Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

It depends on who you ask-
for the average joe who works with women, goes to school with them, holds doors open for them, feminism might seem redundant.

For those who make careers of studying cultural oppression as imposed by the media, institutional oppression as imposed by religion and politics, reproductive oppression imposed by religion, etc-

feminism is extremely relevant.

Me I see feminism in the west as a way for women to extort power from the government, they already have the same rights as men, they have the same enforcements, they have the same access to education and most jobs, so why are they continueing to act like the west is wholely a traditional patriarchy, or that the western governments are condoning patrarchy in some way.

Might seem redundant why?

Yes I can agree with this for my own reasons, but why do you?

Equal legal rights do not translate to cultural equality, or economic equality, or domestic equality, etc
even IF one agrees women have equal legal rights.

As per it's colloquial definition, "a society in which men occupy most or all positions of authority",
the west, or America, at least, most certainly IS a patriarchy.

Because *HE* doesn't seek to oppress women-
I've noticed many if not most of those who find feminism outdated think feminism is an indictment of INDIVIDUALS (ahem, men),
as opposed to SOCIETAL FORCES,
and none of the INDIVIDUALS in that person's life are likely to be outright sexists or oppressors of women.

Why do I...?

Sorry. I am very bad with questions unless they are very specific.

It is only contentious to idiots. What are you talking about, the only one who might create a strawman in this thread is inuyasha and he just showed up. Also the strawman of feminism is a reaction to feminism, feminism itself can't exist as a reaction to a reaction it brought about itself, or that is to say it can't exist as a counter-reaction to the strawman it's radicals have brought about themselves, it makes no sense.

As for the rest, the radicalisation of religion(As a reaction to feminism) and the idealisation of tradition, I do not see any evidence of such things, and you provided no examples. Anti-feminism is gaining more support because men are facing imbalances in certain venues and feminism have not yet responded in a fair and apropriate way. That is to say, the response of feminists to claims that the family courts, alimony, and certain practices of child support are unfair to men are responded to by feminists in less than an understanding way, and somtimes in a misandric way. Anti-feminism itself(In the context of the MRA, and in the context of the west itself) will fall to the wayside when feminists have had time to adapt. Anti-Feminism in other contexts such as the middle east do not really belong in this thread, those societies at least from a western perspective do need feminism, but many think that feminism should not continue as it has in the west.

Me I see feminism in the west as a way for women to extort power from the government, they already have the same rights as men, they have the same enforcements, they have the same access to education and most jobs, so why are they continueing to act like the west is wholely a traditional patriarchy, or that the western governments are condoning patrarchy in some way. I think feminism should reform itself as a protectionist organization, and what I mean by that is, they should be setting out to make sure the powers that have already been allowed by law are being used by the women who need them. I do also feel that MRA's need to roll back some of the family court laws and then fall into the same protectionist principles, that is protecting men and making sure they are using the law in an appropraite way, I also feel that the two would do well to advocate healthy relations between the sexes jointly. If the reaction of western feminism eventually goes the way I have guessed I will likely become involved with the two movements.

I know how theory of mind works, but I cannot evaluate how well yours has worked without also hearing your views on racism.

But when a man does not see any men at all oppressing women or being outright sexists(? What do you mean by this, what sexism are you suggesting persists that isn't explicit) how can you claim it is unreasonable for someone to think society is equal when all he or she sees is equality? You can claim it is in error and then provide examples on why that is, but can you claim they are being unreasonable?

Why do you do you think the difference in views between people who study gender issues and people who do not generally persists?

I think the radicalisation of religion includes anti-feminism because Abrahamic religions hate women.

The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).

Actually, the thread was titled 'feminism vs. equality', the OP was erecting the strawman from the start. The strawman is drawn from radical feminism but radical feminism is not currently significantly active (except maybe in Scandinavia, I don't know).

I don't think the radicalisation of religion is a reaction to feminism, but I think the radicalisation of religion includes anti-feminism because Abrahamic religions hate women. The increasing popularity of conservative forms of Islam and Christianity is an idealisation of tradition. It's a form of 'radical conservatism' that severely seeks to reverse the gains made not just by feminism but by all modernist movements. The fact that this largely takes place in countries that I don't live in does not make this irrelevant to me. I live in a place with high immigration from these countries and it is an increasingly globalised society. Muslims living in Britain are still influencing British culture by virtue of living and reproducing here.

I do agree with you about Western governments not condoning patriarchy and feminism needing to take a protectionist role. I believe the protectionist role is very important. I also agree with you that the indifference or hostility of the Western feminist movement towards men's issues is damaging feminism, and that it will need to adapt. However, I don't think the intention was, or is, to extort power - at least not for the majority.

Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.

Most definitely.

If an author wrote and tried to publish the holy texts of said religions today,
he would not land a publishing contract-
they're truly horrific tales of genocide, rape, and slavery.

Because views are informed by the information at hand, and those with more in-depth knowledge are likely to have different views?

That's universally-true.

Even this is fallacious,
as no part of radical feminist philosophy involves misandry.

But your assertion that radical feminism is inactive is false, radicals do not have to be at the forefront or in a controlling position in a group to have an effect.

Significantly active is meaningless where radicals exist in a group in an uncontrolled manner their views well effect the policies and views of the group as a whole, regardless of whether or not the mainstream segments actually agree with them fully.

I cannot speak on this issue, I have no experience with it, and unbiased sources are hard to find. I will say that Abrahamic religions are not inherently anti-women, there are denominations which embrace feminism more than others, at least here in America.

Apart from Valerie Solanas?

Though really, most radical feminism is just Marxist and some of it is separatist. I find it more androphobic than misandristic.