Feminism: internet vs. reality

[MarsCydonia]

I will start with this disclosure: I am Canadian and more particularly, from the province of Quebec.

The reason I have started with this disclosure is because I completely stupefied by current shouting matches that can be found on the internet concerning feminism. In the region where I live, thought I do not want to speak for everybody, most would consider themselves feminists and see this as a good thing. The net version of Meriam-Webster defines feminism as: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities".

So why are some internet personalities such as Matt Dillahunty and Steve Shives called out for being feminists? How is the above definition a bad thing?From what I have seen, the issue seems contained to internet comment sections and youtube videos. Is there an aspect to this ongoing "debate" that I am completely missing?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

(...)
The net version of Meriam-Webster defines feminism as: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities".
(...)
How is the above definition a bad thing?
(...)

It's bad because it is wrong. The clue is in the title. Feminism isn't and never was about equal rights, feminism is and always has been about women's rights. Claiming otherwise is sophistry.
And guesswhat? In this day an age, women have equal rights to men, they have the right to equal participation in society as men, they have the right to an education, monetary independence, they are protected under the same provisions as men (and they even have extra provisions like job protection in pregnancy which are exclusive to women), discrimination based on sex is illegal. What else do they want?
This wave of feminism isn't about equal rights, its about bitching. "Look at how poor an persecute I am, pay attention to me you sexist sys white male!!". It is all about personal issues of psychotic narcissist with a degree in liberal arts.
And I have absolutely no patients for that.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I will start with this disclosure: I am Canadian and more particularly, from the province of Quebec.

The reason I have started with this disclosure is because I completely stupefied by current shouting matches that can be found on the internet concerning feminism. In the region where I live, thought I do not want to speak for everybody, most would consider themselves feminists and see this as a good thing. The net version of Meriam-Webster defines feminism as: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities".

So why are some internet personalities such as Matt Dillahunty and Steve Shives called out for being feminists? How is the above definition a bad thing?From what I have seen, the issue seems contained to internet comment sections and youtube videos. Is there an aspect to this ongoing "debate" that I am completely missing?

People who benefit from inequality frequently don't want to believe that inequality exists. Or if they do believe it exists they want to believe it is intrinsic and therefore not something that anyone should work to address.

It's basically the same argument made by people who want to pretend racism isn't real - or at least is not significant - because people of all races have the same rights on paper.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It's bad because it is wrong. The clue is in the title. Feminism isn't and never was about equal rights, feminism is and always has been about women's rights. Claiming otherwise is sophistry.
And guesswhat? In this day an age, women have equal rights to men, they have the right to equal participation in society as men, they have the right to an education, monetary independence, they are protected under the same provisions as men (and they even have extra provisions like job protection in pregnancy which are exclusive to women), discrimination based on sex is illegal. What else do they want?
This wave of feminism isn't about equal rights, its about bitching. "Look at how poor an persecute I am, pay attention to me you sexist sys white male!!". It is all about personal issues of psychotic narcissist with a degree in liberal arts.
And I have absolutely no patients for that.

So feminism isn't and never was about women having the same right as men? Are these issues not at the heart of the feminist movement?
- Voting rights
- Abolition of Head and master laws
- Outlawing marital rape
- Etc.

As I said, I am Canadian from the province of Quebec. I really am thankful that I don't have to deal with this twisted notion of feminism that exist in wherever you're from.

 

[SpecialFrog]

As I said, I am Canadian from the province of Quebec. I really am thankful that I don't have to deal with this twisted notion of feminism that exist in wherever you're from.

I bet you that if you asked 90% of Conservative MPs in the Canadian parliament what feminism was you'd get answers along those lines.

Not to mention that a disturbingly-high percentage of prominent "men's rights activists" seem to be Canadian.

 

[MarsCydonia]

As I said, I am Canadian from the province of Quebec. I really am thankful that I don't have to deal with this twisted notion of feminism that exist in wherever you're from.

I bet you that if you asked 90% of Conservative MPs in the Canadian parliament what feminism was you'd get answers along those lines.

Not to mention that a disturbingly-high percentage of prominent "men's rights activists" seem to be Canadian.

I do not disagree with you, which is why I specified Quebec.

If we could compare provinces to states "idologically" speaking, if Alberta is Canada's texas, Quebec is, well, which state is the most liberal?

Not that Quebec has not its share of issues (mostly about language and religious accomodations) but feminism isn't one of them. Well, as far as I know.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

- Voting rights

Women's right to vote.

- Abolition of Head and master laws

Women's right to self sustainment.

- Outlawing marital rape

Women's rights to personal freedom.

And I am all for that. And guess what, you have that.

Can you instead give me an example of a right that you think women should have but don't today, and yet men have them?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

...

 

[MarsCydonia]

"It's bad because it is wrong. The clue is in the title. Feminism isn't and never was about equal rights, feminism is and always has been about women's rights. Claiming otherwise is sophistry.

Would you say "the marriage equality movement isn't and never was about equal rights but always has been about homosexuals' rights"?
Or say "The civil rights movement isn't and never was about equal rights but always been about blacks' rights"?

Can you claim otherwise without it being sophistry? I believe the real sophistry is giving the feminist movement some nefarious intentions that it never had.

Women's right to vote.
Women's right to self sustainment.
Women's rights to personal freedom.

And I am all for that. And guess what, you have that.

Can you instead give me an example of a right that you think women should have but don't today, and yet men have them?

Women's right that men had but women did not, hence the feminist movement for women equality.

So what if I can't name a right that I think women should have but don't today? Are you saying that since women and men should have equal rights on paper people should stop calling themselves feminists or should stop supporting women equality? Even when there are still real practical issues to deal with about the equality between men and women?

Can you instead give me an example of a right that you think blacks should have but don't today, and yet whites have? Would this mean that people should stop calling themselves civil rights aupporters? Or are you saying that racism issues no longer exists because blacks and whites have the same rights on paper?

 

[Inferno]

click

 

[AronRa]

So last week, I received this YouTube private message:

Aron, I would like to have a discussion with you in regards to your views on human rights in general and feminism in particular. I just would like to discuss these things with sincerity and honesty. I do not know your views specifically, but I would enjoy the discussion nonetheless. I also recognize you are a hard worker and therefore recognize that this discussion may not be entirely possible. If you do have both the time and the will, I would be grateful. Thanks for reading.

I replied:
I'm open for that.

Huh, I genuinely did not think you would get to read that. It's an honor to talk to you. Firstly, I guess I should establish my point of view in the matter. I, quite reasonably, believe all people ought to have equal opportunity and fair treatment. Some may say that feminism is the route to reaching those goals, but I object for two reasons.

Firstly, the name "feminism" does make me raise more than just a skeptical eyebrow. It would seem that a movement aimed at establishing equal rights for all people would not use a term which seems to "favor" (take that word with a grain of salt) one subset of people. In other words, I object to "feminism" for the same reason I object to "Men's Rights" or "masculinism" (although I have yet to here someone identify as a "masculinist"). I believe a new term ought to be created to be more inclusive to the people it is advocating for. Just spit balling, but the term "equalist", while not as catchy as feminist, comes to mind. That way the name suggests it is not advocating for just one group while disregarding others.

Secondly, when I look at feminism, I often see people who poorly represent the movement (from my perspective at least). In the news we often see names like Anita Sarkeesian popping up with more news about "incredible" (in the literal sense) threats against her, often including rape and murder. This thoroughly puts me off from the term, and probably unfairly. While I realize that the "extremist feminists" are not the majority, I also recognize they get a fair bit of funding to call themselves victims. It, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, seems like they are only remaining relevant because they present themselves as victims. It is not their arguments but their victim status, seemingly at least, that keeps them relevant.

I just want to finish off by saying that I am a huge fan and I am truly grateful to be able to talk to you one on one. Your Falsehoods series is one of the greatest creationist debunk series on youtube and thoroughly demolishes the tactics used by creationists. My favorite video of yours is "An Archeological Moment in Time". It was very well made and I love watching just because of how informative it is. I would love if we could continue this discussion tomorrow, but its midnight and I need sleep.

Best regards.

I mentioned feminism in only one of my videos, years ago. I explained what the word means, and I got it right. The only definition the word feminism ever had was the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. I acknowledged that definition applies to me, and as a result, I have received constant hate from numerous people every week ever since. I have been dragged into this unjustified argument by impassioned assholes so much that I have actually wasted more time arguing against anti-feminists than I have creationists. I can't even do what I need to do because so many people won't let this go.

One of the disturbing things I have noticed since that all began is the anti-feminist, people who say they believe in gender equality, but rejects the feminism label, and also rejects, or attempts to systematically refute or dismiss every issue of importance to women, as if women in the west already get equal treatment across the board, so why don't they shut up already. Everyone who does acknowledge disproportionate social biases against women doesn't have any problem identifying as a feminist.

The other issue is that all these people say they're not feminist, and they're not sexist, but they'll only accept feminism if I can prove that it advocates for mens rights. They will not support or even acknowledge any situation that only pertains, or is primarily particular to women. If they're only concerned about men's rights, then that is sexist, again by definition.

I've heard the absolute worst arguments imaginable against feminism, by people pretending that it's a religion, or by people who don't believe in patriarchy, and also don't know what that word really means. Try to imagine what happens to your patience after a couple years of re-explaining the same things again and again, only to have them rejected by the next guy who wants to start that same fight. Every video I've uploaded since that one has had comments posted to it hating me for using the F-word correctly, and admitting that it applies to me. Even my children's educational videos have this hate posted all over it. That gets pretty disturbing after a while.

Fortunately real life isn't like the internet. So far this year, I've spoken at 16 different conferences in 11 countries on three continents, and everyone everywhere voluntarily explains the importance of supporting feminism, along with gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on. Then I start up my computer and see this other world, where the best argument anyone has is some twisted misrepresentation of what they heard Rebecca Watson or Anita Sarkeesian did, and they're always wrong.

That's just to let you know where I'm starting from. Women have always had unfair biases applied to them on the basis of gender -all around the world, all through history, and yes, it is still happening here in the west. So if you're really concerned about gender equality, you will have to advocate for women's rights way more than you ever will for men. Although feminists do actually advocate for men's rights too. That's because they actually do believe in EQUALITY with men.

Decades ago, I saw a button that said, "Straight but not narrow". That was the first time I ever saw any indication that one could be straight and still support gay rights. Prior to that, I actually thought that you had to be gay in order to care about gay rights. I'm still learning. That's what we're talking about here, supporting a demographic you don't belong to yourself, simply because that other group needs you to be supportive of them.

Remember Ferguson? Someone started the chant that "black lives matter", and that was an important sentiment. A bunch of white people joined in, apparently with good intentions, and changed the slogan to "All lives matter". Well, no one would argue that's true, but it misses the point that black people are the victims of systemic inequity all over this country. White people should have acknowledged that "Black lives matter". If they did, it would not mean that white lives don't matter, and no one should be so stupid as think that. It only means that someone who is not suffering that inequity acknowledged that someone else is, and that it's wrong.

I sent you a message roughly a week ago, but I see it may have flown under your radar. Either that or you refuse to respond to me due to something I said. I do want to continue this discussion. But I can only do that if you also discuss with me.

I don't see anything you've written that I haven't already responded to a week ago.

Well, firstly, my post was, more or less, a request for evidence to back your claims. Before I am willing to accept the label of feminist, I need to have the evidence to support the reasoning that brought you to the conclusions, the first world still needs feminism to balance the scales (specifically in the case of women), what patriarchy is defined as, the existence of patriarchy, and I also inquired about your position on free speech, as I feel it might be important if this discussion goes on.

Aron, I reread your post, and none of those assertions were backed, which was fine, because it was an introduction to your series. Once you laid those points out, I was expecting you to follow up with evidence, which is what my July 21 response was trying to lead you to.

I apologies if I am just not reading this correctly. But if the evidence really is there, you haven't presented it in a way that has been comprehensible to me. Best wishes. Hope to talk to you again.

Maybe I misunderstood. You suggested changing the name from 'feminism' to something that you think wouldn't be as supportive to women. I used the "all lives matter" example to explain why that's not a good idea, and I gave other examples to explain why it's not necessary. You then gave your reasons for rejecting the feminism label, and I explained what is wrong with that too. At no point did you ask for evidence of anything, but then neither did you provide any of your own. That's excusable since you only asked for a conversation, and since I didn't make any claims. What claims did you think I made?

Now I have to say I'm a little confused that you tell me today that I never responded to you at all last week, even though you now admit that I did, and that you knew that when you said I didn't.

My most sincere apologies. Something weird occurred, and I am no longer seeing the message I was seeing a few minutes ago. I apologies for this mishap. This has occurred to me before. Last week, after your response to me, I decided to respond to you. Here is the idea I was expressing in my post.

I disagree that what feminism is and has been is a movement striving for equal rights for men and women. In the past, it has advocated for women's rights, in times when first world women were not treated as equals to men, a movement that was entirely justified at the times. However, feminism in the modern first world seems to be advocating for changes either redundant or excessive. Seldom is it that I see reasonable issues being brought up for first world feminism to tackle.

You suggest that feminism is needed in the first world. I have heard that being claimed, but I haven't heard any justification for it. In other words, what reasons do you have for supporting feminism in regards to the first world. What rights do women need that men have, or visa versa, that can be taken on by feminism.

My second remark was in regard to patriarchy if I remember correctly. I admit that I do not have a clear definition of patriarchy in my head. And obviously, because of that, I cannot claim to know or not know of patriarchy's existence without being dishonest. So, what is patriarchy, how do we know that it exists in the first world.

I believe that was all I was requesting in that now lost post, but if I do find it, I will screen shot it and post it to this discussion thread just to demonstrate that it was there before. Again, my sincere apologies for this mixup.

Just in case something weird occurs, I screen shot my most recent post, posted at 2:07 today. Here is the link:

You said you disagree that feminism has ever promoted equality of the sexes -as if it only ever advocated for women's rights and never for men's. I have a handful of counter examples for you. My favorite is that here in Texas around 1988, it used to be that women always win child custody battles, and that a man could never win primary custodial rights unless he could prove that she was an unfit parent. This requirement didn't concern who was the better parent, and instead moved domestic disputes into the realm of criminal misconduct. I happened to find myself in a domestic dispute at that time, and a number of lawyers told me they had a policy not to accept any case where a man intended to file for child custody, because the man always loses. They also reported feminist protests at that time, objecting to the stereotype that the woman is the better parent. The result of those protests is that by the early 1990s, the policy in Texas had changed such that men and women now get joint custody by default, and in the relatively rare cases where men seek custody, they usually win. It is now a more fair situation. So this is a situation where feminists advocated for the rights of men.

Another good example is Iceland, now regarded as the most feminist nation on earth. I was just there a few months ago, and the local male feminists were bragging that there even fathers get months of paid maternity leave, where the United States hasn't even guaranteed that for women yet! There is another advance for men's rights which was acheived by feminists.

Feminism is the only movement that has ever advocated gender equality, even to promote men's rights. If you don't believe me, can you show me any other movement that has ever hosted any public demonstrations or advocacy of gender equality, and which actually has any successes to show? Because I can show a few for feminism, and none for anyone else.

You say feminism is no longer justified in the west, as if there are no issues left for feminists to resolve in this part of the world. Well, that's one right there. Bernie Sanders is promising to guarantee maternity leave for women at least, since they should have it first, but they don't have it yet.

There are other issues to be dealt with too, especially here in Texas, where women have been systematically denied rights to control of their own reproduction, because of conservative Christian patriarchy. Even Republican women were and are outraged over that, but what can they do when the men run everything? That's patriarchy for you. One woman stood up to them, and the result was that the governor and Lt Govenor both broke the law and smeared her reputation -even against protests by the women of their own constituency.

Patriarchy is a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. This has been the norm all over the world, all through history. Even today, female heads of state are less than 10% of all world leaders.

The other issues of feminism are mostly matters of social awareness rather than anything that could be changed by legislation. That's why it seems to you that feminism is now redundant, excessive, or unreasonable. I don't actually know of any feminist issues that are like that, so I'll need you to provide examples of each.

It's easy to notice when the law openly prohibits women from voting, or owning property, or running a business. That's patriarchy too, by the way. It's easy enough to change laws, but a lot harder to change attitudes. There's a disturbing trend in this country to promote hate. The United States has actually become a lot more racist in recent years, and a lot more sexist too. When I posted my video, 'Reconsidering Norms', I was responding to excessive anti-feminist hatred, a situation which turned out to be completely unreasonable, and which has only escalated since. I'm tired of hearing men whine that women already have equal rights as far as the legislation goes, so why don't they shut up about everything else. Because that's not all there is. Feminism is about political, social, and economic equality to men. Only the political aspect is controlled by legislation. They've passed laws guaranteeing equal pay, but statistically that still isn't happening; there's still a verified pay gap.

But the social issue is, (I think) more important, and legislation can't address that at all. For example, why is it that when a woman pursues her lust the same way as a man, he is admired as a player and she is denigrated as a slut -even by other women? This is a social attitude, easily ingrained in ignorance and difficult to change, because it requires awareness, comprehension, and re-evalation, things Americans typically suck at.

I don't know what you're saying about not being able to see old posts. I've posted a response to everything I've seen from you. However YouTube did not provide a link to any of your responses in email. So if I want to find this thread at all, I have to click on your initial message. All the other notices in email report null.

I think it is just a weird glitch on youtube's side, it has happened to me before. Perhaps we should move this discussion to another platform incase more messages are lost. I assume you got my previous two replies (my apologies for losing the message and the image incase that replay got lost as well)?

Done.

 

[Syn_O_Myn]

Okay, I suppose I should pick up where we left off then.

-as if it only ever advocated for women's rights and never for men's.

I don't see anything wrong with a movement having specific and narrow goals. I always thought feminism ought to advocate specifically for women's rights, and could be a part of a larger movement advocating for gender rights. That was what I was trying saying in regards to "equalist" or "equalism". A movement dedicating to getting all humans the same rights split into different subgroups for issues specific to certain people, for example "racial rights advocates", "gender and sexual rights advocates", and other advocates could work under one label of equalism. I suggest this because between MRAs and feminists seems to be a warzone. Both sides report their goals as trying to reach equality, but both sides fighting rather than working together.

I have a handful of counter examples for you. My favorite is that here in Texas around 1988, it used to be that women always win child custody battles, and that a man could never win primary custodial rights unless he could prove that she was an unfit parent. This requirement didn't concern who was the better parent, and instead moved domestic disputes into the realm of criminal misconduct. I happened to find myself in a domestic dispute at that time, and a number of lawyers told me they had a policy not to accept any case where a man intended to file for child custody, because the man always loses. They also reported feminist protests at that time, objecting to the stereotype that the woman is the better parent. The result of those protests is that by the early 1990s, the policy in Texas had changed such that men and women now get joint custody by default, and in the relatively rare cases where men seek custody, they usually win. It is now a more fair situation. So this is a situation where feminists advocated for the rights of men.

Another good example is Iceland, now regarded as the most feminist nation on earth. I was just there a few months ago, and the local male feminists were bragging that there even fathers get months of paid maternity leave, where the United States hasn't even guaranteed that for women yet! There is another advance for men's rights which was acheived by feminists.

Feminism is the only movement that has ever advocated gender equality, even to promote men's rights. If you don't believe me, can you show me any other movement that has ever hosted any public demonstrations or advocacy of gender equality, and which actually has any successes to show? Because I can show a few for feminism, and none for anyone else.

Bravo, I concede that I was ignorant of these examples.

You say feminism is no longer justified in the west, as if there are no issues left for feminists to resolve in this part of the world. Well, that's one right there. Bernie Sanders is promising to guarantee maternity leave for women at least, since they should have it first, but they don't have it yet.

There are other issues to be dealt with too, especially here in Texas, where women have been systematically denied rights to control of their own reproduction, because of conservative Christian patriarchy. Even Republican women were and are outraged over that, but what can they do when the men run everything? That's patriarchy for you. One woman stood up to them, and the result was that the governor and Lt Govenor both broke the law and smeared her reputation -even against protests by the women of their own constituency.

Patriarchy is a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. This has been the norm all over the world, all through history. Even today, female heads of state are less than 10% of all world leaders.

Okay, by my new point of "equalists" would still stand, presumably. While I do recognize feminism specifically has advocated for men's rights as well as female rights, I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than feminism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap feminists. Specifically, I feel that modern college aged feminists have poisoned the movement and have gained the support that will only further deter people like me from identifying as something which, on its shiniest surface, seems inherently toxic to any advocacy of men's rights. Again, I must say I acknowledge that feminism in the past has advocated for rights of men as well as for women, but in recent years the youngest and most abundant generation of feminists have poisoned the word.

In regards to control of reproductive organs, I would say that secularism would be the movement to advocate for reproductive rights rather than feminism. It seems obvious to me that a religion seeping into law would be dealt with by a movement that separates that potent force from our governing laws. Abortion should be legal and not be prevented due to religious people imposing their morality on those who refuse to follow.

I have one question, what is the head of the family by your definition? What would make having either parent the head of the family good or bad? Also, descent in modern times can be and is (at least from my experience) traced through both maternal and paternal lines. In regards to women being underrepresented, I agree, but I don't think that is because some person or organization or society is keeping them from becoming leaders, but rather because women have only recently obtained enough social power to have political influence (within the last hundred or so years) (and yes I realize there are some exceptions to the rule). It takes time to change society, and to change the mindsets of people. But as the older generations wither away and the modern generations become prominent, that number should improve.

Aron, I am on the east coast and want to finish the response tomorrow, as I have some things to attend to. I will be back here tomorrow. talk to you soon.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

[sarcasm]Yup, no need for feminism in the privilege west.[/sarcasm]

Senate GOP Fast-Tracks Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood

Side note: when I typed in "planned parenthood" into google to find this story,there was an add for helping to defund Planned Parenthood!

In addition, all I can ever think when I read someone say, "I agree with the definition of feminism, I just disagree with the title" is the old joke of the college student telling her mother that she was an atheist and the mother retorting, "I understand not believing in a god, but why an atheist?" If you cannot get over a label for a "movement", that is your problem.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So what if I can't name a right that I think women should have but don't today?

But that is the all bloody point!
You had no problem providing concrete examples of past feminist causes.

I'm 100% for equal rights, full support. But if you are advocating for something, and you want me to rally behind it, then you better have a concrete goal!
Don't come to me with fabricated bullshit and expect me to do something about it.
If your problem is the wage gap (i.e. women not getting paid as much for the same work), then there better be one. If I look at statistics and see that for the same job women are not paid then you would have a point. If your justification is that your liberal arts degree doesn't give you access to jobs that pay as much as an engineer or a medical doctor, then fuck you! It's your own damn problem! They were free to become a doctor or an engineer, nobody was out there to stop them, it's a consequence of their own decisions. And in addition to that, it is already illegal to have workplace discrimination based on sex, and this includes wages.
You want to do something about the wage gap, ok.. what the fuck do you want me to do?
And this is just an example, of today's issues.

Until you can give me a right that women today don't have that men do, then don't expect not to be called a fuckwit when you scream in my face to fix something that doesn't exist.

Are you saying that since women and men should have equal rights on paper people should stop calling themselves feminists or should stop supporting women equality?

I did not say that they should stop supporting equal rights for women. I support women's rights.

Even when there are still real practical issues to deal with about the equality between men and women?

Name one.

My time now is short. I will address the rest of the claims by the end of the day. Including the racial comparisons, where you think you are making your case, but in fact you are making mine.

 

[Syn_O_Myn]

Okay, I suppose I should pick up where we left off then.

-as if it only ever advocated for women's rights and never for men's.

I don't see anything wrong with a movement having specific and narrow goals. I always thought feminism ought to advocate specifically for women's rights, and could be a part of a larger movement advocating for gender rights. That was what I was trying saying in regards to "equalist" or "equalism". A movement dedicating to getting all humans the same rights split into different subgroups for issues specific to certain people, for example "racial rights advocates", "gender and sexual rights advocates", and other advocates could work under one label of equalism. I suggest this because between MRAs and feminists seems to be a warzone. Both sides report their goals as trying to reach equality, but both sides fighting rather than working together.

I have a handful of counter examples for you. My favorite is that here in Texas around 1988, it used to be that women always win child custody battles, and that a man could never win primary custodial rights unless he could prove that she was an unfit parent. This requirement didn't concern who was the better parent, and instead moved domestic disputes into the realm of criminal misconduct. I happened to find myself in a domestic dispute at that time, and a number of lawyers told me they had a policy not to accept any case where a man intended to file for child custody, because the man always loses. They also reported feminist protests at that time, objecting to the stereotype that the woman is the better parent. The result of those protests is that by the early 1990s, the policy in Texas had changed such that men and women now get joint custody by default, and in the relatively rare cases where men seek custody, they usually win. It is now a more fair situation. So this is a situation where feminists advocated for the rights of men.

Another good example is Iceland, now regarded as the most feminist nation on earth. I was just there a few months ago, and the local male feminists were bragging that there even fathers get months of paid maternity leave, where the United States hasn't even guaranteed that for women yet! There is another advance for men's rights which was acheived by feminists.

Feminism is the only movement that has ever advocated gender equality, even to promote men's rights. If you don't believe me, can you show me any other movement that has ever hosted any public demonstrations or advocacy of gender equality, and which actually has any successes to show? Because I can show a few for feminism, and none for anyone else.

Bravo, I concede that I was ignorant of these examples.

You say feminism is no longer justified in the west, as if there are no issues left for feminists to resolve in this part of the world. Well, that's one right there. Bernie Sanders is promising to guarantee maternity leave for women at least, since they should have it first, but they don't have it yet.

There are other issues to be dealt with too, especially here in Texas, where women have been systematically denied rights to control of their own reproduction, because of conservative Christian patriarchy. Even Republican women were and are outraged over that, but what can they do when the men run everything? That's patriarchy for you. One woman stood up to them, and the result was that the governor and Lt Govenor both broke the law and smeared her reputation -even against protests by the women of their own constituency.

Patriarchy is a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. This has been the norm all over the world, all through history. Even today, female heads of state are less than 10% of all world leaders.

Okay, by my new point of "equalists" would still stand, presumably. While I do recognize feminism specifically has advocated for men's rights as well as female rights, I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than feminism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap feminists. Specifically, I feel that modern college aged feminists have poisoned the movement and have gained the support that will only further deter people like me from identifying as something which, on its shiniest surface, seems inherently toxic to any advocacy of men's rights. Again, I must say I acknowledge that feminism in the past has advocated for rights of men as well as for women, but in recent years the youngest and most abundant generation of feminists have poisoned the word.

In regards to control of reproductive organs, I would say that secularism would be the movement to advocate for reproductive rights rather than feminism. It seems obvious to me that a religion seeping into law would be dealt with by a movement that separates that potent force from our governing laws. Abortion should be legal and not be prevented due to religious people imposing their morality on those who refuse to follow.

I have one question, what is the head of the family by your definition? What would make having either parent the head of the family good or bad? Also, descent in modern times can be and is (at least from my experience) traced through both maternal and paternal lines. In regards to women being underrepresented, I agree, but I don't think that is because some person or organization or society is keeping them from becoming leaders, but rather because women have only recently obtained enough social power to have political influence (within the last hundred or so years) (and yes I realize there are some exceptions to the rule). It takes time to change society, and to change the mindsets of people. But as the older generations wither away and the modern generations become prominent, that number should improve.

Aron, I am on the east coast and want to finish the response tomorrow, as I have some things to attend to. I will be back here tomorrow. talk to you soon.

 

[AronRa]

I don't see anything wrong with a movement having specific and narrow goals. I always thought feminism ought to advocate specifically for women's rights, and could be a part of a larger movement advocating for gender rights. That was what I was trying saying in regards to "equalist" or "equalism". A movement dedicating to getting all humans the same rights split into different subgroups for issues specific to certain people, for example "racial rights advocates", "gender and sexual rights advocates", and other advocates could work under one label of equalism. I suggest this because between MRAs and feminists seems to be a warzone. Both sides report their goals as trying to reach equality, but both sides fighting rather than working together.

Well, both may be claiming the same goal, but as I have already shown you, feminism is the only movement actually working toward that goal. The Men's Rights Activists are an overtly sexist reactionary hate group which exists solely to criticize feminism.

Okay, by my new point of "equalists" would still stand, presumably. While I do recognize feminism specifically has advocated for men's rights as well as female rights, I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than feminism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap feminists. Specifically, I feel that modern college aged feminists have poisoned the movement and have gained the support that will only further deter people like me from identifying as something which, on its shiniest surface, seems inherently toxic to any advocacy of men's rights. Again, I must say I acknowledge that feminism in the past has advocated for rights of men as well as for women, but in recent years the youngest and most abundant generation of feminists have poisoned the word.

No, I don't think they have. I am of course aware that someone somewhere said that female vendors at some conference should be prohibited from wearing 'sexualized' clothing. As a feminist myself, I responded that no, we're all adults, and we will allow adults to use their best judgement of what is appropriate dress for this type occasion. That's how you handle that. As I said before, whenever I hear how 'feminists' have poisoned the word, they're either talking about some fringe opposed by the mainstream, or they've been mislead by MRA nonsense, of which there is a fuck-ton, and it is all stupifying, really the worst arguments I've ever heard. So the best excuse I ever hear is "well, feminism is bad because,..."some feminist I met was rude to me". That's about as good as it ever gets, but it usually much much worse.

I'm 52 years old, and I remember this movement from as early as 1970, when people then were complaining that "those damned women's libbers were all man-hating bull-dykes". Back then, they said it about Gloria Steinem; now they're saying it about Anita Sarkeesian. They're still saying the same thing, for the same reason, and they're still wrong.

So we have certain historic figures praised for their involvement in the feminist movement, and I'm not ready to throw them under the bus just because a few men feel insecure about identifying under the feminist label. How would that look? "Well Susan B. Anthony founded the Feminist movement, which was OK back then, but then Rebecca Watson didn't like creepers hitting on her in the elevator and that poisoned the word. So we're just going to shit on history now."
Like I said before, everyone who acknowledges that there still are social inequity issues has no problem identifying as a feminist, and everyone who objects to that label also denies that western women have any goals left to achieve.

In regards to control of reproductive organs, I would say that secularism would be the movement to advocate for reproductive rights rather than feminism. It seems obvious to me that a religion seeping into law would be dealt with by a movement that separates that potent force from our governing laws. Abortion should be legal and not be prevented due to religious people imposing their morality on those who refuse to follow.

I guess you've never heard of Secular ProLife. That's just of several reasons why this is not an issue of secularism.

You suggested that we should discuss gender equality without using the word, 'feminism'. Why? There is no other word that applies here. Some people would suggest that we use 'egalitarian', but that won't do, (1) because that word traditionally implied the redistribution of wealth in a communist system where everyone has the same amount of money, and (2) because it is far too broad, meaning no discrimination of any subset without regard to any specifics. Even within the reduced egalitarian umbrella, if we're talking about religious discrimination, that's an issue of secularism, dealt with by the 1st amendment, or by similar legislation in other countries. If we're talking about ethnic discrimination, that's called racism, and is dealt with by means like affirmative action. If we're talking about the imposition of unfair gender bias, that's sexism, which is countered by feminism. What other word applies?

Because the feminism is the only movement advocating gender equality, and because they take the goal of "social, political, and economic equality with men" so seriously that they advocate for men's rights too, then there should be no issue whatsoever accepting that label if that actually describes your concerns too. There is no reason to construct an entirely different movement with the same goal, just because you find the name emasculating. Nor should you. I don't.

I have one question, what is the head of the family by your definition?

My nuclear family does not have a 'head'. My wife and I mutually concede, compromise, or argue as necessary.

What would make having either parent the head of the family good or bad?

In the traditional family where the man is the head of the household, he makes the rules, and the woman abides by them. There is only one thing she can do in protest, but religious conservatives have also lobbied to prohibit their wives from denying them sex. They criticize feminists for saying that if is even possible to rape your wife.

Also, descent in modern times can be and is (at least from my experience) traced through both maternal and paternal lines. In regards to women being underrepresented, I agree, but I don't think that is because some person or organization or society is keeping them from becoming leaders, but rather because women have only recently obtained enough social power to have political influence (within the last hundred or so years) (and yes I realize there are some exceptions to the rule). It takes time to change society, and to change the mindsets of people. But as the older generations wither away and the modern generations become prominent, that number should improve.

Aron, I am on the east coast and want to finish the response tomorrow, as I have some things to attend to. I will be back here tomorrow. talk to you soon.

While descent may be genetically equal, it has traditionally always been that the wife takes the man's surname, because she is his property. That's patriarchy in regular practice. We do have a few social attitudes to adjust on a number of increasingly subtle issues, but that's why we should understand the purpose feminism still has.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think part of the confusion over what the term "feminism" means is how it's perceived by both women and men.

1) Equal rights (original, suffragette version, 19[sup]th[/sup] to early 20[sup]th[/sup] centuries) - where women gain the same rights as men: voting, etc;
2) Pro-women (liberal, '60s/'70s) - where women gain rights specific to them: reproductive rights, etc;
3) Anti-men (radical, '80s/'90s) - where men are seen as "the enemy" who need to be curtailed (in order for women to gain equality) - this strain of feminism includes the rejection of science as "men's ways of knowing" in favour of "women's ways of knowing", aka the tautological "lived experiences (of women)", aka personal experience;
4) Collection of various strains (diverse, late '90s onward) - dealing with all sorts of issues: environmental, etc.

Part of the problem is that the radical movement has poisoned the chalice with its ideological dogma/rhetoric, etc, which is why there are those who find the term no longer acceptable.

As I've said before, I prefer humanist as genuinely about equal rights as human beings.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Dragon Glas, I disagree with your general characterization (as at least partially discussed here).

More later.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

An outsiders perspective:

Okay, by my new point of "brights" would still stand, presumably. While I do recognize atheism specifically has advocated for atheist rights as well as religion rights, I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than atheism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap atheists. Specifically, I feel that modern college aged atheists have poisoned the movement and have gained the support that will only further deter people like me from identifying as something which, on its shiniest surface, seems inherently toxic to any advocacy of secular rights. Again, I must say I acknowledge that atheism in the past has advocated for rights of religion as well as for secular goals, but in recent years the youngest and most abundant generation of atheists have poisoned the word.

The word has been poisoned by its detractors (for both atheism and feminism). One has to ask oneself, why does one need to poison the well of something they are against? Because they cannot argue against it; thus create strawmen of it to burn.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I think the topic has somewhat derailed from the original intent of: "How is being a feminist a bad thing"?

Myself, Inferno, Aron Ra, (I assume by their contributions) SpecialFrog and HWIN are comfortable saying that we are feminists.

So, more precisely, I asked "How is the above definition a bad thing?" when the definition of feminism, as pointed by Inferno in his Why I am a Feminist blogpost from Emma Watson's HeforShe speech:

Feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

So why are we comfortable saying that we are feminists while others say they support equal rights and opportunities for men and women yet reject the term feminist, sometimes with passion?

So far, the best and it appears the only argument, against the label of feminist is that "it has been poisoned" by, "well, crap feminists". And thus the arguments move to, "well, why not use "equalist" or "egalitarianist"?

I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than feminism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap feminists.

As I've said before, I prefer humanist as genuinely about equal rights as human beings.

There are numerous issues I have with this line of thinking:

1. Why should we pacifically accept a redefinition of the term "feminist" by its, as HWIN pointed out before I could, detractors? Are there any other terms we would accept be defined by those oppose to it?

2. Why should we paint the movement with the broad brush of a few ot its more extremist adherents? Again, is there any other movement where such a broad brush would be found acceptable?

So the two issues above lead to this one:

3. If we do let feminist be redfine by its detractors or be painted by the actions of its most extremists members and thus move to the terms "equalist", "egalitarianist" or "humanist", what happens when this new branding is equally poisoned by, "well, crap equalists"?

What happens when "the radical movement has poisoned the chalice with its ideological dogma/rhetoric, etc, which is why there are those who find the term (humanist) no longer acceptable"?

Do we move on to the next branding? And then the next?

So I don't see why we should pacifically accept that term feminist is no longer acceptable and let the detractors turn it into a bad word. The argument of "there are bad feminists so we should discard the term" is no more convincing to me as it would be if we replaced feminist with atheist.

The above has not addressed Master_Ghost_Knight's last comment to me, I don't to be perceived as someone who avoided responding:

So what if I can't name a right that I think women should have but don't today?

But that is the all bloody point!
You had no problem providing concrete examples of past feminist causes.

That is indeed the bloody point: "So what if I can't name a right that I think women should have but don't today". I don't see why my support of equal rights between men and women should stop when they have it, which by the way they don't. That was the point of the comparison to race. I still support equal rights for all races too.

Just because on paper, by which I mean legally, men and women are equal or black or whites are equal, does not mean I should stop supporting gender or race equality.

And from what I understand, you support them too, you are only objecting to the term feminist and the only reason I could glimpse so far is because you think that since because legally they have the same equal rights, the issue is resolved:

Even when there are still real practical issues to deal with about the equality between men and women?

Name one

Looking at only one of literally thousands of possible pieces of evidence, we find that out of 535 members of Congress (US), only 20 are women. The reasons put forward are manifold, but it seems that “family planning” plays no role here. Instead, it is thought that women doubt themselves more than men and are less likely to consider running for office. The evidence does not suggest that women are actually worse.

This undermining of women’s self-perception lies, I believe, at the heart of the issue. Sadly I can’t find the article so you’ll either have to believe me or not, but in a (New York Times?) article a few years back, an author asked women about their career choices. The overwhelming majority cited their self-perception (“I’m not good enough,” etc) as the main problem. This was (unconsciously) made worse by their mentors, who would encourage their male counterparts because they actively sought attention, while the females at the respective jobs didn’t actively search for encouragement (“If I’m good enough, I’ll be told”) and consequently didn’t feel like they were good enough.

Only the political aspect is controlled by legislation. They've passed laws guaranteeing equal pay, but statistically that still isn't happening; there's still a verified pay gap.

But the social issue is, (I think) more important, and legislation can't address that at all. For example, why is it that when a woman pursues her lust the same way as a man, he is admired as a player and she is denigrated as a slut -even by other women? This is a social attitude, easily ingrained in ignorance and difficult to change, because it requires awareness, comprehension, and re-evalation, things Americans typically suck at.

So that's two.

I'm 100% for equal rights, full support. But if you are advocating for something, and you want me to rally behind it, then you better have a concrete goal!

What exactly do you think is asked of you by saying you are a feminist? Being a feminist does not necessarily mean going on protest or advocating for reproductive rights in front of the media/politicians. At its least, it would simply of being supportive of equal rights for men and women and being mindful of your actions that may undermine them.

You say that you are supportive but by rejecting the term feminist for who knows what actual reason, don't you think that you might be in fact undermining the movement for equal rights?