Feminism, blessing or disaster?

Post Reply New Topic

Feminism.... what are your thoughts?
Western women want to be in charge these days.
What do you think, disaster or not?

They want equality...what is so disastrous about that?

No. As Hannah Montana would say, they want the "Best of Both Worlds."

Nothing but extra privileges either way.

Yup. Most people don't get what feminism is about. Its not about "being in charge" or extra priveleges, its about equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, etc. Alot of feminism is about consent too, and freedom from harassment.

If one would actually bother to actually understand feminism rather than just assuming they know what its about, they should realize its not disastrous.

I'm a humanist and support many feminist ideas. However what feminism means varies from person to person.

Studying the history of feminism, you get very different groups with differencing ideals.

Where's CanyonWind when you need him?

A blessing thankyou very much,

which reminds me....I need to vote today...

whiskey: someone who has such a low esteem to need a "slave" as a wife certanly can not understand feminism or equal rights for that matter. but let me point to a few advantages: in short, two heads are always better than one i.e. two equal people can always get a better decision, make more money, do more.

while it is easy to get a plastic doll, doll can not surprise you (in a good or bad way).

http://www.feminist.com/reflections.html#inc

I don't have a "what I think" as much as an observsation that like so many other things it depends upon how it is applied and what extreme it is taken to.

Which I guess could be intrepreted as implying that person may or may not themselves be the disaster.

As far as what I think, I think it is not that Feminisim is a disaster or not; but, rather, that any given individual may be applying it disasterously or not.

Feminism was originally about equality and fair treatment (not preferential, but fair), such as women being given the right to vote and having a chance to excel in the workplace. But sometime in the 60's and 70's, feminism became corrupted by a few charismatic but crazy individuals, like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas. It then acquired a new goal: supremacy. (Just Google "SCUM Manifesto" to see what I mean by "supremacy".) Although rational thinking prevailed and no straight-thinking person goes near trash like the "SCUM Manifesto", small traces of the supremacy mentality remained, it seems. People seem very focused on equal rights, and not so much on equal responsibilities.

As for me personally, I support equal right and responsibilities for women, but do not consider myself a feminist. Feminism moved too far away from its honorable roots, and even though the individuals I mentioned are now gone, the movement still has traces of their doctrine. Namely, the treatment seems to be preferential, rather than fair. I think that causes more problems than it solves, such as getting bankrupted by the divorce court and being sued for sexual harassment just for complimenting a female co-worker.

Hmm, flame-bait. Personally, I like my flame-bait a little less tired and unoriginal.

I suppose if you think Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas are feminist icons, you would be horrified by feminism. But they aren't. Dworkin's main contribution to feminism was a few books so fringe that they made mainstream feminists recoil and a stance on pornography that made her the unexpected darling of the right wing. Solanas wasn't ever actually in the feminist movement. She was just a mentally ill woman who wrote SCUM Manifesto and shot Andy Warhol. If she hadn't shot Andy Warhol, nobody would have ever heard of the SCUM Manifesto. As it is, it is regarded as nothing more than "that thing written by the mentally ill woman who shot Andy Warhol". Backing away from the lunatic fringe, actual feminism brought us Hillary Clinton. Whatever you may think of her politics, it was groundbreaking that a woman could run for president and be taken seriously and not as a novelty candidate as women had been in the past (such as Shirley Chisolm). There was some hoohaa about her being a woman, but not really all that much. Mainly people discussed her politics. That's the actual face of feminism- women doing the same things as men and being judged on how they are doing the job, not that they are women.

The title of this post should be changed to "Radical Feminism..."

with the likes of Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Betty Friedan...

I agree totally with everything said here.

I fail to see how equal rights for both sexes can be disastrous. That stuff about wanting privileges and supremacy is NOT feminism in its true sense, its dictionary definition.

yep

exactly. every movement needs its extremists in order for the middle to be taken seriously.


Speaking as an american feminist: yes, the movement is/was important, but unfortunately, like the rest of american culture, it's all about "i want" and "give me" and "i want choice". Women just end up being spun around in the consumerist cyclone. The planet is going to pot, families are messed up, and the happy index is way down.

There just wasn't enough love, imho.