Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you consider yourself a feminist? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you consider yourself a feminist?
    Yes, I support feminism and wear the label proudly
    59
    32.96%
    Only in the sense that I support equal rights for men and women, but I prefer to call myself an "egalitarian"
    98
    54.75%
    No, I believe in traditional gender roles
    22
    12.29%

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear. I hope you know that meninism was actually a parody created by feminists...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I call my self a pro-feminist rather than a feminist, because I'm neither female nor involved in any actual feminist activism, but still broadly support those who are involved.
    then you are a feminist.
    feminism is not only for females. a feminist is whoever believes in gender equality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    The fact that there's an option in the poll that says "I believe in equal rights for men and women" (which I voted for) has been overlooked by many is very telling that feminism, for many, clearly isn't about equal rights. They've practically looked at the equal rights option and thought "no, I don't support equal rights, I think women should be first class citizens while men should be second class". As a man, I can't support such a movement.
    Feminism is plain and simple: equal rights and treatment for all sexes. Anything else is not feminism. Those who believe women are worth more than men are not feminists, and are not contributing to the feminist movement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    If we're talking "in general", men are far more likely to be assaulted by a stranger, to be murdered, possibly even more likely to be raped (in some areas) given the prison situation and the probable higher lack of reporting there, to be considered guilty until proven innocent, to be denied custody rights, to die in the workplace and to commit suicide. Nobody is trying to allude to female genitalia when they call someone a pussy; the word has different meanings. We call somebody a **** for being rude or unkind, is that discrimination? Are we trying to suggest that penises are inherently bad? "Grow balls" is more about wanting people to fit into typical roles, not hating on women. Women will also be criticized (unfairly) for behaving in a perceived masculine manner; it's about expectations, not oppression of one gender.
    • Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.1
    • Nearly one-third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.2
    • Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.3
    • Domestic violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of domestic partner violence and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims.4
    • While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by a domestic partner.5
    • Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.7
    • Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause7 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.8
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    The fact that there's an option in the poll that says "I believe in equal rights for men and women" (which I voted for) has been overlooked by many is very telling that feminism, for many, clearly isn't about equal rights. They've practically looked at the equal rights option and thought "no, I don't support equal rights, I think women should be first class citizens while men should be second class". As a man, I can't support such a movement.
    Not really p, I call myself a feminist over an egalitarian because

    1 globally inequality is faced mainly by women, in that inequality will be greater combatted by focusing firstly a women centric issues. Education, child marriage, forced marriage.

    2 the egalitarian movement doesn't so much exist as a separate movement (more just a loosely connected group of people who don't identify with the term feminist) from femenism and there a several feminist movements I do identify with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attics)
    • Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.1
    • Nearly one-third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.2
    • Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.3
    • Domestic violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of domestic partner violence and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims.4
    • While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by a domestic partner.5
    • Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.7
    • Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause7 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.8
    Those are all obviously important issues but they don't negate what I said (if you won't believe me without stats then fair enough; I am a bit busy to go hunting but you can find stuff backing up most of it and the fact that men are more likely to be considered guilty is pretty much self-evident; those accused of rape are liable to have their lives destroyed even if innocent). The point is that whether or not you are man or a woman there are problems you are much more likely to have based on your gender. I do believe that there are countries with patriarchal structures where women are oppressed, but I haven't seen the modern feminist movement do much to help them; it all seems focused on the West where I see no evidence that any one gender is "worse off".
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    Why does it matter whether it's called egalitarianism or feminism? It's the same thing so why is there an argument? Seriously who cares.
    It's not quite the same thing - egalitarianism is a belief in equality for all people across different boundaries, so racial equality etc. as well, while feminism is purely equality of the genders. The other distinctions people are trying to make (that feminism is about promoting female superiority) is miles off base, but feminism=/=egalitarianism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Those are all obviously important issues but they don't negate what I said (if you won't believe me without stats then fair enough; I am a bit busy to go hunting but you can find stuff backing up most of it and the fact that men are more likely to be considered guilty is pretty much self-evident; those accused of rape are liable to have their lives destroyed even if innocent). The point is that whether or not you are man or a woman there are problems you are much more likely to have based on your gender. I do believe that there are countries with patriarchal structures where women are oppressed, but I haven't seen the modern feminist movement do much to help them; it all seems focused on the West where I see no evidence that any one gender is "worse off".
    almost every society across the globe consists of a patriarchal structure- it is a recurrent theme both historically and globally. It is naive of you to say that you see little evidence of discrimination in the west: this is down to progress made by feminism over the last 100 years. are you saying that since relative equality has been reached in the developed world, feminism should just stop?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Those are all obviously important issues but they don't negate what I said (if you won't believe me without stats then fair enough; I am a bit busy to go hunting but you can find stuff backing up most of it and the fact that men are more likely to be considered guilty is pretty much self-evident; those accused of rape are liable to have their lives destroyed even if innocent). The point is that whether or not you are man or a woman there are problems you are much more likely to have based on your gender. I do believe that there are countries with patriarchal structures where women are oppressed, but I haven't seen the modern feminist movement do much to help them; it all seems focused on the West where I see no evidence that any one gender is "worse off".
    You're talking about white feminism here. And sadly they're the most loud. White feminists are women on the frontlines of free the nipple campaigns and sometimes force free the nipple and nakedness on women who simply don’t want to get naked, such as the featured photo of this article. Forcing Muslim women to get naked for “freedom” and degrading their religion, is white feminism. Remember, the empowerment lies in the choice. White feminists are are silent when it comes to police brutality towards black women or the immense prejudice that queer women face in their everyday lives. They are women who constantly talk about “pitting women against each other” when they are confronted about how exclusive their notions about gender equality are by minority women or other white women. Feminism is a movement that should be based on empathy and not just personal experience. “If it doesn’t affect me, then why should I bother about it?” This is the mentality that white feminists embody.


    And yes , men are more likely to be accused and held liable for all what you listed. But this , ironically , something men did to themselves. They're the ones who glorified themselves and said that its okay to abuse and beat women(at some point in history), they're the one that implanted the idea that men are more likely to do any of the following.
    Think of the girls who are forced to marry as children, the women who are burned and beaten for not doing as they are told, women who are forced into sex slavery and women who are not allowed to drive or attend school or work. Think of this : This is what feminism stands for. Unfortunately this is the truth for many females , they're often pulled out of school and get married , and go throught the same. Its an endless cycle.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attics)
    You're talking about white feminism here. And sadly they're the most loud. White feminists are women on the frontlines of free the nipple campaigns and sometimes force free the nipple and nakedness on women who simply don’t want to get naked, such as the featured photo of this article. Forcing Muslim women to get naked for “freedom” and degrading their religion, is white feminism. Remember, the empowerment lies in the choice. White feminists are are silent when it comes to police brutality towards black women or the immense prejudice that queer women face in their everyday lives. They are women who constantly talk about “pitting women against each other” when they are confronted about how exclusive their notions about gender equality are by minority women or other white women. Feminism is a movement that should be based on empathy and not just personal experience. “If it doesn’t affect me, then why should I bother about it?” This is the mentality that white feminists embody.


    And yes , men are more likely to be accused and held liable for all what you listed. But this , ironically , something men did to themselves. They're the ones who glorified themselves and said that its okay to abuse and beat women(at some point in history), they're the one that implanted the idea that men are more likely to do any of the following.
    Think of the girls who are forced to marry as children, the women who are burned and beaten for not doing as they are told, women who are forced into sex slavery and women who are not allowed to drive or attend school or work. Think of this : This is what feminism stands for. Unfortunately this is the truth for many females , they're often pulled out of school and get married , and go throught the same. Its an endless cycle.
    I fully support any movement which genuinely works to end the real inequalities that women face in many societies. But I've only ever seen feminists say "this is terrible and this is why we need feminism". The fact is that identifying yourself as a feminist in the West is associating yourself with the most vocal feminists in the West; those who care more about air conditioning and fairy tale discriminatory pay gaps than the genuine horrors women face elsewhere in the world, and will often perversely use said horrors to justify their feminism while hardly ever campaigning against them in any meaningful fashion. This is why identifying as a feminist would be problematic to me and is to many others. It's quite sad because the issues of women do need to be highlighted and given more attention in certain societies, but the word feminism has been essentially appropriated by idiots who don't know what equality means, and who work to insult and diminish the problems of men along with the problems of other women in societies where they are actually oppressed. So I feel in a sense I'm just agreeing with you (although the term "white feminism" to describe this phenomenon seems a little problematic to me; I have seen non-white people who seem to hold similar positions) here but yeah.

    The fact that some men in the past advocated abuse of women doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against men now. Nobody should be punished for sharing a gender/race/trait with somebody someone doesn't like; that is practically a definition of discrimination.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    To the average joe I tend to respond with, I agree with with equality. Bit of a politicians answer I'll admit.

    I try not to identify myself with a bunch of labels/movements.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexaorh)
    almost every society across the globe consists of a patriarchal structure- it is a recurrent theme both historically and globally. It is naive of you to say that you see little evidence of discrimination in the west: this is down to progress made by feminism over the last 100 years. are you saying that since relative equality has been reached in the developed world, feminism should just stop?
    I guess look at my post above; in countries where patriarchy is essentially evident I am in full support of putting an end to that. But describing many of the Western structures as patriarchal is misleading even in a historical context because class has generally been far, far more important than gender. I will be honest in that I have pretty limited/layman's knowledge at best of the history of most societies, but as for the UK, people often like to act as if women have been super oppressed throughout our history, but their enfranchisement didn't actually come that long after men's, and even though it was solely men who were allowed to vote for a long time it was for the great majority of that time solely very wealthy men. It's like you're faced up against a hungry cat and a hungry tiger, and you think you need to pay all the attention to the cat. Rich women have basically always had it better than poor men and held more power than poor men. Being a man has often been beneficial, but that doesn't make the system patriarchal.

    But anyway, in line with what I said above I don't think feminism (although calling it feminism makes it difficult for people to take you seriously due to what the most visible parts of the movement are doing) should "just stop" where it is still needed. But there is no need for the vast majority of what the loudest feminists are doing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    In my experience, people who post what you have and don't engage with the actual definition/branch of feminism are idiots or trolls. Unfortunately, you may well believe the tripe you just posted. Sigh.
    You aren't very bright, are you? How ironic...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You aren't very bright, are you? How ironic...
    Brilliant rebuttal...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    Brilliant rebuttal...
    Seeing that you resorted to similar name-calling instead of actually rebutting my point, which actually engaged the definition of your so-called inter-sectional feminism, I shall take this as a compliment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Seeing that you resorted to similar name-calling instead of actually rebutting my point, which actually engaged the definition of your so-called inter-sectional feminism, I shall take this as a compliment.
    You made no point. You basically said jamming too many things or terms into a theory would make it collapse somehow, just like a vagina (but you used 'prolapse' for that). This is demonstrably false, and you did not show me how intersectional feminism does not add up or make any sense just because of that reason. You also said it was an 'ill-thought theory'. You never said why.

    Again, your point was so vague as to be comical. I took it as such. I didn't realise that was the best you could do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    You made no point. You basically said jamming too many things or terms into a theory would make it collapse somehow, just like a vagina (but you used 'prolapse' for that). This is demonstrably false, and you did not show me how intersectional feminism does not add up or make any sense just because of that reason. You also said it was an 'ill-thought theory'. You never said why.

    Again, your point was so vague as to be comical. I took it as such. I didn't realise that was the best you could do.
    If one abides by Shakespeare's maxim on brevity - which inter-sectional feminism is guilty of violating - then I think I did my best in distilling my rebuttal in the form of an analogy.

    My point is not demonstrably false, in contrary to what you believe. If you look at Bentham's theory of utilitarianism, it immediately starts breaking down when he needs another theory to define what utility is, in addition to the existing disagreements over his main theory. If you look at Rawl's two-tiered principles in his theory of justice, it immediately breaks down when either limb is attacked (like in Nozick's writings). Time and time again, when people postulate overarching (complex) social theories, their theories fail to achieve their goals because of theory bloat. Sub-theories used to plug the leaks of the main theory usually make the final overall incarnation of the theory totally different from the original/main theory, expose flaws in the main theory, or worse, make the final incarnations inconsistent with the original theory. Inter-sectional feminism is no different.

    For example, in inter-sectional feminism, there is a belief that a focus on all aspects of life, i.e. race, age, orientation, wealth, education, ability etc. is needed in order to prevent erasure of minorities and to achieve equality amongst humankind. Immediately you can see the theory bloat, and, discounting other disagreements with feminist theory, cracks in inter-sectional feminism start to appear.

    For example, attacking commonplace feminist theory for its failure to make special considerations of the plight of black transgender women (because they have the highest rate of HIV contraction in the US) in the attempt to dismantle the patriarchy detracts and distracts from feminism's supposed main goal of attaining equal opportunity (or what some believe, outcome) for all. As one plugs the holes of feminist theory with sub-principles, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions to accommodate for the experiences of everyone in order to prevent the erasure of identity, the whole theory clearly falls apart in inconsistency and inelegance. If one were to indeed take into account the inter-sectionalism of feminism, there is now no clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression which the theory of feminism requires to counteract to achieve equality; is it white women, overachieving Asians, the able-bodied, white homosexuals, racist black people in South Africa, feminine ideals, etc.?

    (In contrast, the more simple principle of egalitarianism, which does not require any focus on institutional disadvantage/oppression, can achieve the supposed goals of feminism without being bogged down by all of this).

    So perhaps you should ponder on the effectiveness and usefulness of your inter-sectional feminist theory, before firing off a sassy comeback.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    If one abides by Shakespeare's maxim on brevity - which inter-sectional feminism is guilty of violating - then I think I did my best in distilling my rebuttal in the form of an analogy.

    My point is not demonstrably false, in contrary to what you believe. If you look at Bentham's theory of utilitarianism, it immediately starts breaking down when he needs another theory to define what utility is, in addition to the existing disagreements over his main theory. If you look at Rawl's two-tiered principles in his theory of justice, it immediately breaks down when either limb is attacked (like in Nozick's writings). Time and time again, when people postulate overarching (complex) social theories, their theories fail to achieve their goals because of theory bloat. Sub-theories used to plug the leaks of the main theory usually make the final overall incarnation of the theory totally different from the original/main theory, expose flaws in the main theory, or worse, make the final incarnations inconsistent with the original theory. Inter-sectional feminism is no different.

    For example, in inter-sectional feminism, there is a belief that a focus on all aspects of life, i.e. race, age, orientation, wealth, education, ability etc. is needed in order to prevent erasure of minorities and to achieve equality amongst humankind. Immediately you can see the theory bloat, and, discounting other disagreements with feminist theory, cracks in inter-sectional feminism start to appear.

    For example, attacking commonplace feminist theory for its failure to make special considerations of the plight of black transgender women (because they have the highest rate of HIV contraction in the US) in the attempt to dismantle the patriarchy detracts and distracts from feminism's supposed main goal of attaining equal opportunity (or what some believe, outcome) for all. As one plugs the holes of feminist theory with sub-principles, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions to accommodate for the experiences of everyone in order to prevent the erasure of identity, the whole theory clearly falls apart in inconsistency and inelegance. If one were to indeed take into account the inter-sectionalism of feminism, there is now no clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression which the theory of feminism requires to counteract to achieve equality; is it white women, overachieving Asians, the able-bodied, white homosexuals, racist black people in South Africa, feminine ideals, etc.?

    (In contrast, the more simple principle of egalitarianism, which does not require any focus on institutional disadvantage/oppression, can achieve the supposed goals of feminism without being bogged down by all of this).

    So perhaps you should ponder on the effectiveness and usefulness of your inter-sectional feminist theory, before firing off a sassy comeback.
    Yes, you'd be right, if there were inconsistencies and/or contradicitions within intersectional feminism. However, the overarching message IS equality, and intersectional feminism does not somehow trample all over that message or directly contradict it just because it highlights how different characteristics intersect to form the unique experiences of individuals.

    You seem to be concerned with the inelegance and simplicity of intersectional feminism, however you have not clearly stated where the fundamental flaws are or why intersectional feminism falls apart. You say there is 'no clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression' well says who? You have failed at showing this. In fact, the very thing which intersectional feminism tries to highlight is one you disregard in your 'requirement' of one group in particular which 'should' be seen as pushing the oppression. Each of the groups you listed have a component of something which society deems as the norm, be they white, straight, able-bodied, etc. but essentially any time you're attacking a vulnerable group of people for something they can't control, that is wrong. The majority of people may have those characteristics, and anyone who may have less of them or even none of them will be discriminated against in some form. Trying to act as if the acknowledgement of this in feminism means the theory's collapse seems unwarranted. The presupposition that one group or ideal should be attacked or perceived to be the oppressors is too simplistic, and betrays a want for elegance and simplicity over and above truth. Attack the theory all you want for how 'inelegant' it is, but it's acknowledgement of experiences individuals face, and each characteristic not existing in a vacuum, is a truthful one.

    Egalitarianism is an umbrella term which INCLUDES feminism as a sub-category. You NEED to focus on institutional disadvantage and oppression if you want to get at the heart of the problem and address the issues! Simply saying you want equality without any focus on the problems or causes is not good enough and you won't get anywhere.

    I've pondered on it, and it is very effective and useful. Perhaps you should prioritise truth and efficiency over perceived elegance, that is if you want any real change to occur.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    Yes, you'd be right, if there were inconsistencies and/or contradicitions within intersectional feminism. However, the overarching message IS equality, and intersectional feminism does not somehow trample all over that message or directly contradict it just because it highlights how different characteristics intersect to form the unique experiences of individuals.
    As a philosophy student/graduate, shouldn't you be looking for a watertight theory, instead of settling for an incoherent one which has an admirable goal which it is incapable of achieving?

    (Original post by Danz123)
    You seem to be concerned with the inelegance and simplicity of intersectional feminism, however you have not clearly stated where the fundamental flaws are or why intersectional feminism falls apart. You say there is 'no clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression' well says who? You have failed at showing this. In fact, the very thing which intersectional feminism tries to highlight is one you disregard in your 'requirement' of one group in particular which 'should' be seen as pushing the oppression.
    You are willfully reading parts of my sentences and not whole ones, and ignoring whole parts of my post. If you read everything carefully, I stated that feminist theory requires 'clear or coherent institutional disadvantage/oppression [for it] to counteract [and] achieve equality', not that no institutional disadvantage/oppression exists (and even this is subject to another debate). You clearly missed my point.

    Furthermore, the requirement of feminism which I stated is not that which you have understood it to be; it is not a requirement for feminist theory to have only one oppressing group, but rather, feminist theory requires at least one oppressing group. But like what I pointed out (which you seem to have missed), having multiple oppressing groups only weakens the premise for feminist theory into unintelligible gumbo. If you follow through with inter-sectional feminist theory at the macro level to cover every possible human experience (including "oppression" wrought ought from the annals of history), you will soon see that every group has been "oppressing" one another - even black people, homosexuals are capable of doing so - and thus the inter-sectional theory does not hold no water, unlike the much simpler feminist theory, which focuses only on the dismantling the patriarchy.

    (Original post by Danz123)
    Each of the groups you listed have a component of something which society deems as the norm, be they white, straight, able-bodied, etc. but essentially any time you're attacking a vulnerable group of people for something they can't control, that is wrong. The majority of people may have those characteristics, and anyone who may have less of them or even none of them will be discriminated against in some form. Trying to act as if the acknowledgement of this in feminism means the theory's collapse seems unwarranted. The presupposition that one group or ideal should be attacked or perceived to be the oppressors is too simplistic, and betrays a want for elegance and simplicity over and above truth. Attack the theory all you want for how 'inelegant' it is, but it's acknowledgement of experiences individuals face, and each characteristic not existing in a vacuum, is a truthful one.
    This part of you post stems from your gross misunderstanding of my post. Refer to what I wrote above.

    (Original post by Danz123)
    Egalitarianism is an umbrella term which INCLUDES feminism as a sub-category. You NEED to focus on institutional disadvantage and oppression if you want to get at the heart of the problem and address the issues! Simply saying you want equality without any focus on the problems or causes is not good enough and you won't get anywhere.
    While feminism arguably exists as a sub-category of egalitarianism, it is saddled with the burden of requiring a system or institution of oppression to counteract in order for the theory to apply. A lot of the time, the existence of claimed oppressive institutions are tenuous, or even worse, illusory - take for example the oft-cited gender pay gap which has been disingenuously repeated claim that women are paid less than men for the same work.

    In contrast, egalitarianism bypasses the problems which feminism faces. It is very clear whether a decision/choice has been made with any bias, and since the principle of egalitarianism does not need proof of an oppressive institution, it can be applicable to every possible decision, achieving far greater than what feminism can achieve without making any false claims of oppression. Feminism is reduced to shreds by Occam's razor.

    (Original post by Danz123)
    I've pondered on it, and it is very effective and useful. Perhaps you should prioritise truth and efficiency over perceived elegance, that is if you want any real change to occur.
    Maybe a little less pondering for you; go out into the real world and you'll realise how little feminism can achieve in a modern, Western world.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I can't stand Feminism. I do my man spread extra wide and never forget to tell Females I am oppressing them just for existing.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.