Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Time to abandon Feminism? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In this modern day and age, Feminism as a term and concept has been polluted by radical misandrists. One cannot call themselves a Feminist without being tarred with that brush, and it is a bad brush.

    So I propose we let such radicals have Feminism. It's not a needed concept anyway, indeed in it's inception it's a loaded term. The same way we no longer talk in terms of 'Black rights' but race equality we now need to talk of gender equality.

    I understand why people don't want to abandon the term feminism, it's a very emotive issue, and all around the world women are treated as second-class citizens. But there is another issue, and a growing one in the modern world, and that is gender as a concept. The growth in the LGBT community cannot be denied, as liberal society has accepted them. Gender is no longer merely male & female, cis-gender is not the only option. So again, as 'Black rights' became race equality to encompass all races, so feminism, the major driving force in gender issues, needs to become the more encompassing gender equality. Such a title also helps to prevent the discrimination, extremism and sectarianism that we have seen in modern 'feminism', you cannot promote rights beyond equality like you can when you focus on promoting only a single party's rights like you do in Feminism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe feminism has been deliberately tarnished by misogynists - who use a victim complex to justify their discriminatory views in much the same way (ironically) as the misandric feminists they like to pretend are the majority.

    While it may be only a matter of (fairly ridiculous) wordplay, I prefer to retain (and therefore protect the honour of, if that makes sense) the term "feminist" but describe myself as an egalitarian/humanist (or even a "masculinist" if needs be) in addition.

    I also do not believe that modern feminism is the main culprit for quashing men's rights. It is traditional (aka non-feminist) viewpoints which do the most to restrict men in traditionally female domains. What feminist thinks that men should have less rights to their children because women are the "natural" parent (for example)? How does that even make sense? I find that feminism seems to be blamed for every abuse of men's rights, or every example of a woman behaving badly, even when there is no connection whatsoever. Why should the term be abandoned because those against the equal treatment of both sexes have deliberately attempted to tarnish it?

    EDIT: I think bringing LGBT into this defeats the point - aren't they an organisation/concept which could be criticised in exactly the same way as feminism, because defending heterosexuals is not an overt part of their set-up?

    I liken the conservative/traditional attack on LGBT rights as "an assault of family values" or "undermining heterosexuals" as exactly the same as the way that feminism is viewed as an assault on men. Basically a massive strawman which we should have the sense to see straight through.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Most words and terms that usually reserved for association or use by women undergo negative pejoration. Feminism itself has been tarnished with a stiff, generalising brush. Not all feminists are female, neither are they radical, homosexual, home-wrecking or man hating. All of those are silly social-stereotypes.

    'Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women' - that's the definition I'm 100% behind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    I believe feminism has been deliberately tarnished by misogynists - who use a victim complex to justify their discriminatory views in much the same way (ironically) as the misandric feminists they like to pretend are the majority.

    While it may be only a matter of (fairly ridiculous) wordplay, I prefer to retain (and therefore protect the honour of, if that makes sense) the term "feminist" but describe myself as an egalitarian/humanist (or even a "masculinist" if needs be) in addition.

    I also do not believe that modern feminism is the main culprit for quashing men's rights. It is traditional (aka non-feminist) viewpoints which do the most to restrict men in traditionally female domains. What feminist thinks that men should have less rights to their children because women are the "natural" parent (for example)? How does that even make sense? I find that feminism seems to be blamed for every abuse of men's rights, or every example of a woman behaving badly, even when there is no connection whatsoever. Why should the term be abandoned because those against the equal treatment of both sexes have deliberately attempted to tarnish it?

    EDIT: I think bringing LGBT into this defeats the point - aren't they an organisation/concept which could be criticised in exactly the same way as feminism, because defending heterosexuals is not an overt part of their set-up?

    I liken the conservative/traditional attack on LGBT rights as "an assault of family values" or "undermining heterosexuals" as exactly the same as the way that feminism is viewed as an assault on men. Basically a massive strawman which we should have the sense to see straight through.
    I agree to an extent, but surely you can't deny that gender equality better encompasses gender issues? And feminism doesn't promote change to the rights of men for their own sake, feminism in it's modern sense is about the promotion of women. It's the example of Black rights again, there was a time when such a term was appropriate, but it no longer is. And because a view is not traditional, it does not make it liberal or progressive.

    Bringing non cis-gender issues into the wider banner of gender equality would certainly help their cause, and bringing together male and female rights promotion under the same banner can only be a good thing too, unless you believe in the promotion of one over the other.

    (Original post by Pedd)
    Most words and terms that usually reserved for association or use by women undergo negative pejoration. Feminism itself has been tarnished with a stiff, generalising brush. Not all feminists are female, neither are they radical, homosexual, home-wrecking or man hating.

    'Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women' - if that's the meaning of feminism, then I'm 100% behind it.
    But equal to what? The very idea of Feminism is sexist, it's a constant process of 'catching up to' men, but that's not the issue in the modern world, it's no longer getting the vote or equal pay. Gender issues are far more grey than they have ever been, and gender encompasses the non cis-gendered community. All of these should be under the same banner. You wouldn't suooprt seperate Black, Chinese and Polish rights lobby groups would you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lets just put it this way, a few hundred years ago, would there be a need for giving women equal rights?

    When manual labour was all there was, and men were far more suited to it, women being child bearers and home keepers (as nature worked?).

    BUT, the time has come when women can do jobs equally as well as a man can. However , socio-economic equality ONLY should come when a women is prepared to put in the SAME work as a man is.

    I respect women immensely...but the women who got hired by Lord Sugar and then just got pregnant and went on maternity...are they not cheating the system?

    Surely if someone hires you, they don't say "Oh let me hire you, and pay you to be off for a year or two".

    I just think equal rights should come for equal work. If a woman can do it as well as a man can, why on earth hold her back?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But equal to what? The very idea of Feminism is sexist, it's a constant process of 'catching up to' men, but that's not the issue in the modern world, it's no longer getting the vote or equal pay. Gender issues are far more grey than they have ever been, and gender encompasses the non cis-gendered community. All of these should be under the same banner. You wouldn't suooprt seperate Black, Chinese and Polish rights lobby groups would you?
    I don't support a particular feminist group in particular, nor am I member of a feminist group. What I am is a firm believer in the ideology. In terms of upholding the accomplished equality in pay and voting rights here, and in pushing such an agenda to places it hasn't reached. Feminism doesn't always mean actively pursuing more, it can also mean preserving what has been attained.

    I wouldn't mind if all the equal-right groups were all under the same banner, it would probably be a more powerful movement if they were. But I don't see a problem in separation either - it allows individual focus.

    By virtue of supporting reasonable equality, I would indeed support the ideals behind Black, Chinese and Polish lobby groups. Of course, like feminism, I don't align myself with or advocate a particular group as sometimes they can be facile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I agree to an extent, but surely you can't deny that gender equality better encompasses gender issues?
    Yes. But one can be a gender egalitarian (in fact I think it is absolutely necessary to be so) and a feminist. I'd say more feminists are gender egalitarians than are people who either take no interest or are "against feminism" a significant proportion of whom (at least online) seem to be sexist by my estimation (not you btw, I am not trying to call you sexist - but the number of threads I see "women are evil, defend man's rights against feminism!!" is just ludicrous because they literally encompass everything said posters accuse feminism of being (which it isn't) and criticise feminism for being, yet ordinary not-sexist people chirp in and seem to agree, and seem to be blind to the sheer hypocrisy - what case in point could better demonstrate the need for feminism?)

    (Original post by Steevee)
    And feminism doesn't promote change to the rights of men for their own sake, feminism in it's modern sense is about the promotion of women.
    No, strongly disagree, basically see my original post. I think this strawman with sexist origins tbh.


    (Original post by Steevee)
    It's the example of Black rights again, there was a time when such a term was appropriate, but it no longer is. And because a view is not traditional, it does not make it liberal or progressive.
    I disagree that Black rights is an inappropriate term.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Bringing non cis-gender issues into the wider banner of gender equality would certainly help their cause, and bringing together male and female rights promotion under the same banner can only be a good thing too, unless you believe in the promotion of one over the other.
    Yes. This is why I loudly proclaim I am a gender egalitarian (and well, overall egalitarian) as well as a feminist at every opportunity!

    (Original post by Steevee)
    But equal to what? The very idea of Feminism is sexist, it's a constant process of 'catching up to' men, but that's not the issue in the modern world, it's no longer getting the vote or equal pay.
    But that's the thing - issues such as equal pay and shared responsibilities are still major, even in the developed world. Moreover, issues of the portrayal and expectations of women, and the different subculture they are exposed to (in some ways better, in some ways worse) is still major imo.


    (Original post by Steevee)
    Gender issues are far more grey than they have ever been, and gender encompasses the non cis-gendered community. All of these should be under the same banner. You wouldn't suooprt seperate Black, Chinese and Polish rights lobby groups would you?
    They exist and I do support them as long as they don't have a superior attitude. It is no bad thing for groups which are still in some way marginalized to have specific representation. It's the same as I'm not against "fathers for justice" just because they don't call themselves "parents for justice" and dabble in female parents rights - they have identified a specific problem and attempt to address it.


    EDIT: I guess what it comes down to is that I don't believe feminism has become a misandric movement. If I thought it had, I would probably agree with you. But on principle I am reluctant to give up the term "feminist" when I think it has been deliberately tarnished by sexists who want to undermine the notion that women are wrongly viewed/treated differently in society (which imo they are). I am perhaps somewhat embittered to having that view from the vast number of dual sexist/anti-feminist threads I see continuously on this site though, so maybe otherwise I would be less defensive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    Yes. But one can be a gender egalitarian (in fact I think it is absolutely necessary to be so) and a feminist. I'd say more feminists are gender egalitarians than are people who either take no interest or are "against feminism" a significant proportion of whom (at least online) seem to be sexist by my estimation (not you btw, I am not trying to call you sexist - but the number of threads I see "women are evil, defend man's rights against feminism!!" is just ludicrous because they literally encompass everything said posters accuse feminism of being (which it isn't) and criticise feminism for being, yet ordinary not-sexist people chirp in and seem to agree, and seem to be blind to the sheer hypocrisy - what case in point could better demonstrate the need for feminism?)



    No, strongly disagree, basically see my original post. I think this strawman with sexist origins tbh.




    I disagree that Black rights is an inappropriate term.



    Yes. This is why I loudly proclaim I am a gender egalitarian (and well, overall egalitarian) as well as a feminist at every opportunity!



    But that's the thing - issues such as equal pay and shared responsibilities are still major, even in the developed world. Moreover, issues of the portrayal and expectations of women, and the different subculture they are exposed to (in some ways better, in some ways worse) is still major imo.




    They exist and I do support them as long as they don't have a superior attitude. It is no bad thing for groups which are still in some way marginalized to have specific representation. It's the same as I'm not against "fathers for justice" just because they don't call themselves "parents for justice" and dabble in female parents rights - they have identified a specific problem and attempt to address it.
    But one cannot, straight facedly be both. You either in equality for notions of gender or you don't. And if you do, then there's no need to call yourself a femenist, because you've already said it, and if you are only active for womens rights then I would say that would go against the very thing you claim to be.

    You can disagree all you want, it's true. The very definition makes this obvious, it's the promotion of womens rights. Yes, I understand the word 'equality' is in the definition, but this is facile.

    I agree, pay, gender identity are all big issues, none of which are unique to women, so why would you single them out? Because you're a woman? That's the only reason I can think, but it's not legitimate.

    So you would support a White rights group? Mens rights groups? It's funny, but the very 'White, middle-aged male' society of the past is the very thing that leads to inequality in the recognition of problems and rights today. Mens rights are not an issue that are taken seriously, neither are the issues of non-cis gendered people. As a 'gender egalitarian' as you claim to be, you should support all of these equally under the banner of Gender Equality. Not pay lip service to them and then proclaim yourself feminist. Would you honestly take seriously a white man that says he believes in racial equality, but then campaigns only for White rights and declares himself a White activist etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    So you would support a White rights group? Mens rights groups? It's funny, but the very 'White, middle-aged male' society of the past is the very thing that leads to inequality in the recognition of problems and rights today. Mens rights are not an issue that are taken seriously, neither are the issues of non-cis gendered people. As a 'gender egalitarian' as you claim to be, you should support all of these equally under the banner of Gender Equality. Not pay lip service to them and then proclaim yourself feminist. Would you honestly take seriously a white man that says he believes in racial equality, but then campaigns only for White rights and declares himself a White activist etc?
    I would take a "White rights" activist seriously if they didn't have a superior attitude and can demonstrate the way in which they were being discriminated against (because of their whiteness) that they are trying to challenge. It is hardly my fault that I have never seen such an example, because most people with this attitude are actually just racists and their idea of white rights genuinely is just white supremacy.

    Likewise I take a feminist seriously if s/he says "look at the way women in politics are judged for their appearance and not their opinions" but not if s/he says "argh I must defend women's right to their children in court! No man should be the main parent because men suck" - because that's sexist and women already have the advantage there.

    It's you who's decided that my identifying as feminist means I only pay lip service to other egalitarian causes, not me. It is only your semantic interpretation which states that a feminist cannot be a true egalitarian.

    I'm short on time so we may have to agree to disagree (although, on the fundamentals I'm not sure we disagree at all!). Interesting discussion and I do see your viewpoint.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You know what? I think the social and mainstream media reactions to the Steubenville rape trial proves why feminism is still needed. there is still a particular problem with attitudes towards women, not only from men as the twitter and other messages show. There is still a problem, attitudes have not changed, and I am amazingly depressed reading those tweets and watching CNN's coverage.

    http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism has got to the point now where the objective is to be BETTER than men. That's wrong. Total equality should be the goal.

    Feminism is an absolute farce from bottom up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    You know what? I think the social and mainstream media reactions to the Steubenville rape trial proves why feminism is still needed. there is still a particular problem with attitudes towards women, not only from men as the twitter and other messages show. There is still a problem, attitudes have not changed, and I am amazingly depressed reading those tweets and watching CNN's coverage.

    http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/
    I had no idea there was this kind of reaction going on outside Steubenville's initial attempt to cover the case up. It's so very very satisfying to look up each of those twitter accounts and survey the aftermath of their moronic/offensive comments.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    You know what? I think the social and mainstream media reactions to the Steubenville rape trial proves why feminism is still needed. there is still a particular problem with attitudes towards women, not only from men as the twitter and other messages show. There is still a problem, attitudes have not changed, and I am amazingly depressed reading those tweets and watching CNN's coverage.

    http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/
    People on the internet are idiots shocker :rolleyes:

    People are entitled to their opinions, however stupid they may be. Whoever is behind that tumblr page is as pathetic as the tweeters and has a massive victim complex. Publishing those details because you don't agree with their opinions is absolutely ridiculous and I said the same when the BNP members list got leaked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    In this modern day and age, Feminism as a term and concept has been polluted by radical misandrists. One cannot call themselves a Feminist without being tarred with that brush, and it is a bad brush.

    So I propose we let such radicals have Feminism. It's not a needed concept anyway, indeed in it's inception it's a loaded term. The same way we no longer talk in terms of 'Black rights' but race equality we now need to talk of gender equality.

    I understand why people don't want to abandon the term feminism, it's a very emotive issue, and all around the world women are treated as second-class citizens. But there is another issue, and a growing one in the modern world, and that is gender as a concept. The growth in the LGBT community cannot be denied, as liberal society has accepted them. Gender is no longer merely male & female, cis-gender is not the only option. So again, as 'Black rights' became race equality to encompass all races, so feminism, the major driving force in gender issues, needs to become the more encompassing gender equality. Such a title also helps to prevent the discrimination, extremism and sectarianism that we have seen in modern 'feminism', you cannot promote rights beyond equality like you can when you focus on promoting only a single party's rights like you do in Feminism.
    I didn't understand squat of what you just said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    People on the internet are idiots shocker :rolleyes:

    People are entitled to their opinions, however stupid they may be. Whoever is behind that tumblr page is as pathetic as the tweeters and has a massive victim complex. Publishing those details because you don't agree with their opinions is absolutely ridiculous and I said the same when the BNP members list got leaked.
    Idiots maybe, but people still feel they need to say things, and the views are pretty Stone Age. As for the publication...twitter is already public, people are putting these things out there for the world to see. Nothing (unlike the BNP list) is being 'leaked'.

    Further, while twitter may attract trolls, the mainstream media can make no such defence. The mourning over the 'ruined lives' of the two convicted young men is totally inappropriate - and never something seen with other violent crimes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    Idiots maybe, but people still feel they need to say things, and the views are pretty Stone Age.
    You are assuming they are actually genuine views. This is the internet after all where trolling is commonplace.

    As for the publication...twitter is already public, people are putting these things out there for the world to see. Nothing (unlike the BNP list) is being 'leaked'.
    It's not the same no but I mentioned that because I don't agree with 'shaming' people for their views, which is exactly what they're doing. They are as bad as the tweeters. Just leave them to it tbh.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-...comm_ref=false

    Also, saying "people have stereotyped us, lets get a new name" won't work. Because they would still stereotype you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    You are assuming they are actually genuine views. This is the internet after all where trolling is commonplace.



    It's not the same no but I mentioned that because I don't agree with 'shaming' people for their views, which is exactly what they're doing. They are as bad as the tweeters. Just leave them to it tbh.
    Whether you agree with the site or not, the point is, people still feel able to air these views. I think his is a problem; there is still an attitude tat it s ok to say such thigs about women.

    And as I added in my earlier post, trolling doesn't really explain the mainstream TV news coverage.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:


    Is this a good example of feminism gone wrong?
    If she just shut her mouth, she wouldn't have been sent to prison.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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

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