Is feminism sexist?

OP

No, it's pushing for equality. The fact that women are generally more disadvantaged in society than men means their aim is on empowering women. Calling the majority of feminists "sexist" is as absurd as calling the US civil rights movement "racist". It doesn't mean they're trying to achieve superiority for women, nor does it mean they only care about the rights of women. Of course you will get nutcases who act in contrast to this but they're not in the majority.

Thank god you used the word generally! And thank you for your answer. I do have a question, should we recognize the extreme minority as feminism or not?

Reply 21

Plagioclase

21

Original post by sw651

Thank god you used the word generally! And thank you for your answer. I do have a question, should we recognize the extreme minority as feminism or not?

Depends on how you define feminism. Google's definition is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" - using that definition, the misandrist branches probably wouldn't really count. But I guess it depends on your interpretation. The important thing is that as sensible human beings, we need to support the benign aims of our interpretation of feminism without deciding that the entire movement is invalid because of the outrageous actions of a few.

Reply 22

p1xie

Original post by sw651

Hear me out, this is the dictionary definition of sexist: prejudice or discrimination based on sex.
So if feminism is for the rights of ONLY women, does that make it sexist as their is a prejudice against the rights of men?

NO,
feminism is for the EQUAL rights of men AND women. So it isn't sexist at all.

Reply 23

PasserbyA

2

Original post by sw651

I said leading feminists, the main majority are for equality

I don't think leading feminists are radical per se, but radical feminists are often very loud. I think the confusion arises from mixing "leading" and "vocal". For example: Donald Trump is now the "leading" republican candidate because he is loud and radical. Is he really going to be leading when the silent majority votes? I'd say it's far less likely.

The problem we have with feminism now is that due to the seemingly innocuous naming, we have people misconstruing the tenets and ideas that feminism promulgates. We have radicals, just as with every other movement and ideology. The large majority of feminists (I hope) are the more moderate ones who advocate for women's rights to reach parity with men's, and who point out hypocrisies and current inadequacies. It's a glaring side effect that the road to female parity results in preferential treatment for females in some aspects of society, but those are fairly few and far between, so I hope that some people (MRA I'm looking at you) become less pedantic and realise that in the larger scheme of things, feminism is really trying to fix inequalities. I'm not demeaning or dismissing the experiences of people screwed over by the system, but I would like them to remember this is how women have been treated for millennia, and with a more acute understanding of the inherent biases and flaws in the system, receive a multi-dimensional comprehension of how society is constructed.

Reply 24

sw651

OP

3

Original post by p1xie

NO,
feminism is for the EQUAL rights of men AND women. So it isn't sexist at all.

Capitalisation of you words is rude and inflammatory.

Reply 25

Hanvyj

17

It's a movement with deep roots in history.

But I also don't think it's sexist. Is it hetrophobic to have "gay rights" activists? Why are they not "orientation-rights" activists? Do they think straight people should have less rights? No. They are trying to reduce inequality by targeting a specific shard of it - ones that the people who are part of that movement are interested in.

Should it be mandated that someone supporting women's rights should spend x time supporting men's rights? I don't think so. Equally, should the guys protesting men's rights have to spend time supporting women's rights for "fairness"? Nope. Those Father's for Justice should continue to push the specific area they feel is under-addressed.

So when *is* it sexist? In my opinion, if these groups are actively trying to *erode* other groups rights (without reason. Removing a women's instant rights to automatically have custody IS something to erode for example. Or, those stupid old rules like a man's right to all his wife's property etc). If a "feminist" is trying to bring men down out of spite, that's sexist.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 26

sw651

OP

3

Original post by Hanvyj

It's a movement with deep roots in history.

But I also don't think it's sexist. Is it hetrophobic to have "gay rights" activists? Why are they not "orientation-rights" activists? Do they think straight people should have less rights? No. They are trying to reduce inequality by targeting a specific shard of it - ones that the people who are part of that movement are interested in.

Should it be mandated that someone supporting women's rights should spend x time supporting men's rights? I don't think so. Equally, should the guys protesting men's rights have to spend time supporting women's rights for "fairness"? Nope. Those Father's for Justice should continue to push the specific area they feel is under-addressed.

Thanks for you input :smile:

I have a doubt on one point in bold. As far as I knew there aren't many men's rights groups?

Reply 27

Flibib

9

As others have said, proponents can be but the theory isn't. If you hold that feminist theory is sexist then I'd say that by the same logic you'd have to consider the civil rights movement to be racist or any suffrage campaigns to be ageist for not campaigning for young people to vote, too.

Reply 28

sw651

OP

3

Original post by Flibib

As others have said, proponents can be but the theory isn't. If you hold that feminist theory is sexist then I'd say that by the same logic you'd have to consider the civil rights movement to be racist or any suffrage campaigns to be ageist for not campaigning for young people to vote, too.

Good point. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question to can proponents of feminism be sexist?

Reply 29

Flibib

9

Original post by sw651

Good point. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question to can proponents of feminism be sexist?

Absolutely. Anyone can be anything?

Reply 30

sw651

OP

3

Original post by Flibib

Absolutely. Anyone can be anything?

Well of course, to be honest I'm glad I got sensible answers rather than the normal rants from some crazy people.

Reply 31

PasserbyA

2

Original post by sw651

Good point. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question to can proponents of feminism be sexist?

Hmm, wouldn't the answer then be a simple unanimous yes? I suppose it's perhaps better to ask "can sexist elements of feminism still be called, and defined as feminism?", but then that question answers itself too, by definition.

Reply 32

sw651

OP

3

Original post by PasserbyA

Hmm, wouldn't the answer then be a simple unanimous yes? I suppose it's perhaps better to ask "can sexist elements of feminism still be called, and defined as feminism?", but then that question answers itself too, by definition.

It's a difficult question to phrase, because we cannot ask it without answering it in the question

Reply 33

PasserbyA

2

Original post by sw651

It's a difficult question to phrase, because we cannot ask it without answering it in the question

Indeed, and I think the question is more about inherent biases in the naming/theory/movement, perhaps?

Reply 34

Hanvyj

17

Original post by sw651

Thanks for you input :smile:

I have a doubt on one point in bold. As far as I knew there aren't many men's rights groups?

Well, there's Father's for Justice as I mentioned. That's one that's super well known.

In general, there aren't many. But let's ask why. Is it because of feminism? I'm not sure how feminism would stop men meeting and discussing, or pushing for more men's rights. I think it's because men just don't feel repressed or persecuted enough to bother making rights groups. If some people do, they don't get well known or support because most men don't feel the need. Except for a few cases (e.g. Father's for Justice) where there is a reasonably wide-held view that men need more rights.

Similarly, there's no "Straight Rights" groups or similar, or "Feed the rich" charities.

Reply 35

The Diplomat.

3

feminism is a poison that must be cleansed

It is sexist yes

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 36

sw651

OP

3

Original post by Hanvyj

Well, there's Father's for Justice as I mentioned. That's one that's super well known.

In general, there aren't many. But let's ask why. Is it because of feminism? I'm not sure how feminism would stop men meeting and discussing, or pushing for more men's rights. I think it's because men just don't feel repressed or persecuted enough to bother making rights groups. If some people do, they don't get well known or support because most men don't feel the need. Except for a few cases (e.g. Father's for Justice) where there is a reasonably wide-held view that men need more rights.

Similarly, there's no "Straight Rights" groups or similar, or "Feed the rich" charities.

I think both men's and women's rights have very different issues, which is why perhaps the difference, also historically men have had more rights. Where feminism came from suffragettes, masculism has no root.

Reply 37

Nightwing_

13

I would only consider feminism sexist once equality is achieved and this is a long way off. In a sense I guess you could call it equalisitc or whatever, but that removes the obviousness that it is sex specific and that females are currently worse off (even in this country, but particularly abroad). This can work in this way as you can only (with certain exceptions) be one of the two unlike racism, where there are a large number of races.

I hope that makes sense

Reply 38

Flibib

9

Original post by PasserbyA

Hmm, wouldn't the answer then be a simple unanimous yes? I suppose it's perhaps better to ask "can sexist elements of feminism still be called, and defined as feminism?", but then that question answers itself too, by definition.