Feminism should be universally oppossed.Watch
But the fundamental underpinnings of feminism as practiced (and not as stated) is “yes, feminism is about equality between the sexes, but since women were historically oppressed, they face more difficulties and hence, we are only going to work to help women and oppose anyone who tries to help men”. In essence, feminism has devolved into identity politics for women.
And herein lies the meat of my disagreement with the movement. You see, just because a demographic has been historically oppressed, doesn’t mean that the group faces more oppression today than another group, even after the removal of institutional hindrances to equality. On top of that, if we were to talk about history, men were (and often are) treated as expendable cannon fodder, to be sent off and killed in war to protect women and the elites (both men and women). Hence, the narrative of “male oppressor, female oppressed” is a gross oversimplification, if not an obfuscation of actual historical fact. Therefore, the operational rationale behind feminism in the West is questionable to say the least.
But to be pithy, I fundamentally don’t believe that women, especially white upper middle class women in the West are an “oppressed minority”, because neither are these women oppressed nor are they a minority. And that’s my starting point in any sort of discussion regarding gender.This puts me at odds with institutional feminism (and some individual feminists), but that’s fine, because I don’t intend to entertain any sort of debate or dialogue with anyone identifying with the movement as that would be an exercise in abject futility.
Honestly, to elucidate in gory detail the full extent of my disagreement with the movement would be to make my answer so long as to bore even the most voracious and patient of my readers much more than it already has at this point. But to the extent that my readers are acquainted with the soul or source of my opposition to institutional feminism, I believe this answer is accurate.
EDIT: the title is misleading, I do not believe feminism should be universally oppossed but rather that it should be oppossed in the west.
>If you haven't read 800 page books, then you're probably misinformed and know nothing about the subject
You do know there are other sources besides books, right?
Nobody's contesting that feminism played an important part in western society 100 odd years ago, but we're talking about its role in present-day society.
I'm not interested in this "gender is a social construct" stuff. It's beyond old now and been debunked many times.
I like how you were so underwhelmed by the original post that you had to add this cheap shot in. You're effectively assuming I'm uneducated because I hold a different opinion to your own.
I agree with everything said, apart from one thing: the title. You say that "feminism should be universally opposed". This is wrong; opposed in the West, where it is mainly (not always, of course) used as a means by some women in order to be treated like special snowflakes, that yes. But in countries where discrimination against women is very real, especially in Muslim majority countries, feminism is needed, like it was needed in the West in the early 20th century, it should be encouraged.
So yes, I am here for equality of opportunity. But men and women are not the same.
What comes to the mind is this whole getting women into STEM. I went to a boys grammar school during sixthform and we would get these newsletters...only for the girls by the way, encouraging us to go on these STEM days. I know they have good intentions, and it is not a bad thing to want to encourage women who may have thought STEM was not a thing for them because they are a woman. But I genuinely think...this is not really a thing anymore. Women have been told for a while now they can do whatever they want, and so I no longer think a societal pressue telling woman they cannot excel in the STEM field exists in the West. Now we have been given equality of opportunity, equality of outcome should in no way be forced. People should be awarded by merit. And if women are so fantastic...well we are if I say so myself, then if we want to we can choose STEM subjects. But if many women still would rather, be a nurse for example, then I genuinely do not see any societal pressures pushing them towards that specifically. Maybe most women just tend to prefer some fields over others. But if you are a woman who would much rather work in STEM...then fantastic, go for it. Nothing stopping ya.
And I wouldn't say they are different.
What good is an appeal to authority in this argument? Every major medical institution said that homosexuality was a mental disorder years ago. They were wrong. The UN is just the UN, who cares?
Familiarity and agreement are two different things.
Oh, totally. I'm sure there will be many who disagree (it's TSR, after all), but it seems pretty clear to me that feminism already achieved what it initially wanted in the west, and they got it. Nowadays it's... something else.
I might have you wrong here but the argument that feminism in relation to the West should be dropped because it has largely achieved its aims (at least legalistically) is a little like arguing that opposition to racism should be dropped because we now have laws which protect vulnerable groups from discrimination. Legal protection is very important but it's not everything and can easily be subverted where there is no vigilance for enforcement. I'm not supporting extreme forms of feminism here, very few do, but the idea, that feminism as a movement more generally has jumped over all of its important hurdles and can retire, is shortsighted.
Only the radical versions of feminism - people following feminism by wanting equality or fairness in issues that are needed are more than ok.
The most disgusting radical feminist books, books such as the S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto, books that were banned because of the level of their terrorism and hate were only ever published in the mainstream after campaigns and support by mainstream feminism. The forward to the S.C.U.M. Manifesto is written by mainstream feminist philosopher Avital Ronell who helped publish that disgusting book that promotes rape, sexual abuse and the genocide of men. Radicalism is part of feminism. It is part of feminist theory. Radical feminist books are taught to feminists in universities as part of feminist theory without any distinction between the two. As in feminists teach radical feminism to other feminists as feminism not as radical ideas.
Radical feminism is mainstream feminism. They are intertwined. They are one and the same…let me give you a quick example of how intertwined they are. Charlotte Brunch is a "radical feminist". She is a feminist separatist. Separatism is a branch of feminism that encourages women to separate from men in society. It is as close to nazi views towards jews as feminism gets in its views towards men. She is a huge figure in the feminist world. In 1968 she organised the first ever Women's Liberation Conference attended by the top feminists of the time. She is celebrated amongst mainstream feminists as much as she is celebrated amongst radical feminists. "In 2010, the Young Feminist Task Force promoted an International Women’s Day symposium where Bunch was not only a featured speaker, but the agenda included a “Tribute to Charlotte Bunch” that included a preview of the film documentary Passionate Politics: The Life & Work of Charlotte Bunch...a movie made by feminists to celebrate her life. Mainstream feminism and radical feminism do not appose each other. They have since the 60s worked together hand in hand to impose their rotten ideology on society. They are two sides to the same coin.