Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    if by feminism you mean the original definition of feminism (the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women), without all them swerfs and terfs, i'd say i'm very grateful for feminism. for instance, i'm grateful that most people deem it unethical for a man to harass or in several cases, kill a woman, if she says "no" to his advances
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    to be honest, let me say this as obviously one of the most anti-feminist people on this site:
    first wave feminism was the enlightenment but for women - it basically stopped injustices that went on for far too long
    first wave feminism is good. but it isn't here any more. it's like the abolition movement being seen to be the roots of BLM.
    radical feminism today, coupled with the intersectionality movement, is just a gang of ideas based on hatred towards white men
    don't believe me? name me 1) one policy of modern feminism that wouldn't involve some kind of legal discrimination against men, and 2) one issue of feminism whereby the enemy is a man?
    eeeexactly.
    that wasn't the case 100 years ago with first wave feminism - the problem wasn't "a man", it was "the law". and rightly so
    but these days, feminism is basically just a movement where "the man" is a punching bag or a scapegoat.
    so I'm grateful for feminism in its original form because it was morally justified. but today feminists don't even want real equality of personhood. they want equality of outcome, at least relatively speaking. they want to pretend that they are as competent as men even when they are pregnant or having just given birth - I'm sorry but that is an inevitable feature of the female sex - the only way to cancel this effect is to not give birth. and even if you choose to give birth, you as an individual are not economically detrimented if you have a partner who will work for you. yes, you could recognise the radical feminist notion that this makes a woman dependent on a man during this time, but honestly, our legal system will RUIN a man within divorce, so it's unlikely that, so long as marriage is involved, child-rearing will not damage women and their opportunities.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Corbynista)
    Serious question: What has feminism ever done for me?
    Assuming you are a man:

    Feminism aims to redress inequality between the genders, this has been beneficial to men too. Before feminism emerged as a true societal force, men too were forced into narrow gender slots - 'masculinity' expected of all men. Masculinity, meaning that men had to show less emotions, had to be stronger, had to have entirely different roles in society and within the family. By instilling equality feminism redefined these gender roles. Men have a far larger scope to play with in terms of adopting their own gender identity. So, in that aspect feminism allows for masculine freedom too.

    Men and women being on equal grounds allows for far more satisfying social lives and romantic lives. A submissive woman, subject to gender roles and oppression under the law, is a woman and her potential and personality muted.

    It is very easy for people to argue against feminism, and to demonise it on the internet by slandering today's feminist movement as a misandrist movement. Or even by classifying it as 'white feminism'. Surely by establishing an equal society in the Western world, we set foundations for emphasising it on a global scale where women have entirely different severe problems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    I see no need for feminism in the first-world. Egalitarianism is a far more purposeful movement.

    Egalitarianism isnt a movement its a philosophy -_-
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    I have seen so many threads bashing feminism so I thought I would make a thread just for people to list all the reasons they are HAPPY feminism exists I'll just start with one
    • I am grateful I have the power to vote
    Love this idea :yy:
    - I'm grateful that my thoughts and views are taken seriously rather than dismissed as 'emotional' and ignorant because of my gender
    - I'm grateful that my need for independence, and to build my own life outside of that belonging to my husband and any possible future children is accepted
    - I'm grateful that I can pursue a career without being seen as insufficiently feminine and as a threat to my husbands' or other mens' status and role
    - I'm grateful that my husband is not socially obliged to show 'authority' over me
    - I'm grateful that, if I am ever unlucky enough to experience sexual violence, that these days the legal system is less likely to look to what I wore, or how I behaved and is more likely to take my complaint seriously
    - I am grateful that I'm allowed to say 'no' if a man wishes to do something to my body that I'm not comfortable with, and that I won't be as powerless as I would have been in previous centuries
    - I'm grateful that it's possible for me to rise to a position of leadership or authority and to be taken seriously rather than perceived as weak or as a joke
    - Given that I have a confident, vocal and direct personality, I'm grateful I'm accepted (more or less) in society, whereas in the past I would have been harshly punished for not being submissive and feminine enough
    - I'm grateful that I'm allowed to participate in things that were perceived as masculine in the past. Whether that is discussing and participating in politics, or being involved in occupations and activities that require physical strength
    - I'm grateful that if I was ever endangered by a pregnancy or if I conceived a rapist's child, I would not be forced to carry it
    - I'm grateful that society is slowly making changes to make it possible for me to have a successful career even if I also have children
    - I'm grateful for the pill, and that I can enjoy sexual pleasure without being imprisoned at home with screaming children
    - I'm grateful that, in my sex life, my needs and preferences matter, not just that of my partner's.

    I could probably go on

    (Original post by Corbynista)
    Serious question: What has feminism ever done for me?
    Are you male?
    Feminism is just as important for men as it is for women. As a man, your freedom when it comes to the identity you have, how you express your personality, your status and respect in the eyes of others and your sexual fulfilment are all deeply affected by existing social norms and perceptions about gender.

    I've met a lot of men who experience pressure, anxiety and depression because of social pressure to perform a particular model of masculinity. Whether it's acquiring a sufficiently muscular physique, attracting enough sexual partners, or displaying enough confidence and emotional harshness... these are all features that don't describe all men, or all men's needs. If a guy is arty, emotional, submissive... if he is somebody who avoids conflict... things might be a lot harder for him. I grew up in South Africa and I met many men who had miserable childhoods because they hated sports, and involvement in sport was one of the unspoken requirements of being a respected 'man' in that culture. The same is true for anybody with alternative sexuality.
    The bottom line is that the stricter our views and attitudes are about what women are and aren't, the more that will also be true about what we think men are and are not, and the more restriction, pressure, division and unhappiness everybody in society will experience.
    I was actually talked into becoming a feminist by my (now) husband in my first year of University.

    I think that schools need to begin to educate people about the debates and philosophies that underpin feminism. The things I read on TSR suggest that most people have a very caricaturised and exaggerated perception of what feminism means.
    Most of the negative reactions I see here are based on a straw man :sadnod:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Love this idea :yy:
    - I'm grateful that my thoughts and views are taken seriously rather than dismissed as 'emotional' and ignorant because of my gender
    - I'm grateful that my need for independence, and to build my own life outside of that belonging to my husband and any possible future children is accepted
    - I'm grateful that I can pursue a career without being seen as insufficiently feminine and as a threat to my husbands' or other mens' status and role
    - I'm grateful that my husband is not socially obliged to show 'authority' over me
    - I'm grateful that, if I am ever unlucky enough to experience sexual violence, that these days the legal system is less likely to look to what I wore, or how I behaved and is more likely to take my complaint seriously
    - I am grateful that I'm allowed to say 'no' if a man wishes to do something to my body that I'm not comfortable with, and that I won't be as powerless as I would have been in previous centuries
    - I'm grateful that it's possible for me to rise to a position of leadership or authority and to be taken seriously rather than perceived as weak or as a joke
    - Given that I have a confident, vocal and direct personality, I'm grateful I'm accepted (more or less) in society, whereas in the past I would have been harshly punished for not being submissive and feminine enough
    - I'm grateful that I'm allowed to participate in things that were perceived as masculine in the past. Whether that is discussing and participating in politics, or being involved in occupations and activities that require physical strength
    - I'm grateful that if I was ever endangered by a pregnancy or if I conceived a rapist's child, I would not be forced to carry it
    - I'm grateful that society is slowly making changes to make it possible for me to have a successful career even if I also have children
    - I'm grateful for the pill, and that I can enjoy sexual pleasure without being imprisoned at home with screaming children
    - I'm grateful that, in my sex life, my needs and preferences matter, not just that of my partner's.

    I could probably go on

    Are you male?
    Feminism is just as important for men as it is for women. As a man, your freedom when it comes to the identity you have, how you express your personality, your status and respect in the eyes of others and your sexual fulfilment are all deeply affected by existing social norms and perceptions about gender.

    I've met a lot of men who experience pressure, anxiety and depression because of social pressure to perform a particular model of masculinity. Whether it's acquiring a sufficiently muscular physique, attracting enough sexual partners, or displaying enough confidence and emotional harshness... these are all features that don't describe all men, or all men's needs. If a guy is arty, emotional, submissive... if he is somebody who avoids conflict... things might be a lot harder for him. I grew up in South Africa and I met many men who had miserable childhoods because they hated sports, and involvement in sport was one of the unspoken requirements of being a respected 'man' in that culture. The same is true for anybody with alternative sexuality.
    The bottom line is that the stricter our views and attitudes are about what women are and aren't, the more that will also be true about what we think men are and are not, and the more restriction, pressure, division and unhappiness everybody in society will experience.
    I was actually talked into becoming a feminist by my (now) husband in my first year of University.

    I think that schools need to begin to educate people about the debates and philosophies that underpin feminism. The things I read on TSR suggest that most people have a very caricaturised and exaggerated perception of what feminism means.
    Most of the negative reactions I see here are based on a straw man :sadnod:
    Great reply I usually ignore online "meninists"/critics of feminism as they so often show much ignorance on the history... they cherry pick the few extreme feminists that do take things too far and probably have their own issues in life and present them as the majority, which is not the case. I remember at school we weren't taught about feminism until history GCSE, which was optional. I think learning about the British history of feminism is so important and would help people better understand how far we have come and where we would be without it. We learnt about things like the French revolution before GCSE... while it's an interesting topic, I don't think it's as constructive as learning about The Women's Rights Movement, for example.

    Also people are such keyboard warriors... they are often bitter about something related towards women that has happened in their lives. I think few actually believe what they write.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    they want equality of outcome, at least relatively speaking. they want to pretend that they are as competent as men even when they are pregnant or having just given birth - I'm sorry but that is an inevitable feature of the female sex - the only way to cancel this effect is to not give birth. and even if you choose to give birth, you as an individual are not economically detrimented if you have a partner who will work for you. yes, you could recognise the radical feminist notion that this makes a woman dependent on a man during this time, but honestly, our legal system will RUIN a man within divorce, so it's unlikely that, so long as marriage is involved, child-rearing will not damage women and their opportunities.
    The underlying ideal in humanism and the Enlightenment is that humanity - by working together, building 'civilisation' and cultivating scientific knowledge and power - can escape many of the natural restraints that cause suffering and hardship. Whether that is infectious disease, life expectancy, or the ability to have a decent life as a disabled person etc.... I don't really understand why people freak out so much when somebody suggests that just because a person is biologically equipped to bear children, they should accept the natural limitations and disadvantages that go with it.

    You probably already know that countries like Sweden apply policies that successfully make up for this. The state ensures that both men and women can take paid maternity or paternity leave, and it protects peoples' jobs so that they don't face insecurity by having children. It does this because it's electorate fairly enough feel that people should be able to balance careers and parenting in the modern age without facing hardship, and because they found practical ways of changing society so that this could happen. Its consistent with feminism that parental rights are the same for men or women, because it is only incorrect archaic stereotypes that mean men are expected to want less time at home with their children. Also if men may take as much leave as women, it means that a couple is more flexible in how they distribute the childcare, and which career they place their security in.

    Its very irrational to have a society that makes it difficult for people to reproduce. The aging population in European states is a massive policy issue. And one of the reasons we are having less children is because, unlike Sweden, we don't manage our economy in a way that avoids penalising people for having families.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    I think that schools need to begin to educate people about the debates and philosophies that underpin feminism. The things I read on TSR suggest that most people have a very caricaturised and exaggerated perception of what feminism means.
    Most of the negative reactions I see here are based on a straw man :sadnod:
    TSR thinks of third wave feminism, the one which is always in the news (e.g. central heating being sexist, mansplaining, manspreading, wage gap myth, white male privilege) when it talks about feminism, it doesn't think about the old kind of feminism which you seem to be describing, which very few people would argue against.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    I think few actually believe what they write.
    I would like to believe that. Not sure I do :sad:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    TSR thinks of third wave feminism, the one which is always in the news (e.g. central heating being sexist, mansplaining, manspreading) when it talks about feminism, it doesn't think about the old kind of feminism which you seem to be describing, which very few people would argue against.
    In that case TSRers who dislike feminism need to specify which wave of feminism they mean, rather than making such sweeping generalisations.

    But even if we do just focus on third wave feminism, while there are extremes in every movement and ideology, whether right or left, there are also things about modern feminism that are good. Such as the fact that we have more awareness that the language we use, the categories that we deploy to understand ourselves and the world we live in... that these things actually do influence reality, and that they are mechanisms in shaping and reproducing the status quo. While some people overstate the significance of language, stereotypes and perceptions, in the past we were completely oblivious to their role. We need to find a middle ground, but very few social changes happen in a moderate way. There are usually extreme reactions before something becomes accepted and broadly recognised.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    The underlying ideal in humanism and the Enlightenment is that humanity - by working together, building 'civilisation' and cultivating scientific knowledge and power - can escape many of the natural restraints that cause suffering and hardship. Whether that is infectious disease, life expectancy, or the ability to have a decent life as a disabled person etc....
    well I wouldn't narrow down the enlightenment to a sentence but rather a broad set of principle that contrasted with the pre-enlightenment period, such as liberty, justice, reason/science, equality, tolerance, peace, utility, etc

    I don't really understand why people freak out so much when somebody suggests that just because a person is biologically equipped to bear children, they should accept the natural limitations and disadvantages that go with it.
    because somebody else has to pay for it?

    You probably already know that countries like Sweden apply policies that successfully make up for this. The state ensures that both men and women can take paid maternity or paternity leave, and it protects peoples' jobs so that they don't face insecurity by having children.
    that isn't a matter of legal discrimination though - I'm in favour of this, not simply legally but also culturally (in one dimension, though.) - it will allow the nation's culture to adjust regarding the incentives men will now have to also be fathers. I don't think it will have a huge impact but I think it will allow men as well as women to be comfortable, legally and culturally, to be parents. that *is* equality, and I like it. but I only like it on one dimension - the legal equality dimension. on the liberty dimension, it is against the liberty of the employer and, hence, I have to disagree with it as a libertarian. if you are either a man or a woman, you should accept the consequences of your choices. just because a choice is an investment of your time that you could be using for employment means nothing

    It does this because it's electorate fairly enough feel that people should be able to balance careers and parenting in the modern age without facing hardship, and because they found practical ways of changing society so that this could happen. Its consistent with feminism that parental rights are the same for men or women, because it is only incorrect archaic stereotypes that mean men are expected to want less time at home with their children. Also if men may take as much leave as women, it means that a couple is more flexible in how they distribute the childcare, and which career they place their security in.
    yeah, again, I don't understand why a person has to force their employer (or even the tax payer) to pay for them being a parent - surely that's none of the employer's business or responsibility? surely the only responsibility a company has is to make a profit (providing nobody is being harmed or coerced, obviously)?

    Its very irrational to have a society that makes it difficult for people to reproduce. The aging population in European states is a massive policy issue. And one of the reasons we are having less children is because, unlike Sweden, we don't manage our economy in a way that avoids penalising people for having families.
    people aren't "penalised" very much for having families though - their partners can still work. to say that we should have this project of an illusion of the parent in the respective case still working (or making the money from work) is still simply an illusion, as well as not legitimate. an employer shouldn't have to pick up the cheque. it's your life and you should pay for it. do you not accept that starting a family is a serious and expensive process and commitment? so surely the person that should be held accountable for that commitment is the family itself and not the employer or the government?
    also, regarding your point about the aging population, surely this would stimulate family-creation far too much? i.e. if a girl aged 17 has a baby, who, in the view of this legal approach, is picking up the tab?
    also, I personally have no issue with an aging population anyway - japan has one at the moment and they have tiny amounts of immigration, yet they're the 3rd wealthiest nation on earth
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    TSR thinks of third wave feminism, the one which is always in the news (e.g. central heating being sexist, mansplaining, manspreading, wage gap myth, white male privilege) when it talks about feminism, it doesn't think about the old kind of feminism which you seem to be describing, which very few people would argue against.
    Which shows how ignorant and opportunist TSR users can be. They see a perfect opportunity to discredit the entire modern movement of feminism, which fights for some very important causes. They know full well that the majority of feminists do not associate with the third wave extremist feminist movement that has emerged, quite ironically, in opposition to feminism's primary objective of equality.

    So why on earth do people take this opportunity to further push the feminist movement down, only to give rise to third wave feminism taking its place - is the question.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    because somebody else has to pay for it?
    There is more than enough capital in the system to pay for this and a whole lot more, if used properly. The way that capital and wealth is arranged right now doesn't even cause all that much happiness for the minority that benefit from it.
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    that isn't a matter of legal discrimination though - I'm in favour of this, not simply legally but also culturally - it will allow the nation's culture to adjust regarding the incentives men will now have to also be fathers. I don't think it will have a huge impact but I think it will allow men as well as women to be comfortable, legally and culturally, to be parents. that *is* equality, and I like it. but I only like it on one dimension - the legal equality dimension. on the liberty dimension, it is against the liberty of the employer and, hence, I have to disagree with it as a libertarian. if you are either a man or a woman, you should accept the consequences of your choices. just because a choice is an investment of your time that you could be using for employment means nothing
    It depends whose freedom we're talking about Policies like these can be justified on the grounds of liberty just as much as protecting employer interests can. I don't know why you prefer employers' freedom to be rich over families' freedom to have fulfilling careers and to combine that with parenting. Of the two, research is clear about which one creates the most happiness. And few would disagree with the notion that the underlying goal in policy should be making the greatest number of people in society happy... Mill certainly didn't. Also the Swedish employers love this because - unsurprisingly - employers have families too.
    yeah, again, I don't understand why a person has to force their employer (or even the tax payer) to pay for them being a parent - surely that's none of the employer's business or responsibility? surely the only responsibility a company has is to make a profit (providing nobody is being harmed or coerced, obviously)?
    Swedish employers and companies seem happy. Why do you assume that this coercion is so unpleasant? And why do you think that profit is a good goal for an individual or society to have? It's good if it creates more happiness for society, but we've covered that above. And there are a lot of reasons to think that the excesses of wealth we take for granted now come at a cost that isn't really worth while... e.g. the sustainability of human life.
    people aren't "penalised" very much for having families though - their partners can still work.
    That's not true. I am 31 and female and I experience daily stress and anxiety over the prospect of my future. Why? Because in this country under the current status quo, I either need to accept a very difficult life balancing child rearing and my career... and accept being mediocre in both areas. Or I have to choose between the two. Or my husband has to accept mediocrity in his career in the same way.
    to say that we should have this project of an illusion of the parent in the respective case still working (or making the money from work) is still simply an illusion, as well as not legitimate. an employer shouldn't have to pick up the cheque. it's your life and you should pay for it. do you not accept that starting a family is a serious and expensive process and commitment? so surely the person that should be held accountable for that commitment is the family itself and not the employer or the government?
    That sounds rather similar to your first suggestion that just because women are biologically capable of bearing children that they should accept crap lives on top of it.
    When you say 'its our life and we should pay for it', we do...
    If a taxation system is run fairly then people are not taxed to the extent that they are in financial hardship.

    Furthermore, presumably you think that the human race should continue. If it is to continue, then the people who sacrifice their physical well being to be baby factories need to be rewarded for that social contribution. Parents and families also create human capital by educating and socialising children, who grow up to be the employers, wealth creators and entrepreneurs (Etc etc) of the future. So it's not really true that it's just 'my life' that 'I' have to pay for. We are all interconnected. If I choose not to have a child, I will be contributing to the collective problem of population aging. But if I do choose to have a child, I have to take a lot of major personal sacrifices for doing something that will make society better for other people.

    Instead of your perspective, what I see is that humans all have a huge amount of potential to create value for society. It is only logical for a state or a society to do what it can to unleash that potential. Excessive individualism and privatisation of cost (both real cost and others, like the time and physical sacrifice) runs against the strategic advantage we have by sharing the cost and cooperating to find a more efficient and mutually beneficial solution. Again, this is the underlying philosophy of the entire Enlightenment. And it is consistent with liberalism.
    also, regarding your point about the aging population, surely this would stimulate family-creation far too much? i.e. if a girl aged 17 has a baby, who, in the view of this legal approach, is picking up the tab?
    I don't think many people want 5 kids and a career I think if you polled society you'd find people want 2 and a career they enjoy. Whereas what we have now is many people abstaining entirely because it's so hard to manage both. This seems like a rather weak concern though, tbf
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SinsNotTragedies)
    Assuming you are a man:

    Feminism aims to redress inequality between the genders, this has been beneficial to men too. Before feminism emerged as a true societal force, men too were forced into narrow gender slots - 'masculinity' expected of all men. Masculinity, meaning that men had to show less emotions, had to be stronger, had to have entirely different roles in society and within the family. By instilling equality feminism redefined these gender roles. Men have a far larger scope to play with in terms of adopting their own gender identity. So, in that aspect feminism allows for masculine freedom too.
    "feminism" isn't a movement of gender unity any more. feminism is "women in this lane, men in the other lane" movement. that's why there's MRAs now, and not "male feminists" (unless you'd be talking about the male advocates of "women's rights"). feminism doesn't consider men in their cause. that's simply a cold hard fact.

    Men and women being on equal grounds allows for far more satisfying social lives and romantic lives. A submissive woman, subject to gender roles and oppression under the law, is a woman and her potential and personality muted.
    there really isn't any such thing as "the submissive woman" any more though - you only have "the submissive woman" when it comes to male-female relationships (and even then, to a small extent, and via consent), as opposed to in the work place, academia, education, etc. so this example is deeply out of touch with the modern culture we have today

    It is very easy for people to argue against feminism, and to demonise it on the internet by slandering today's feminist movement as a misandrist movement. Or even by classifying it as 'white feminism'. Surely by establishing an equal society in the Western world, we set foundations for emphasising it on a global scale where women have entirely different severe problems.
    what is feminism today advocating in particular that would lead to more equality than we have today that isn't authoritarian? i.e. a policy that enforces equality of outcome as opposed to equality under the law? so far it's *men* that require more legal equality - what about the protection from genital mutilation? I'm not saying this is definitive of the male-female legal struggle, I'm merely using it as a good example
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Off the top of my head...

    ...nothing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "
    there really isn't any such thing as "the submissive woman" any more though - you only have "the submissive woman" when it comes to male-female relationships (and even then, to a small extent, and via consent), as opposed to in the work place, academia, education, etc. so this example is deeply out of touch with the modern culture we have today
    That isn't true actually. There are still a lot of families, communities, work places and schools where traditional gender roles are actively policed. There is a lot of current carefully documented evidence of the pressure that (especially) working class men face in their communities to conform to very traditional modes of masculinity and sexuality, and I have met many women who have experienced dismissal and hostility from men because of their gender. For instance, my childhood best friend was physically hit by her line manager because she suggested a more efficient approach to the project they were working on because he felt insecure (she has a PhD, he only had a Masters). When the incident came to light, the employer didn't sack her manager but moved her to a different project (even though she was most qualified to stay on the original one), and covered the thing up. There continues to be a significant volume of domestic abuse. And personally I experienced over the course of my life that I was being treated differently to men in many of the same situations. So, for example... I found that my male peers and classmates got respect, status and approval when they behaved in aggressive and condident ways. But when I behave aggressively, confidently... if I'm assertive, then people react differently because they perceive it differently if it comes from a woman. I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. It took many years before I realised there was this pattern.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When I was into rock climbing I also met some men who were very threatened when I was better at them at a route. If their male peers outperformed them they reacted with respect, but when it was me they became defensive and aggressive. I also saw a shocking opinion poll a few years ago which surveyed over 6000 undergraduates about with sports or physical activities they found most 'sexy' in the opposite sex. What was really distressing about the findings was that it was 'sexy' for a woman to be good at jogging, pilates, yoga... but it was 'unsexy' for her to be good at more 'serious' sports. The reverse was true for men. This really can't be explained unless you factor in that people still have very deeply rooted subconscious attitudes about what masculinity and femininity entail.

    And I do mean subconscious. One of the biggest issues when we try to talk about feminism is men feeling personally blamed and getting defensive. This isn't about finger pointing. It's about analysing an underlying unfortunate problem that persists, and working together to brainstorm ways around it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    It woke me up to the stupidity of the sjw
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And then I may as well point to the really obvious cases that show 'submissiveness' is still an issue. Namely the huge amount of sexual harrassment that goes on in Universities right now. And the number of woman I know who have told me that being groped in sexual areas by strange men is so common place in a club or bar that they've now lost the energy to report or fight... they've given up in fact.
    Not to mention the number of posts I've seen on TSR where people advocate this kind of harrassment or seek to justify it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Then there's how hard I had to work to get my female undergraduates to pipe up in seminars when we were discussing political issues just like this. The boys would speak up, and the girls would take a back seat much of the time. But they were confident and articulate when I spoke to them in office hours, and they produced equally good and sometimes better essays.

    I recall instances of being sidelined and ignored in seminars as a student too by a male visiting Professor who loved the other two most vocal people in our class (both guys).

    Problems remain.
    Big time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "feminism" isn't a movement of gender unity any more. feminism is "women in this lane, men in the other lane" movement. that's why there's MRAs now, and not "male feminists" (unless you'd be talking about the male advocates of "women's rights". feminism doesn't consider men in their cause. that's simply a cold hard fact.
    It is. You are looking at the wrong stream of feminism, ironically one that taints modern feminism - which is working on issues that translate across cultural divides.

    That is not a fact. Feminism is intertwined also with the LGBT movement, which encapsulates men in their campaigning also - the point is that the movements are gender blind, the divide between male and female is irrelevant. Equality is equality, regardless of gender. Feminism doesn't hurt men.

    there really isn't any such thing as "the submissive woman" any more though - you only have "the submissive woman" when it comes to male-female relationships (and even then, to a small extent, and via consent), as opposed to in the work place, academia, education, etc. so this example is deeply out of touch with the modern culture we have today
    Thanks to feminism, yes. I was answering the user's query of what feminism has done for him. Our modern culture has been shaped by feminism giving strength to the submissive woman, so it is very relevant in regards to the question I was answering.

    what is feminism today advocating in particular that would lead to more equality than we have today that isn't authoritarian? i.e. a policy that enforces equality of outcome as opposed to equality under the law? so far it's *men* that require more legal equality - what about the protection from genital mutilation? I'm not saying this is definitive of the male-female legal struggle, I'm merely using it as a good example
    We live in a more multicultural country nowadays, and thus many cultural gender issues are emerging in modern society. In the UK we have issues such as FGM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...ses-in-england) to address. By championing women's rights we hope to get the message across to cultures that still are unequal.

    There is also rape culture, misogyny and intimidation of woman - viewing them as the weaker sex - to address. Yes, men can be subject to sexual abuse but a disproportionate amount of women are subject to it, on a larger scale than men.

    You are talking about circumcision? I agree with you there, FGM and its male counterpart both need to be addressed. FGM is definitely more pressing, it is far more dangerous and life-threatening. But I hope you can see that if we fight against FGM, in my eyes we also fight against the male equivalent to put both genders on equal ground.

    In no way do I disregard male struggle (however, female struggle is far more vast) - I believe organisations such as Fathers4Justice have grounds and I support male parenthood matters.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.