Is feminism still relevant; what is modern-day feminism like?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kiss
You answered your own questions with your own answers:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here, sorry.
Original post by bottled
Hm. As far as i am concerned all of my points are related, although admittedly i am going onto some tangents they are all related to what modern feminism is like. unlike your fox hunting and gay marriage analogy which are pretty much totally unrelated.
I also don't recall suggesting that the world is split into sane people and feminists or that feminists are 'insane' i am fully aware about all the different sorts of feminism, egalitarianism, mrms and whatever else there is.
fact of the matter is i'm just going to judge feminism by what they have done thus far, and i still don't like what i am seeing
I also don't recall suggesting that the world is split into sane people and feminists or that feminists are 'insane' i am fully aware about all the different sorts of feminism, egalitarianism, mrms and whatever else there is.
fact of the matter is i'm just going to judge feminism by what they have done thus far, and i still don't like what i am seeing
You claimed that feminists don't campaign for certain rights to do with pediatrics and other areas (which is utterly untrue, btw). This is like asking why an anti-fox hunting campaigner doesn't oppose same-sex marriage. They're different issues, as it's highly likely that the first group of campaigners will neither be totally dedicated to the second issue, nor 100% against it.
The campaigns on the second issue are completely irrelevant to the first, and this applies equally to your argument about feminists not campaigning for men's issues. Some do, others don't, and it's just totally unimportant for this discussion. And as I said before, not all feminists are female.
I personally think feminism today is outdated, but not so much with the concepts but with the approach. The video posted by Idle does offer some insight into why I believe this.
Earlier feminism concentrated upon things which could be written in law, measured and such. Things like ensuring a women, in theory could become a CEO, could attend college, could be a corporate big wig and the family breadwinner. I think all those things have been established and proved to be possible.
Feminism today concentrates on establish social sexists norms, such as despite a women being able to be a breadwinner its far more common for a women to give up her career and raise children in a partnership, regardless of earning potential and such. They are basically focusing on discreet sexual bias in society.
To address such things you need to address men in the same way as women. You cannot look at things such as equal pay and career paths if at the same time allowing even causal attitudes towards men. Things such as a women wanting, even if not specifically needing, a men who earns a top wage. Because the flip side of such a view is a man who feels this is his role, and as such not his role to be a father and homemaker. You cannot have two breadwinners, two career focused, parents who leave responsibilities to the other. Even the most subtle preference has a effect on the other side.
Things such as "rape culture", a term I hate, are not a single sided coin either, its a society which both male and female parts reward attitudes which lead on to such things. Female admiration of Don Draper, Christian Grey, the confident pro active, rich, initiating, irresistible man as the ideal all force men towards an image in which the are dominant and in control. Those are just as important in contribution to the overall culture as other small details which objectify and sexualise women. Neither result in rape, but they create the environment which perpetuates attitudes. The issues are interlinked, and if you pretend they are not or you can address one without the other you will fail.
Its a point which is acknowledged by feminists, "patriarchy hurts men" but its not actually addressed in any other form than the promotion of women. Its never going to be accepted for women to occupy the same position as men on and individual level until is accepted for men to occupy the same positions as women on a individual level.
Earlier feminism concentrated upon things which could be written in law, measured and such. Things like ensuring a women, in theory could become a CEO, could attend college, could be a corporate big wig and the family breadwinner. I think all those things have been established and proved to be possible.
Feminism today concentrates on establish social sexists norms, such as despite a women being able to be a breadwinner its far more common for a women to give up her career and raise children in a partnership, regardless of earning potential and such. They are basically focusing on discreet sexual bias in society.
To address such things you need to address men in the same way as women. You cannot look at things such as equal pay and career paths if at the same time allowing even causal attitudes towards men. Things such as a women wanting, even if not specifically needing, a men who earns a top wage. Because the flip side of such a view is a man who feels this is his role, and as such not his role to be a father and homemaker. You cannot have two breadwinners, two career focused, parents who leave responsibilities to the other. Even the most subtle preference has a effect on the other side.
Things such as "rape culture", a term I hate, are not a single sided coin either, its a society which both male and female parts reward attitudes which lead on to such things. Female admiration of Don Draper, Christian Grey, the confident pro active, rich, initiating, irresistible man as the ideal all force men towards an image in which the are dominant and in control. Those are just as important in contribution to the overall culture as other small details which objectify and sexualise women. Neither result in rape, but they create the environment which perpetuates attitudes. The issues are interlinked, and if you pretend they are not or you can address one without the other you will fail.
Its a point which is acknowledged by feminists, "patriarchy hurts men" but its not actually addressed in any other form than the promotion of women. Its never going to be accepted for women to occupy the same position as men on and individual level until is accepted for men to occupy the same positions as women on a individual level.
Original post by Dez
Not sure what point you're trying to make here, sorry.
You claimed that feminists don't campaign for certain rights to do with pediatrics and other areas (which is utterly untrue, btw). This is like asking why an anti-fox hunting campaigner doesn't oppose same-sex marriage. They're different issues, as it's highly likely that the first group of campaigners will neither be totally dedicated to the second issue, nor 100% against it.
The campaigns on the second issue are completely irrelevant to the first, and this applies equally to your argument about feminists not campaigning for men's issues. Some do, others don't, and it's just totally unimportant for this discussion. And as I said before, not all feminists are female.
You claimed that feminists don't campaign for certain rights to do with pediatrics and other areas (which is utterly untrue, btw). This is like asking why an anti-fox hunting campaigner doesn't oppose same-sex marriage. They're different issues, as it's highly likely that the first group of campaigners will neither be totally dedicated to the second issue, nor 100% against it.
The campaigns on the second issue are completely irrelevant to the first, and this applies equally to your argument about feminists not campaigning for men's issues. Some do, others don't, and it's just totally unimportant for this discussion. And as I said before, not all feminists are female.
I believe i must've construed my point pretty badly in which case. The point in which i was trying to make is that most modern feminists is failing in achieving equality as they fail to realise that most things go both ways, which was why i brought up those examples.
I also didn't claim that they DONT campaign for certain rights, i'm simply saying that i haven't SEEN any major pushes for most things. Most of them are small scale, and barely get exposure
for instance, difficulty of getting into some proffessions due to gender reasons, difficulty in courtrooms due to gender , 'rape culture' I'm also pretty sure that i used gender neutral terms throughout my post too.
Furthermore most men's issues and women's issues tend to be interlocked, such as rights in courtrooms, custody rights, child support etc.
random question though. i've always wanted to know, what is that thing in your avatar? I saw it in FF dissidia, but no idea what it is
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by bottled
I believe i must've construed my point pretty badly in which case. The point in which i was trying to make is that most modern feminists is failing in achieving equality as they fail to realise that most things go both ways, which was why i brought up those examples.
I also didn't claim that they DONT campaign for certain rights, i'm simply saying that i haven't SEEN any major pushes for most things. Most of them are small scale, and barely get exposure
for instance, difficulty of getting into some proffessions due to gender reasons, difficulty in courtrooms due to gender , 'rape culture' I'm also pretty sure that i used gender neutral terms throughout my post too.
Furthermore most men's issues and women's issues tend to be interlocked.
I also didn't claim that they DONT campaign for certain rights, i'm simply saying that i haven't SEEN any major pushes for most things. Most of them are small scale, and barely get exposure
for instance, difficulty of getting into some proffessions due to gender reasons, difficulty in courtrooms due to gender , 'rape culture' I'm also pretty sure that i used gender neutral terms throughout my post too.
Furthermore most men's issues and women's issues tend to be interlocked.
Have you considered the possibility that the reason there hasn't been a greater push for those issues, is that they simply aren't anywhere near as widespread as the issue of gender inequality? Also I'm pretty sure most feminists are quite happy to reach compromises, but you're never going to get anywhere campaigning for a halfway house. When students took to the streets over tuition fees, you didn't see them waving banners asking for a 5% reduction. That's just not how it works.
Original post by RobertWhite
What exactly is feminism today? After much research into the topic I can't find exactly what it is they're out to achieve. I've even asked at my university a group of feminists what it is they're fighting for and none of them could answer me.
Is feminism still relevant today? Are the aspects of gender equality they're fighting for, fight-able? Aspects of gender 'inequality' they fight for is the objectification of women, or that more women are sexually assaulted than men. Is that something we can change? are they targeting the right people to do this (a big catalyst being the media)?
Can anyone shed light on what feminism is today?
Is feminism still relevant today? Are the aspects of gender equality they're fighting for, fight-able? Aspects of gender 'inequality' they fight for is the objectification of women, or that more women are sexually assaulted than men. Is that something we can change? are they targeting the right people to do this (a big catalyst being the media)?
Can anyone shed light on what feminism is today?
Yeh I don't know either, but whenever girls get naked on TV/newspapers/magazines, they say it's about empowering women...so it must be to do with getting your tits out.
Original post by Willbean
Modern feminism is pretty much this:
Get your tits out.
Cause trouble.
Get arrested.
Seriously, what does getting your tits out and arrested prove? And don't say **** like it's 'empowering' to get your boobs out or that it is a symbol of a female. So is a vagina, why not get that out and flaunt?
I want a logical reason on what getting your breasts out achieves and how does it benefit the feminism cause.
All you are going to achieve is gain attention from young men who want to oggle.
Get your tits out.
Cause trouble.
Get arrested.
Seriously, what does getting your tits out and arrested prove? And don't say **** like it's 'empowering' to get your boobs out or that it is a symbol of a female. So is a vagina, why not get that out and flaunt?
I want a logical reason on what getting your breasts out achieves and how does it benefit the feminism cause.
All you are going to achieve is gain attention from young men who want to oggle.
It is often seen as a statement against the hyper sexualisation of women's body. For example - why is it okay for men to walk around topless and not for women?
In Britain modern feminism is a fight against de fact discrimination. We have legal equality, but it's not often enforced. It's more to do with trying to change the public opinion and perception of women and their role in society, as well as trying to change women's opinions of themselves - raising their self image etc.
On a global scale we are trying to achieve equality for all men and women. For example - in India, Congo, and Iran.
Of course there are the radicals that bring a bad name to the movement that want female supremacy but we don't listen to them. I use the word 'feminist' very reluctantly when talking about them because feminism is about gender equality. The radicals are 'female supremacists' - there we go, we found a better term.
In this country, feminism has no further purpose, and arguably has gone too far due to women having more rights/entitlements than men. You can point at various countries which oppress women to say it's still relevant and you'd be right, but only in those countries.
Feminism started with two 'motivations' for people to get together to fight for more rights for women. These were people who wanted women to have the same rights as men, and those who hated men (back in the day, perhaps understandably due to justified envy). Clearly, as time has gone by, there is very little for the former group to get passionate about (the main one is the pay gap, but the solutions to this are reducing maternity leave, or increasing paternity leave, which are either bad for women or bad for the economy as a whole respectively, so doesn't look to be solvable soon), leaving the movement (or those claiming to be in the movement) with a larger proportion of man haters, who just go around looking for a way to criticise/demonise men. The feminism movement and name has been tainted and hijacked by such man haters, and arguably was always a biased term to start with - how could something aiming to be equal for both genders have a name such as feminism?
Feminism started with two 'motivations' for people to get together to fight for more rights for women. These were people who wanted women to have the same rights as men, and those who hated men (back in the day, perhaps understandably due to justified envy). Clearly, as time has gone by, there is very little for the former group to get passionate about (the main one is the pay gap, but the solutions to this are reducing maternity leave, or increasing paternity leave, which are either bad for women or bad for the economy as a whole respectively, so doesn't look to be solvable soon), leaving the movement (or those claiming to be in the movement) with a larger proportion of man haters, who just go around looking for a way to criticise/demonise men. The feminism movement and name has been tainted and hijacked by such man haters, and arguably was always a biased term to start with - how could something aiming to be equal for both genders have a name such as feminism?
Original post by Dez
Have you considered the possibility that the reason there hasn't been a greater push for those issues, is that they simply aren't anywhere near as widespread as the issue of gender inequality? Also I'm pretty sure most feminists are quite happy to reach compromises, but you're never going to get anywhere campaigning for a halfway house. When students took to the streets over tuition fees, you didn't see them waving banners asking for a 5% reduction. That's just not how it works.
not unless you consider things such as
1)The Deluth model of domestic abuse is that which makes up western legislature on the issue. It ALWAYS blames the man. Here are over 300 sources proving women commit equal or more domestic abuse. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
2)domestic abuse law bias, there is a considerable lack of shelters.
3)Large numbers of homeless males
4)laws which state only men can rape
small things...
as a matter of fact there have been some pushes, however they haven't gotten as much coverage as possible. Hell in india, they pushed against making rape a gender neutral law again, because unfortunately rad feminists tend to have more political power than other people.
Original post by Hopple
The feminism movement and name has been tainted and hijacked by such man haters, and arguably was always a biased term to start with - how could something aiming to be equal for both genders have a name such as feminism?
It doesn't, anyone who truly cares about equality for everyone would be an egalitarian. Feminism now is just about hating anyone who fits the three categories of being white, male and heterosexual.
Oh look, this thread again.
I think this (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/outrage-erupts-online-over-17-year-old-girls-suicide-after-h) and the Steubenville rape trial, are good enough examples for me why feminism is required.
And about half the posts on TSR.
I think this (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/outrage-erupts-online-over-17-year-old-girls-suicide-after-h) and the Steubenville rape trial, are good enough examples for me why feminism is required.
And about half the posts on TSR.
Original post by flying plum
Oh look, this thread again.
I think this (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/outrage-erupts-online-over-17-year-old-girls-suicide-after-h) and the Steubenville rape trial, are good enough examples for me why feminism is required.
And about half the posts on TSR.
I think this (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/outrage-erupts-online-over-17-year-old-girls-suicide-after-h) and the Steubenville rape trial, are good enough examples for me why feminism is required.
And about half the posts on TSR.
That has nothing to do with feminism what so ever frankly, it's a tragic story though.
Original post by Idle
That has nothing to do with feminism what so ever frankly, it's a tragic story though.
The demonisation of rape victims has everything to do with feminism.
Original post by Idle
That has nothing to do with feminism what so ever frankly, it's a tragic story though.
From the article:
"People texted her all the time, saying 'Will you have sex with me?'" she remembered. "Girls texting, saying 'You're such a slut.'"
Pretty sure a guy wouldn't receive harassment like that.
Original post by Captain Haddock
The demonisation of rape victims has everything to do with feminism.
I'm sorry if there was not enough evidence in a court of law then they are not guilty. Our whole justice system is based on being innocent until proven guilty. I hope they find the evidence to convict whoever but the media are not a jury.
Original post by Dez
More female representatives in government would probably be a start. Also, might want to look into the whole persecution thing going on in Saudi Arabia and the middle east. Just a thought.
Just leave them and their laws
Original post by Dez
From the article:
"People texted her all the time, saying 'Will you have sex with me?'" she remembered. "Girls texting, saying 'You're such a slut.'"
Pretty sure a guy wouldn't receive harassment like that.
"People texted her all the time, saying 'Will you have sex with me?'" she remembered. "Girls texting, saying 'You're such a slut.'"
Pretty sure a guy wouldn't receive harassment like that.
Original post by Dez
From the article:
"People texted her all the time, saying 'Will you have sex with me?'" she remembered. "Girls texting, saying 'You're such a slut.'"
Pretty sure a guy wouldn't receive harassment like that.
"People texted her all the time, saying 'Will you have sex with me?'" she remembered. "Girls texting, saying 'You're such a slut.'"
Pretty sure a guy wouldn't receive harassment like that.
I imagine while a male would not be called a slut they would certainly be made fun of yes due to the stupidity, immaturity and insensitivity of some young people rather than an attack on a persons sex.
Original post by doggyfizzel
Although I'm not arguing that it had nothing to do with feminism, are you arguing a guy who had been gang raped had pictures distributed around school would not have been mocked or are free from the stigma of sexual assault?
Since we don't have a similar case to compare to, this is conjecture really, but can you honestly imagine people sending a guy texts asking for sex after something like this happened to him? Probably not. In reality those messages are just a thin veil for the whole you-deserved-it attitude towards rape.
Original post by Idle
I'm sorry if there was not enough evidence in a court of law then they are not guilty. Our whole justice system is based on being innocent until proven guilty. I hope they find the evidence to convict whoever but the media are not a jury.
... But the Steubenville rapists were found guilty. I don't even know what you're getting at. We're talking about rape victims being shamed and demonised. Did you even click the link?
Original post by bottled
not unless you consider things such as
1)The Deluth model of domestic abuse is that which makes up western legislature on the issue. It ALWAYS blames the man. Here are over 300 sources proving women commit equal or more domestic abuse. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
2)domestic abuse law bias, there is a considerable lack of shelters.
3)Large numbers of homeless males
4)laws which state only men can rape
small things...
as a matter of fact there have been some pushes, however they haven't gotten as much coverage as possible. Hell in india, they pushed against making rape a gender neutral law again, because unfortunately rad feminists tend to have more political power than other people.
1)The Deluth model of domestic abuse is that which makes up western legislature on the issue. It ALWAYS blames the man. Here are over 300 sources proving women commit equal or more domestic abuse. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
2)domestic abuse law bias, there is a considerable lack of shelters.
3)Large numbers of homeless males
4)laws which state only men can rape
small things...
as a matter of fact there have been some pushes, however they haven't gotten as much coverage as possible. Hell in india, they pushed against making rape a gender neutral law again, because unfortunately rad feminists tend to have more political power than other people.
I don't see how India is a brilliant example of a feminist hotbed....that law would've been kept because of the traditional gender roles perpetuated by the people, rather than any feminist campaign considering the terrible state of womens rights in the country. Anyway, if we humour this hypothesis, I fail to understand the supposed motive of feminists for preventing this law coming through?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day 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 1 day 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 ?
