettes were not feminist's FYI.....
They didn't want equal rights, they purely wanted the right to vote. They actually felt they had more of a right to vote over disabled people, coloured people etc etc etc. Also they got their male partners jailed when they refused to pay tax themselves(seeing that's how the law worked back then). All in all it actually made them a fairly nasty group. In fact more nasty than a certain amount of the radical and academic feminist's you see today.
And most of all they were not feminist's seeing most wanted the gender roles of the day to stay the same. It's a fairly modern idea to think they wanted to be seen as 'capable' as men as the modern media portray them.
Women realistically got the vote because there was a universal call for everyone getting the vote, especially seeing around three quarters of the entire population at this point did not get the vote until 1918(including men). In fact one reason the age in 1918 was capped at 30 for women has partially been suggested due to the number of men killed during ww1.
They didn't want equal rights, they purely wanted the right to vote. They actually felt they had more of a right to vote over disabled people, coloured people etc etc etc. Also they got their male partners jailed when they refused to pay tax themselves(seeing that's how the law worked back then). All in all it actually made them a fairly nasty group. In fact more nasty than a certain amount of the radical and academic feminist's you see today.
And most of all they were not feminist's seeing most wanted the gender roles of the day to stay the same. It's a fairly modern idea to think they wanted to be seen as 'capable' as men as the modern media portray them.
Women realistically got the vote because there was a universal call for everyone getting the vote, especially seeing around three quarters of the entire population at this point did not get the vote until 1918(including men). In fact one reason the age in 1918 was capped at 30 for women has partially been suggested due to the number of men killed during ww1.
Being concerned with woman's suffrage =/= a suffragette. Suffragettes were known, even at the time, for being more extreme than the suffragists. But then again, no one was willing to listen to the suffragists....
The first wave of feminism, was concerned with suffrage. That is widely recognised as the first wave. You fail to realize the importance of getting the right to vote was for women; they had no representation in Britain at all...and all the other aims of feminism could only occur when women had the vote. Until then, men could reinforce the patriarchy, continuously, and vote, in perpetuity, a government which continues to ignore women. Feminists will argue that the repression in women's rights stems directly from a right to vote. I think the logic was, that if a woman received the right to vote, it would open up the right to vote for other repressed groups.
The third wave has tried to right the wrongs of the first and second waves, in that it makes equality the aim. The second wave especially, is responsible for further conflating 'feminism as a whole' with white, middle class, well-to-do, bra-burning, men-haters. Feminism is becoming increasingly diverse, and the third wave (maybe even fourth wave!) is addressing that.
Original post by jammy4041
Being concerned with woman's suffrage =/= a suffragette. Suffragettes were known, even at the time, for being more extreme than the suffragists. But then again, no one was willing to listen to the suffragists....
The first wave of feminism, was concerned with suffrage. That is widely recognised as the first wave. You fail to realize the importance of getting the right to vote was for women; they had no representation in Britain at all...and all the other aims of feminism could only occur when women had the vote. Until then, men could reinforce the patriarchy, continuously, and vote, in perpetuity, a government which continues to ignore women. Feminists will argue that the repression in women's rights stems directly from a right to vote. I think the logic was, that if a woman received the right to vote, it would open up the right to vote for other repressed groups.
The third wave has tried to right the wrongs of the first and second waves, in that it makes equality the aim. The second wave especially, is responsible for further conflating 'feminism as a whole' with white, middle class, well-to-do, bra-burning, men-haters. Feminism is becoming increasingly diverse, and the third wave (maybe even fourth wave!) is addressing that.
The first wave of feminism, was concerned with suffrage. That is widely recognised as the first wave. You fail to realize the importance of getting the right to vote was for women; they had no representation in Britain at all...and all the other aims of feminism could only occur when women had the vote. Until then, men could reinforce the patriarchy, continuously, and vote, in perpetuity, a government which continues to ignore women. Feminists will argue that the repression in women's rights stems directly from a right to vote. I think the logic was, that if a woman received the right to vote, it would open up the right to vote for other repressed groups.
The third wave has tried to right the wrongs of the first and second waves, in that it makes equality the aim. The second wave especially, is responsible for further conflating 'feminism as a whole' with white, middle class, well-to-do, bra-burning, men-haters. Feminism is becoming increasingly diverse, and the third wave (maybe even fourth wave!) is addressing that.
First wave feminism is much older that the suffrage movements. Point in fact is that many feminist's of the era by simply having similar aim's would of almost universally of been suffragettes. By comparison most suffragettes by any stretch of the imagination would not be viewed in any way shape or form as feminist's.
Many still agreed in the separation of genders, roles within the family, men's place dying for society.
Problem is what we call second wave feminist's were the ones to originally coin most pre 1960's movements as first wave feminist's. This pretty much mean't any organisation beforehand that in their views helped their cause, became feminist, whether or not in fact in reality they were.
As an anti-feminist, I can assure you there are other movements and labels for gender equality. I think feminism is narrow-minded, and struggles with its own definition and minor issues. I have done a lot of research into both sides before finally stating publicly that I am anti-feminist. Does that mean I am against equal rights? Of course not. But when I see articles that suggest paying men less than women to even the wage gap (which has already been debunked multiple times anyway), and offering women 'alternatives' to prison because 'it's not designed for women' both produced by the feminist movement, it and countless other examples baffle me. I can't fathom how people can say feminism is for equal rights when it is for nothing of the sort. It is to elevate women above men, especially the straight white variety as they have been painted as the villains on which all of the world's problems can be blamed. I am trying to hold off from ranting here, but if you have any questions please send me a message.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 ?
