"How Feminism Hurts Men"

[michellem]

Necromances this thread with this great article/comic:

 

http://www.tickld.com/x/next-time-someone-says-women-arent-victims-of-harassment-show-them

[Elgee]

Mish, that's actually very good! Thank you ;)

[Barmacral]

I shared that link on facebook the other day and so did about 10 other people I'm connected with, which was cool to see. The depressing part though is not one of those shares was a guy, and only one like that I got was. While I'm very glad the women are sharing it and trying to educate the world about what they have to deal with, it would be nice if a few more men were willing to help out.

[Rasheta Ardashir]

This is an excellent take on things by a man no less 

 

http://www.upworthy.com/a-male-feminists-take-on-crying-pornography-and-miley-cyrus?g=2

[Meridian]

About the "casual" sexual harrassment, I can only share my own experiences. Now, I'm not a very pretty or hot and sexy girl. I'm not ugly, but I'm not exactly a stunning beauty men drool after either I do not have a sexy body; I'm slightly overweight, I have small boobs and a flat ass, lol. I don't dress very sexy either; it's usually long thick leggings, loose dresses or long-sleeved shirts. If I have a "short" (mid-thigh) skirt, I have thick leggings underneath. I never have shirts with deep cleavage. Halloween is probably the sexiest I've dressed in a very long time, and I had a floor lenght skirt and long-sleeved blouse, but I was wearing a corset and that adds an instant sexy-touch no matter how the rest of my clothes are.

 

I don't go out at the weekends anymore. If I go to visit friend's houses, I make sure to go home early enough before people start going out if I'm alone. Because after a certain time at night, I can't sit alone and in peace on the bus. There's always some guy thinking to try his luck. In the area I live in, most of the men trying are in their 40s-50s. It's only if I go into the capital that I get bothered by younger men (I'm 25 myself). I also never go out if my husband isn't home to come meet me at the bus stop and walk me home. There's been three rapes and a dozen attempted rapes in our street since we moved in three years ago. We live in a relativly small city, about 60.000 all together, and our street shouldn't be an unsafe one; it stretches between two main roads and it's well lit. But still this happens. And let's not even talk about going out to a pub or bar. If I go, I go with my husband, and I still get groped or touched in ways that make me uncomfortable. I might just be very sensitive, but I don't think it's ok when a person I have never spoken a word to, stands so close beside me at the bar that we're touching from ancle to shoulder, and then puts an arm around my shoulders. It's not ok and it makes me very uncomfortable.

 

I don't want this attention, I'm happily married. I'm not inviting it as far as I can understand; I don't dress provocative and when I'm out in public alone, I try to be as invisible as possible, since I also have a bit of social anxiety. I don't get eye contact with people, I look down at the ground when I walk, when I take the bus I usually have a book, my kindle or my phone that I stare at. I probably look like the least tempting persone in the world, and yet these things would happen. It doesn't now, because like I said, I don't put myself in the situations where I know it will happen.

 

This is awful! Why isn't your busdriver doing his/her job?! I've been driving for four years coming up this fall, and I work in a college city. I have always felt strongly protective of the female passengers (mentioning the females because these sorts of issues tend to follow them about, but I'd look after anyone who seemed in need of help) riding the late night buses. >.< I realize some things might be out of the hands of the driver---to a degree---but there are plenty of options for dealing with troublesome passengers.

[michellem]

Because most of the busdrivers are men in their 40-60s, and they've had the job for so long they don't care about their passengers anymore. It might have gotten better now; they've gotten some younger drivers lately, and a few women. But I still avoid taking the bus after 10am alone.

[Meridian]

Mphm... I'm a female busdriver. The gender stereotypes are quite shocking in this line of work. One sees everything from that hydraulic perch. It makes the heart bleed for humanity sometimes. :( I hope I never reach the point where I just don't care anymore, or am too tired to care or whatever.

[michellem]

A news channel in my country just posted this online: http://www.tv2.no/a/5885579

 

The article is in Norwegian, but the video is mostly english, except for the reporters voice-over. The news channel decided to check how women were harrassed on the street; they had a female reporter with a hidden camera, and a male reporter following with another camera. They walked around the most busy area of the capital, Oslo, between 23.30 and 02.30 (with several breaks to make the poor woman calm down inside a café). During this time she was attempted to be stopped 27 times, followed three times, stopped by a car twice, and stared at numerous times. She's just a normal looking girl in normal clothes. This was filmed thursday night.

[Loranflame]

I think feminism is more about empowering women, than it is about creating equality. The empowerment of women is a good thing though, and a worthy cause. If the topic at hand is whether feminism hurts men, then I think it depends. In some cases it does hurt men, in others it doesn't.

The one thing that feminism generally does not do, is empower men... and that is why it isn't really about equality. There is however nothing wrong with its focus on women. And women definitely need more empowerment at the moment. At some point though... I believe there will need to be a different movement truly focused on creating equality. You can not create equality by focusing on one half of the population... but you can certainly empower women that way.

So feminism is good and it is certainly necessary today... but it does hurt men sometimes because it is focused on women. That is quite logical and to be expected.

So is feminism good? Yes.
Does it hurt men? Sometimes.

[Barmacral]

Loran - please provide some examples of how it hurts men. I completely disagree with you and would like to know what you mean by 'hurts men' so that we may be able to discuss it further.

[Loranflame]

You bring up a very valid point, though probably not intentionally. When we talk about whether or not something "hurts" someone... we are talking about a subjective experience. It is therefore not possible to claim with absolute certainty that something doesn't hurt someone, or a group of people. This may seem like semantics but it is quite important.

When women were being oppressed before the first feminism movements, they weren't always being "hurt" per se (e.g physically or emotionally), but the way they were being viewed and treated was inhibiting and didn't allow them the freedom to be who they wanted to be. In a sense they were being hurt by men, and by the society at large. In this sense, feminism is now hurting men in certain situations.

Before I get into any of that... I need only point out the discussions and debates on this thread, to show that some people feel oppressed by feminism. The abortion topic for instance showed that some women here feel they are being forced to support things against their will. The tension and emotions were clear, so to say that feminism doesn't hurt men would be incorrect. Clearly feminism even hurt women sometimes, so there can be no question that feminism can hurt men. Does it hurt all men? No. Does it always hurt men? No. Does Feminism in general hurt men? To be honest... I don't know. I don't think it does but... I don't know.

Anyway, you asked for specific examples of feminism hurting men right? Ok, here is one.

Watch the video and read the top comments in the link below. That my friend... is hurting men. I understand it, and I honestly sympathize with women who can't sit next to a strange man on the bus... but the way every strange man is seen as a threat is harmful.

Perhaps even more interesting... is how people are discussing harassment, not sitting next to men on the bus e.t.c on a video about racism. I don't know... it may not be feminism per se, but all these women jump to the defense of the woman who stands in an ad that is obviously about racism. And in some of their discussions... the man may as well be a villain for offering a seat.

https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/posts/829835993723927

Be careful reading the comments though... some are hostile, some give examples of their harassment e.t.c just a heads up.

I'll use arguments I have previously made for some more examples later on.
 

[Barmacral]

Ok, so while I agree that the stuff in the video and comments is hurting men, I disagree that it is feminism. Feminism isn't the woman avoiding the men, it is trying to fix the problems that result in women feeling the need to avoid men in such situations. In other words, feminism is the thing that is needed to fix the problems highlighted in the video and comments, so in this case feminism actually helps men, as opposed to hurting us. It also helps women, making it a win win situation for everyone.

[michellem]

Loranflame, did you read the two comics I posted on the previous page?

[Loranflame]

As I explained, ultimately feminism is focused on empowering women. This isn't necessarily a problem, but so far I see very little fixing of the core problem at hand. I've had discussion with plenty of feminists on Upworthy, and several have ended quite well. The main issue that I bring up every single time, is that men's experiences need to be taken into account as well. Feminism doesn't generally do this... and when they do help men, it is usually a by-product of empowering women.

The comics that Misheru posted (I did see them ) are a perfect example of this. That men benefit as shown in the comics, is great but it is a by-product of empowering women. By fighting to change the conceptions and perceptions of feminine qualities as being weak, you are going to allow men to show those qualities without being judged or attacked for it. That is 100% true but can you honestly say this isn't a byproduct of empowering women? Ultimately changing how societies view feminine qualities, is about allowing women to be themselves without judgement. By virtue of making femininity and feminine qualities accepted, men who show such qualities benefit as well. It's a great byproduct( or side effect) but it wasn't their initial goal.

Anyway as far as feminism not taking men into account, there is another upworthy posts that is quite revealing. It is about street harassment, and more specifically cat-calling. There have been many upworthy posts about harassment lately, and only one that I've seen considered the male side of things. Sadly it was satire and very few women took what it said even remotely seriously.

Watch the video, look at the top comments... and ultimately see for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/posts/827501280624065

It just goes to show that for the most part, feminism doesn't take the experiences of men into account... this is a huge and undeniable flaw. In the case of the cat-calling issue above, you are not going to get very far if you don't consider and seriously take into account the reasons why men do it. You can not expect to change the behaviour of men, without examining, understanding, and taking into account what they experience and why they behave the way they do. This video kind of takes men's experience into account... but I don't see the women taking it seriously. Nope... they're just saying "stop that", "disturbing", "jerks", "so immature" e.t.c. I rarely see feminism taking men's experiences seriously... and sadly that tends to include male feminists. But maybe that is just me...

Look, there are definitely feminists who do consider what men go through, and work towards a solution with female and male sides of a situation in mind. But I see few of them. They are nowhere near the majority of feminists. Most feminists want change, but if the change you desire requires the cooperation of another party(men) then you need to work with them and take them seriously. Men do benefit from feminism, but currently it is all about women... and by virtue of that fact, it sometimes harms men, sometimes benefits them, and ultimately it isn't focused on equality.

I have a question for you now. How do you create gender equality by focusing on one gender?

[michellem]

First of all, I don't know what kind of feminist you've been talking to... But there's a difference between a miitant feminist and a normal girl who's a feminist. All the women (and men!) I know that are feminists, works for both genders, not against men.

 

And of course feminsm mostly about women... That's why we call it feminism in this discussion and not just a discussion about gender equality; because feminism means the fight for women to be equal to men. It's not about pushing men down; it's about elevating women to the same status. It's about not thinking about wether a person is a women or a man when it comes to promotion time (men get more promotions, and faster, than women, and almost all top bosses are men), it's about women not being paid less than a man for the same job, it's about a women's right to walk down a street without being catcalled or feeling unsafe, it's about free to dress as you wish without being raped just for how you dress, it's about not being viewed as less, something less valuable, less important, less capable, less worth, just because you are a woman. I don't think anyone wants to reverse todays roles. But please show me where men are being treated as less than women. Yes, some people miss the point of feminism, and becomes man-haters, hating men just because they are men. And they are wrong. That's NOT the point. The point is equal rights. If one gender has the right to something, the other should have it too. I can't see where women have rights where men don't (I am not going to touch the abortion-subject, because to me that's a whole other discussion than this). I don't understand why you're worried mens rights will be removed by fighting for feminism and gender equality. I'm not saying this to be mean if it comes across like that; I'm just genuinly confused.

[Barmacral]

Loran, there is in fact a men's rights movement that you seem to be echoing a bit here (though not to the same extremes that I have seen from the movement). The concept of the movement is great, to deal with issues affecting men to ensure that we receive equal treatment as well. The issue though is that the movement is flawed at a very deep level. Instead of addressing the issues it identifies it is choosing to blame women and the feminism movement on the basis that all feminists are man haters. Although you don't have the same level of hatred and vitriol as I often see, you appear to share the same fundamental viewpoint.

[Elgee]

First of all, I don't know what kind of feminist you've been talking to... But there's a difference between a miitant feminist and a normal girl who's a feminist. All the women (and men!) I know that are feminists, works for both genders, not against men.

 

And of course feminsm mostly about women... That's why we call it feminism in this discussion and not just a discussion about gender equality; because feminism means the fight for women to be equal to men. It's not about pushing men down; it's about elevating women to the same status. It's about not thinking about wether a person is a women or a man when it comes to promotion time (men get more promotions, and faster, than women, and almost all top bosses are men), it's about women not being paid less than a man for the same job, it's about a women's right to walk down a street without being catcalled or feeling unsafe, it's about free to dress as you wish without being raped just for how you dress, it's about not being viewed as less, something less valuable, less important, less capable, less worth, just because you are a woman. I don't think anyone wants to reverse todays roles. But please show me where men are being treated as less than women. Yes, some people miss the point of feminism, and becomes man-haters, hating men just because they are men. And they are wrong. That's NOT the point. The point is equal rights. If one gender has the right to something, the other should have it too. I can't see where women have rights where men don't (I am not going to touch the abortion-subject, because to me that's a whole other discussion than this). I don't understand why you're worried mens rights will be removed by fighting for feminism and gender equality. I'm not saying this to be mean if it comes across like that; I'm just genuinly confused.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Loranflame]

Haha no worries... I can see that you're not trying to be mean. I'll quote some specific parts of your post so that I can address your points, and hopefully make clear where I am coming from.
 

First of all, I don't know what kind of feminist you've been talking to... But there's a difference between a miitant feminist and a normal girl who's a feminist. All the women (and men!) I know that are feminists, works for both genders, not against men.

I have only said that feminism is focused on empowering women. Because of this feminism sometimes benefits men, and sometimes it hurts them. I haven't said that feminists are working against men, because I know most of them are not. Feminists are however mostly working for women. In the quote below you will confirm this yourself.

What I did say was that feminism rarely takes the experiences of men into account. This means that feminism does not consider why men my harass or assault a woman. Feminists complain about objectification, but they do not consider the male perspective of the issue. I have had a debate with a group of women about objectification and eventually I got my point across. It was clear however that they had indeed failed to take the male perspective into account, and that is something I see a lot.
 

And of course feminism mostly about women... That's why we call it feminism in this discussion and not just a discussion about gender equality; because feminism means the fight for women to be equal to men. It's not about pushing men down; it's about elevating women to the same status.

This is exactly my point. Feminism is about empowering women. It is about fighting for women to be equal to men. It is about elevating women to the same status.

Because feminism is focused on women, one can not truly say that it is working for both genders. As you say yourself "of course feminism is mostly about women." If it is mostly about women, then it is not really about men. If it isn't really about men, then it doesn't really fight for both genders. It can still benefit both genders, but ultimately the focus is women.

This is all I'm saying... and you have actually agreed in the quote above. In the rest of your post, which I won't be quoting in full, you clearly talk about all the things women should be able to do. So again, it isn't about men it is about women.

There is nothing wrong with empowering women or focusing on women... I just want to point out, that in the process it is possible for feminism to "hurt" men. And it does happen, not much, and not intentionally... but it does happen.

 

It's about a woman's right to walk down a street without being catcalled or feeling unsafe, it's about free to dress as you wish without being raped just for how you dress.

Hmmmmm... yes and no. You make two points which I will list below.

1. Women should be able to walk down the street without being catcalled or feeling unsafe.
2. Women should be free to dress as they wish without being raped for how they dress.

 

I agree for the most part. I believe the streets should be safe for women to be in public, wearing whatever they want. Absolutely 100% agree!

The only problem is... that how you feel is partly your own responsibility. E.g a guy could approach you with good intentions and say "Hi, do you know where the station is?" and you could feel unsafe because you don't know why he approached you. Is it his fault that you feel unsafe? Does he not have the right to approach you and ask for directions?

Having said that... I do 100% support the idea that women should be safe in public. Feeling safe would be ideal and great, but nothing and nobody can guarantee that... so it is an unrealistic expectation.

Btw... being safety obviously include not being raped. In case anyone was wondering.
 

But please show me where men are being treated as less than women.

Ironically it is in feminism circles that I've seen this hahaha. But for the most part... it isn't that men are treated as less. They may however be seen as dangerous, or be viewed with suspicion just because they are men. This is sexism as well... and it literally leads to some women treating men differently from women.

For the most part though you're right. I agree that Feminism doesn't advocate treating men as less than women.
 

Yes, some people miss the point of feminism, and becomes man-haters, hating men just because they are men. 

These people are not the majority of feminists, so I'm not really thinking or talking about them. I did read an interesting point by some one however, about how feminists fail to reign these extremists of their movement in. It isn't entirely their responsibility... but they do give you a bit of a bad name sometimes.
 

The point is equal rights. If one gender has the right to something, the other should have it too. I can't see where women have rights where men don't.

If you say feminism is fighting for equal rights I can agree with that statement. Equality, equal rights, and gender equality are all different though. But yeah... I'll concur that feminism is indeed fighting for equal rights.

 

I don't understand why you're worried mens rights will be removed by fighting for feminism and gender equality.

lol... did I say this anywhere? I'm pretty sure I never mentioned anything about men's rights... let alone anybody removing them.

Barm... No!
I'd be happy to address any specific arguments you have... or elaborate on my own arguments. Ironically I believe that feminism has part of the exact "deep flaw" you just mentioned... which is kind of amusing.

I.e feminism sometimes blames men and patriarchy without addressing or understanding an issue.

[Ryrin]

I'm not sure I understand this either.

 

"At some point though... I believe there will need to be a different movement truly focused on creating equality. You can not create equality by focusing on one half of the population... but you can certainly empower women that way."

 

For example, Martin Lurher King Jr. should have focused on whites in his quest for equality and justice? Or did whites already have privilege?

[WildTaltos]

i dont know much abuot feminism, though i do know people who wold label themmselves "feminists" and they dont exclusivly focus on women only. they focus on creatin gender equality by trying to promote egalitarianism and a healthy, more-natural conceppt of gender for both men and women (as in thir view, though the more priveleged group, many men are also victims of the dominance-competitionn matrix created by patriarchy).

 

guess to them the philosophy is alonng the same lines as violence hurts not onlly the victim but also the perpetrator of the violence, and so both need to be helped. of course i suggested to them if they want to create equality regardless of gender or race etc., why even call thmselves "feminists", why not call themselves "egalitarians" or "anarchists," and most of them thuoght that was a good point, while the othres just figured the label didnt matter anyways.

 

i dont know much abuot martin luther king jr but if i remember corectly he tried to model after gandhi in taking into account all races/ethnicities to try to work for equality, not just blacks, becuse i would agree with the assertion that if you only focus on one side of equation, whethre thats those who are exploiting or the exploited, you cant even begin to come close to building any sort of equality that lasts (becuse as the name suggests, equation has to have the two sides balanced, cant just work on one side and ignore the other). that would be the criticism i am prety sure loran is pointing out - some forms of feminism (or maybe the majority, i dont know) focus only on women, one side of equation, on empowering women, which by the definition of empowering suggestts giving power (something thats very nature is making someone or somethinng else dependent or controled by you) to women rather than eliminating the whole patriarchal notion of heirarchy and power.

 

that seems to be the more-conventional, less-thoughtful feminist in my experience anyways thats being criticised - those few who have written out theories about the dominance-patriarchy matrix etc amongst what be considered feminist theory seem to be more conscious to the fact that the notion of power as known today must be destroyed if have any hope of creating gender equality, while there are those feminists that i know who, in my opinion, are really anarchists, egalitarians, communalists, etc., that seem conscious of having to work with both genders and rework the entire system to create equality.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

Necromances this thread with this great article/comic:

 

http://www.tickld.com/x/next-time-someone-says-women-arent-victims-of-harassment-show-them

 

It's okay, except for the part about abortion. Because then it's not just 'your body'. It is 1. about the body of a baby and 2. is also the product of SOMEBODY ELSES body AKA the father. They should not be completely left out. 

[Loranflame]

I'm not sure I understand this either.

 

"At some point though... I believe there will need to be a different movement truly focused on creating equality. You can not create equality by focusing on one half of the population... but you can certainly empower women that way."

 

For example, Martin Lurher King Jr. should have focused on whites in his quest for equality and justice? Or did whites already have privilege?

 Honestly I'd like to say... just look at the bold below. Talos got the point I was making, and even referenced Martin Luther King.

 

I'll address your questions anyway.

 

1. Should Martin Luther King Jr. have focused on whites in his quest for equality and justice?

First of all... I don't know an awful lot about that movement. My history lessons didn't get that far. I can however say that if his goal was to "empower" and "liberate" blacks in his quest for equality... then a focus on blacks is perfect and an ideal approach. If his goal was to create equality for all... then yeah, he would have to take whites into account as well. This doesn't necessarily mean the focus would be on the "whites" but their experiences, concerns, values e.t.c would absolutely need to be considered.

 

Note by the way that in the first waves of the feminist movement, men very much supported women. I'm not sure why they don't today... perhaps they feel like the battle is more or less won, or they don't see the urgency or need to fight for those rights anymore in today's western world, or some feel threatened(e.g MRA movement Barm compared me to).

 

You have to remember that men don't live and experience your day to day lives. So they can't know or feel what you go through. It was all very clear and visible during the first waves of feminism, so men were more than happy to help and support, and fight alongside you. Now... we don't really see what you go through anymore... it isn't as visible anymore. It "looks" like you've more or less made it in the western world. This is contrary to your experiences of course... but men obviously don't have those experiences.

 

It is also true however... that you do not experience the world the way a man does. Obviously we go through stuff as well, but we often do it alone like a man "should". You don't see or hear much about our issues, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. It is particularly because of this... that you can unknowingly hurt men.

 

Ultimately I stand by my claim that taking men into account is a 100% necessity when working toward true equality. I'll talk more about equality later in the post... but perhaps our definitions differ.

 

2. Did whites already have privileges?

Whites did have privileges. But even amongst the whites obviously there were those who had more privilege than others... so what about them? Are they to be ignored just because they're white and their "race" is supposedly "privileged"? That wouldn't create true equality. Furthermore privilege isn't necessarily in opposition with equality. A lot comes down to how you define and understand "equality"... but before that you need to understand "privilege" and how it factors into the equality equation. 

 

Should every worker in a company have the same privileges as a CEO? In the context of good business... that would be a terrible idea. Our world is far more complex than a company. Some privileges are earned, some are contextual, some are only perceived as such because others lack them, and finally some should indeed be available to all. Where do you draw the line though? And how do you create equal privilege in such a diverse world anyway? Equality is not as simple as "equal privileges" and/or "equal rights". Privileges and Rights are only two variables in a much bigger equation... so focusing on them alone isn't enough. At least that's how I see it.

 

My point is that equality requires taking all sides into account. To determine what true equality for all should be... you obviously have to take "ALL" into account. Or at least the main parties, it is no simple matter... so focusing on just one (or two) variables in such a complex equation is absolutely not going to work.

 

Whether or not one side has privileges... they are still part of the equation, so you still need to consider them. It is that simple.

 

i dont know much abuot feminism, though i do know people who wold label themmselves "feminists" and they dont exclusivly focus on women only. they focus on creatin gender equality by trying to promote egalitarianism and a healthy, more-natural conceppt of gender for both men and women (as in thir view, though the more priveleged group, many men are also victims of the dominance-competitionn matrix created by patriarchy).

I can agree that they don't "exclusively" focus on women only. Women are of course their main focus though, so helping men is a bit of an after thought or by-product. This isn't a bad thing... their focus on women is perfectly fine, and women clearly still need that.

 

guess to them the philosophy is along the same lines as violence hurts not only the victim but also the perpetrator of the violence, and so both need to be helped.

Well... to be honest I don't see too much of this. I actually consider this one of the big flaws... because the victims absolutely deserve support and help. But preventative help for the perpetrators would make a much bigger difference in terms of reducing the violence. I don't see feminists taking the time to truly understand men or why some of them may become perpetrators of violence.

 

This lack of understanding, is somewhat similar to what people who suffer from anxiety and depression go though. Many people just tell the depressed to "snap out of it", or "get a grip", or "stop whining already" e.t.c. They do this without really understanding, or even bothering to understand, what someone is going through or why. And there isn't always a clear cut why in the first place... but it really doesn't help anyone when their concerns, experiences, and what they have to deal with is casually or even blatantly dismissed.

 

It is obviously a different matter when it comes to perpetrators of violence, since we are talking about physical and visible actions, as opposed to the psychological. The problem is... that all human action has an element of psychological influence. In fact our thoughts, feelings e.t.c are arguable behind everything we do. So understanding the experiences, the conditions, and the thoughts which lead to certain men becoming violent... we can take steps to change those conditions... or intercept the men and help them change their thoughts.

 

Anyway... point is I don't see much of this kind of thinking in the mainstream feminist movement. There may be some feminists, maybe even some feminist movements, that do think this way... but they are not prominent or prevalent.

 

of course i suggested to them if they want to create equality regardless of gender or race etc., why even call thmselves "feminists", why not call themselves "egalitarians" or "anarchists," and most of them thuoght that was a good point, while the othres just figured the label didnt matter anyways.

It is indeed a very good point. Of course, considering their main objective of helping women... feminists is an apt label. So even if they are working toward equality, which many are, since they do it with a focus on women... I think their label is perfect.

 

Great point though... especially as it relates to "creating equality regardless of race, gender e.t.c.

 

 

i dont know much abuot martin luther king jr but if i remember corectly he tried to model after gandhi in taking into account all races/ethnicities to try to work for equality, not just blacks, becuse i would agree with the assertion that if you only focus on one side of equation, whethre thats those who are exploiting or the exploited, you cant even begin to come close to building any sort of equality that lasts (becuse as the name suggests, equation has to have the two sides balanced, cant just work on one side and ignore the other). that would be the criticism i am prety sure loran is pointing out - some forms of feminism (or maybe the majority, i dont know) focus only on women, one side of equation, on empowering women, which by the definition of empowering suggestts giving power (something thats very nature is making someone or somethinng else dependent or controled by you) to women rather than eliminating the whole patriarchal notion of heirarchy and power.

 

*Grins and pats Talos on the back.*You understood me very well.  I'm very pleased someone got what I was trying to say.

 

The only thing I'm not sure about is the elimination of patriarchal notions of hierarchy and power. I agree with that idea for the most part... but I like to think in terms of "Creating" rather than "Eliminating."

 

What I would like to see is a focus on the solution, so that we can work towards a world where men and women are indeed equal. There does however need to be an understanding of the problems, especially when a problem is so complex. But yeah, one of the main things to take into consideration, is what equality means and what it would look like.

 

Anyway... guess that would almost be a whole discussion of its own hahaha.

 

that seems to be the more-conventional, less-thoughtful feminist in my experience anyways thats being criticised - those few who have written out theories about the dominance-patriarchy matrix etc amongst what be considered feminist theory seem to be more conscious to the fact that the notion of power as known today must be destroyed if have any hope of creating gender equality, while there are those feminists that i know who, in my opinion, are really anarchists, egalitarians, communalists, etc., that seem conscious of having to work with both genders and rework the entire system to create equality.

Hmmmmm... can't say I know too much about these theories haha. But yeah, I reckon the average feminist doesn't really know about such theories either. They are fighting for equal rights, particularly on the most prominent issues that feminism focuses on. Some were mentioned by Misheru... e.g equal pay, feeling safe in public, not being treated as lower than men and so forth.

 

*************

I feel that I can quite confidently say that feminism(or the average feminist) generally focuses on helping women. I'll say it yet again, this is not bad! It does however on occasion hurt men, because a focus on women means... the experiences of men are not the focus. This in turn makes it possible for some aspects of the movement to unknowingly/unintentionally hurt men. This is simple logic... and it is not a criticism of feminism. I'm just saying it as it is.

 

Look, I can see feminism successfully working towards Equal Rights. This is possible since the approach is to make sure women have the same rights as men... when this is achieved, Equal Rights will have been successfully achieved. Feminism can definitely accomplish this.

 

Equality on the other hand... is another matter... it is far more complex than simply having the same rights. The complex goal of achieving "equality" is impossible with a focus on only one part of the whole. Whether we are talking racism or sexism, creating equality in either case can not be achieved without taking every part into account. It is that simple.

 

The only other thing... is that equality is somewhat subjective. So depending on your definition of equality... perhaps it can be achieved through feminism. E.g if "equal rights" is your definition of equality then yeah... feminism can do that.

 

*****************

Equal Rights is a bit of a... shaky equality. "Human Rights" are being violated left, right, and center every day... this shows that "Rights" aren't a guarantee of anything. So just having the Equal Rights would not qualify as equality in my books. Equal Rights would 100% be part of equality as a whole... but only part of it.

 

*Glares at anybody who thought he was against Equal Rights.*

 

But yeah... maybe that's just me.

 

[WildTaltos]

 

i dont know much abuot feminism, though i do know people who wold label themmselves "feminists" and they dont exclusivly focus on women only. they focus on creatin gender equality by trying to promote egalitarianism and a healthy, more-natural conceppt of gender for both men and women (as in thir view, though the more priveleged group, many men are also victims of the dominance-competitionn matrix created by patriarchy).

I can agree that they don't "exclusively" focus on women only. Women are of course their main focus though, so helping men is a bit of an after thought or by-product. This isn't a bad thing... their focus on women is perfectly fine, and women clearly still need that.

 

i said i know peoplle who would label themslves feminists - not talkin about all feminists in general. i would assume you arent acquainted with the same people i am in real life. the more conventionall feminist, as i mentioned later, focuses more on women, unlike these ones i know personaly who have since started caling themselves something other than feminist because of them realsiing they dont focus only on women

 

guess to them the philosophy is along the same lines as violence hurts not only the victim but also the perpetrator of the violence, and so both need to be helped.

Well... to be honest I don't see too much of this. I actually consider this one of the big flaws... because the victims absolutely deserve support and help. But preventative help for the perpetrators would make a much bigger difference in terms of reducing the violence. I don't see feminists taking the time to truly understand men or why some of them may become perpetrators of violence.

 

This lack of understanding, is somewhat similar to what people who suffer from anxiety and depression go though. Many people just tell the depressed to "snap out of it", or "get a grip", or "stop whining already" e.t.c. They do this without really understanding, or even bothering to understand, what someone is going through or why. And there isn't always a clear cut why in the first place... but it really doesn't help anyone when their concerns, experiences, and what they have to deal with is casually or even blatantly dismissed.

 

It is obviously a different matter when it comes to perpetrators of violence, since we are talking about physical and visible actions, as opposed to the psychological. The problem is... that all human action has an element of psychological influence. In fact our thoughts, feelings e.t.c are arguable behind everything we do. So understanding the experiences, the conditions, and the thoughts which lead to certain men becoming violent... we can take steps to change those conditions... or intercept the men and help them change their thoughts.

 

Anyway... point is I don't see much of this kind of thinking in the mainstream feminist movement. There may be some feminists, maybe even some feminist movements, that do think this way... but they are not prominent or prevalent.

 

missed the context of that statment where im talking about the "feminists" i have known in the years, the ones ive actualy talked to, who you wouldnt know, some of whom have gone on to call themsellves plain old egalitarians or anarchists, while my concluding statement should have hinted that these arent the "more-conventional", "less-thoughtful" feminists.

 

 

of course i suggested to them if they want to create equality regardless of gender or race etc., why even call thmselves "feminists", why not call themselves "egalitarians" or "anarchists," and most of them thuoght that was a good point, while the othres just figured the label didnt matter anyways.

It is indeed a very good point. Of course, considering their main objective of helping women... feminists is an apt label. So even if they are working toward equality, which many are, since they do it with a focus on women... I think their label is perfect.

 

Great point though... especially as it relates to "creating equality regardless of race, gender e.t.c.

 

again people i know and have talked to, the same who unconventiallly cared extensively about more than women, not all the feminists in the world.

 

 

i dont know much abuot martin luther king jr but if i remember corectly he tried to model after gandhi in taking into account all races/ethnicities to try to work for equality, not just blacks, becuse i would agree with the assertion that if you only focus on one side of equation, whethre thats those who are exploiting or the exploited, you cant even begin to come close to building any sort of equality that lasts (becuse as the name suggests, equation has to have the two sides balanced, cant just work on one side and ignore the other). that would be the criticism i am prety sure loran is pointing out - some forms of feminism (or maybe the majority, i dont know) focus only on women, one side of equation, on empowering women, which by the definition of empowering suggestts giving power (something thats very nature is making someone or somethinng else dependent or controled by you) to women rather than eliminating the whole patriarchal notion of heirarchy and power.

*Grins and pats Talos on the back.*You understood me very well.  I'm very pleased someone got what I was trying to say.

 

The only thing I'm not sure about is the elimination of patriarchal notions of hierarchy and power. I agree with that idea for the most part... but I like to think in terms of "Creating" rather than "Eliminating."

 

What I would like to see is a focus on the solution, so that we can work towards a world where men and women are indeed equal. There does however need to be an understanding of the problems, especially when a problem is so complex. But yeah, one of the main things to take into consideration, is what equality means and what it would look like.

 

Anyway... guess that would almost be a whole discussion of its own hahaha.

 

i think there is no diference betwen creating and eliminating, besides semantics. they are in my view one and same, becuse nothing is destroyed withuot in process creating something new. guess the best word would transformation becuse says all at once destruction and creation

 

 

that seems to be the more-conventional, less-thoughtful feminist in my experience anyways thats being criticised - those few who have written out theories about the dominance-patriarchy matrix etc amongst what be considered feminist theory seem to be more conscious to the fact that the notion of power as known today must be destroyed if have any hope of creating gender equality, while there are those feminists that i know who, in my opinion, are really anarchists, egalitarians, communalists, etc., that seem conscious of having to work with both genders and rework the entire system to create equality.

Hmmmmm... can't say I know too much about these theories haha. But yeah, I reckon the average feminist doesn't really know about such theories either. They are fighting for equal rights, particularly on the most prominent issues that feminism focuses on. Some were mentioned by Misheru... e.g equal pay, feeling safe in public, not being treated as lower than men and so forth.

 

*************

I feel that I can quite confidently say that feminism(or the average feminist) generally focuses on helping women. I'll say it yet again, this is not bad! It does however on occasion hurt men, because a focus on women means... the experiences of men are not the focus. This in turn makes it possible for some aspects of the movement to unknowingly/unintentionally hurt men. This is simple logic... and it is not a criticism of feminism. I'm just saying it as it is.

 

Look, I can see feminism successfully working towards Equal Rights. This is possible since the approach is to make sure women have the same rights as men... when this is achieved, Equal Rights will have been successfully achieved. Feminism can definitely accomplish this.

 

Equality on the other hand... is another matter... it is far more complex than simply having the same rights. The complex goal of achieving "equality" is impossible with a focus on only one part of the whole. Whether we are talking racism or sexism, creating equality in either case can not be achieved without taking every part into account. It is that simple.

 

The only other thing... is that equality is somewhat subjective. So depending on your definition of equality... perhaps it can be achieved through feminism. E.g if "equal rights" is your definition of equality then yeah... feminism can do that.

 

*****************

Equal Rights is a bit of a... shaky equality. "Human Rights" are being violated left, right, and center every day... this shows that "Rights" aren't a guarantee of anything. So just having the Equal Rights would not qualify as equality in my books. Equal Rights would 100% be part of equality as a whole... but only part of it.

 

*Glares at anybody who thought he was against Equal Rights.*

 

But yeah... maybe that's just me.

 

i agree with all of this, and basicaly as i said, founds the idea that evrything else i said about those particular feminists i have known were not, by probably the most defining characteristic of "feminism," actuallly feminists when it came right down to thir logic, which i pointed out to them, even if they might have startted out that way. equal rights is one thing, equality is anothre, and the conventional feminists, in my experience, with their limited view of giving "rights," a fundamentaly patriarchal conception that is shaky at best, to women isnt really after a lasting equality because dont work with both genders, which is just the start of the road towards trying to get to equality.

 

the fact that most of the feminists in this thread readilly defended that it is right that "feminism" shoulld only focus on women prety much is the example of this convention. yes, by its definition i guess it should be primarily concerned with women, but in my opinion then it forfeits its ability to work towards replacing its real enemy, patriarchy, the dominance matrix, whatevre want to call it, and can only become a passing note - gaining equal rights or power that in all likelihood wont last - within the patrirachal heirarchy while other philosophies and movements founded on such philosophies, be it egalitarianism or anarchism, work for equality.

[Loranflame]

"i said i know peoplle who would label themslves feminists - not talkin about all feminists in general. i would assume you arent acquainted with the same people i am in real life. the more conventionall feminist, as i mentioned later, focuses more on women, unlike these ones i know personaly who have since started caling themselves something other than feminist because of them realsiing they dont focus only on women"

 

"missed the context of that statment where im talking about the "feminists" i have known in the years, the ones ive actualy talked to, who you wouldnt know, some of whom have gone on to call themsellves plain old egalitarians or anarchists, while my concluding statement should have hinted that these arent the "more-conventional", "less-thoughtful" feminists."

 

"again people i know and have talked to, the same who unconventiallly cared extensively about more than women, not all the feminists in the world."

 

Everything I'm saying about feminists and feminism is in reference to the average feminist or the mainstream movement as I see it. So no worries Talos, I'm not referring to the feminists that you know.

 

 

*Grins and pats Talos on the back.*You understood me very well.  I'm very pleased someone got what I was trying to say.

 

The only thing I'm not sure about is the elimination of patriarchal notions of hierarchy and power. I agree with that idea for the most part... but I like to think in terms of "Creating" rather than "Eliminating."

 

What I would like to see is a focus on the solution, so that we can work towards a world where men and women are indeed equal. There does however need to be an understanding of the problems, especially when a problem is so complex. But yeah, one of the main things to take into consideration, is what equality means and what it would look like.

 

Anyway... guess that would almost be a whole discussion of its own hahaha.

i think there is no diference betwen creating and eliminating, besides semantics. they are in my view one and same, becuse nothing is destroyed withuot in process creating something new. guess the best word would transformation becuse says all at once destruction and creation

 

One could indeed argue that the difference is semantic. It is also true that in creating you often destroy. I feel that when you destroy what you don't want, you don't necessarily create what you do want. Equality is pretty complex and would require taking many different variable and factors into account. In the end equality is quite similar to the concept of balance... and I think the complicated kind of balance in question is more easily and effectively achieved through creation than destruction.  Creation is more solution oriented, and that allows one to focus on discovering and eventually bringing about a desired outcome.

 

As long as progress is made, I guess it doesn't really matter either way. I just have a preference for creating myself haha.

 

i agree with all of this, and basicaly as i said, founds the idea that evrything else i said about those particular feminists i have known were not, by probably the most defining characteristic of "feminism," actuallly feminists when it came right down to thir logic, which i pointed out to them, even if they might have startted out that way. equal rights is one thing, equality is anothre, and the conventional feminists, in my experience, with their limited view of giving "rights," a fundamentaly patriarchal conception that is shaky at best, to women isnt really after a lasting equality because dont work with both genders, which is just the start of the road towards trying to get to equality. 

Any reference to feminists and feminism in my posts, was referencing "conventional feminists" as you put it. So yeah, we are pretty much in agreement.

 

the fact that most of the feminists in this thread readilly defended that it is right that "feminism" shoulld only focus on women prety much is the example of this convention. yes, by its definition i guess it should be primarily concerned with women, but in my opinion then it forfeits its ability to work towards replacing its real enemy, patriarchy, the dominance matrix, whatevre want to call it, and can only become a passing note - gaining equal rights or power that in all likelihood wont last - within the patrirachal heirarchy while other philosophies and movements founded on such philosophies, be it egalitarianism or anarchism, work for equality.

Indeed... conventional feminists and what I have referred to as "mainstream feminism" is focused on women. I don't think that is a bad thing at this point though, but eventually true equality will require a much wider focus. Equality is more than just a balance between men and women after all... there are many other aspects to be addressed.

[Ryrin]

I was speaking about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Of course, where we are born, who our parents are and a myriad of other factors effect opportunities. However, equality in this area is still a worthwhile goal. We all start somewhere, but artificial barriers based on race, gender, religion, etc. should not determine/limit which opportunities are available and which are not.

 

Lol, when I tried to type "born" autocorrect changed it to "reborn."