Support NeoGAF

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

When I was growing up in the 90s and the 00s, feminism was usually referred to in a past tense, the story basically went "once upon a time women were expected to stay at home, cook dinner and make babies, then the 60s happened and women burned their bras and now they're free to have any sort of life of their choosing, the end."

And so it was, or so it seemed, there were plenty of exceptional women out there, lawyers, doctors, scientists, astronauts, politicians, if a woman felt passionate about some field, she was free to pursue it and if she had the right stuff she could succeed and it was all well and good, but most women didn't care, they were content to focus on traditionally feminine things, raising families, finding romance, succeeding in female oriented fields like the fashion industry, whatever. The point is women were still seen as strong and individuals, not "stepford wives" and that was the bottom line.

What I think really sums up female culture when I was growing up is Sex and The City, which was about a group of smart, independent women, but ones who are focused on nice clothes, nice shoes, finding romance and having a Cosmo with their gal pals, why would it be anything else? That's what most women like, right?

Then a funny thing happened, a funny thing called the 2010s and everything changed, with the way things have been going you'd think we were living in The Handmaid's Tale, as if the decades since the 60s never happened, women are ceassly oppressed by the "patriarchy" (a concept I had literally never of in my entire life before this decade) and must fight tooth and nail for every small victory they achieve in male oriented fields like business, science, technology, politics and so on.

What happened? And how much of that is true? Were we being fed a big fat lie all that time or are we being lied to now?

I can only speak from my experience, I'm not a woman, I won't claim to know everything, but what I do know is from the start of this great revival of feminism in this decade, "third wave feminism" or whatever you want to call it, my Spider's Senses were tingling, something felt off, how did we go from Paris Hilton seemingly personifying female culture in the prior decade to what we have now?

My theory is this, we live in a toxically narcissistic culture, just narcissistic to the bone, undoubtedly the most narcissistic culture ever seen in human history, in today's world if you don't have fame, no matter how small, you may as well not even exist, if you have no personal "brand" then you aren't really alive.

This is a narcissism that affects both men and women, it's one reason why for example I think we see so many males carrying out mass shootings, they want to get their 15 minutes of fame, they want people to know their name and face and they're literally willing to kill for it, that's how narcissistic our culture has become and I think modern feminism is how that's affecting female culture.

It's a desperate grab for attention is what it boils down to, I know that's harsh and I don't mean that as a slam against all women, again this is a problem that affects all of modern culture, but come on, in the modern western world we do not brutally repress women and haven't for decades, if not centuries (if by "brutally" oppress you mean like what you see in the middle east today), it's not a perfect world but the version we are sold on by modern feminists just doesn't seem to be the reality.

I'll give you an example, remember the infamous Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson? The way she talked about having to fight for her position, the challenges she faced for what obviously she would have faced a lot of competition for regardless if she was male or female? Well it honestly seemed like she expected to just be handed the job simply because she's a woman, if that's not narcissism, what is?

 

[Whitecrow]

We should ask true feminists, and not those who stole the movement to create excuses for their personal frustrations.

I think that there's one main problem when talking about feminism: it needs to be specified exactly what collective are the people refering to. Because not everyone speaks about the same kind of feminists.

Another problem lies in the fact that a lot of people stop their reasoning at the very surface of the things, and reaching deep levels of understandingis out of their.... INTEREST.

But I think that the majority of modern feminism aims for attention-whoring, in a very victimist way, talking about a deformed version of the reality so the government helps women to not feel bad for nothing again in their lives.

Of course, there are still true feminists, but those women are doing NOTHING to stop the movement steal.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

3rd wave feminism is when feminism jumped the shark, but may have provided some net good to society in the early years of it, and 4th wave is all about being an attention whore.

 

[Grinchy]

Social media has definitely given some people's narcissism a megaphone. Then you have the people-pleasers who want to appear to be good, moral humans, so they latch on to the megaphone-bearing narcissists to shout, "I agree, so I'm good too!" It's a cycle that makes it look like there are legitimate movements taking place when it's really just a bunch of loud children who want attention.

This doesn't just apply to feminism, of course.

 

[KevinKeene]

When I was growing up in the 90s and the 00s, feminism was usually referred to in a past tense, the story basically went "once upon a time women were expected to stay at home, cook dinner and make babies, then the 60s happened and women burned their bras and now they're free to have any sort of life of their choosing, the end."

And so it was, or so it seemed, there were plenty of exceptional women out there, lawyers, doctors, scientists, astronauts, politicians, if a woman felt passionate about some field, she was free to pursue it and if she had the right stuff she could succeed and it was all well and good, but most women didn't care, they were content to focus on traditionally feminine things, raising families, finding romance, succeeding in female oriented fields like the fashion industry, whatever. The point is women were still seen as strong and individuals, not "stepford wives" and that was the bottom line.

What I think really sums up female culture when I was growing up is Sex and The City, which was about a group of smart, independent women, but ones who are focused on nice clothes, nice shoes, finding romance and having a Cosmo with their gal pals, why would it be anything else? That's what most women like, right?

Then a funny thing happened, a funny thing called the 2010s and everything changed, with the way things have been going you'd think we were living in The Handmaid's Tale, as if the decades since the 60s never happened, women are ceassly oppressed by the "patriarchy" (a concept I had literally never of in my entire life before this decade) and must fight tooth and nail for every small victory they achieve in male oriented fields like business, science, technology, politics and so on.

What happened? And how much of that is true? Were we being fed a big fat lie all that time or are we being lied to now?

I can only speak from my experience, I'm not a woman, I won't claim to know everything, but what I do know is from the start of this great revival of feminism in this decade, "third wave feminism" or whatever you want to call it, my Spider's Senses were tingling, something felt off, how did we go from Paris Hilton seemingly personifying female culture in the prior decade to what we have now?

My theory is this, we live in a toxically narcissistic culture, just narcissistic to the bone, undoubtedly the most narcissistic culture ever seen in human history, in today's world if you don't have fame, no matter how small, you may as well not even exist, if you have no personal "brand" then you aren't really alive.

This is a narcissism that affects both men and women, it's one reason why for example I think we see so many males carrying out mass shootings, they want to get their 15 minutes of fame, they want people to know their name and face and they're literally willing to kill for it, that's how narcissistic our culture has become and I think modern feminism is how that's affecting female culture.

It's a desperate grab for attention is what it boils down to, I know that's harsh and I don't mean that as a slam against all women, again this is a problem that affects all of modern culture, but come on, in the modern western world we do not brutally repress women and haven't for decades, if not centuries (if by "brutally" oppress you mean like what you see in the middle east today), it's not a perfect world but the version we are sold on by modern feminists just doesn't seem to be the reality.

I'll give you an example, remember the infamous Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson? The way she talked about having to fight for her position, the challenges she faced for what obviously she would have faced a lot of competition for regardless if she was male or female? Well it honestly seemed like she expected to just be handed the job simply because she's a woman, if that's not narcissism, what is?

Feminism [greek femmos:feminality/ Ismios:teaching] is the idea of women (femality assigned at birth) are of equal value and opportunity as men (masculinity assigned at birth). Feminism during the 90s was the blooming of a development that started with the widespread industrialization and women beginning their work in production facilities, earning money rather than staying at home all day. This all took place between the upper end of the 19th century and followed through the 1930s, eventually granting women the right to vote. Jameson Goothran wrote about this in his 'The Greatness beyond', a written thesis about the rise of female power and why it is as much logical as well as beneficial. "When all is taken into consideration, the simple fact remains: It is man's ill-directed pride that keeps half of mankind from progressing, making use of all of its manpower. An admittedly ironic look of a word.".

Fast forward to the 90s. Feminism went through with it. Women won. Smaller details would take some more time, but the ideas of equality had materialized. This, of course, was only true on a political, not societal level. But things were proceeding fine, until 2003.

What would later be called the "Inflation of Equality" ("On the 2nd Wave", by Melissa Audrey, PhD sociology) is the almost sudden reversal of gender-based discrimination: Called 'militant feminism' by many, often mis-associated to lesbianism, feminism was now a movement to grant women rights that forsook the previously desired concept of equality. Childhood custody law was the first to be afflicted, others followed, not withstanding the pressure of otherwise being called a harasser, misogynist or otherwise. Which leads directly to the 3rd wave feminisn we're experiencing at the moment.

Induced by the ambiguous events of the "Day Zero-events" ("A History of Outrage", by Mark Schreier, former Kotaku affiliate), intersectional feminism was born. It was an all-encompassing strife for equality - on surface level. For all practical means, however, it was the catalyst to grant everybody to feel like a victim of discrimination. Noteworthy developments of this current idea of feminism are the insistence on forcing change to petty, small and hardly important circumstances, while at the same time using one's own victim status as a tool to maximum punishment of anyone who dares opposing. In 2016 over 760.000 well-paying jobs (not counting helper jobs like waiter, service, cash service, etc.) were ended due to punishment against comments made on social media (Facebook, Twitter), based on a global study of the university of Leipzig, Germany. The vast majority here belong to US-americans. Surprsingly, only about 15% of these happened due to objectively despicable comments (i.e. comments that contain severe insults or threats). The majority of those punishments, however, came from publically shared opinions that mostly went against companies' public ideals. Examples would contain supporting for Trump, being against abortion or protesting censorship.

The present result of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism are the forced women quota in higher up positions (no longer employing the best, but the best within certain quota), the lack of male role models at schools and kindergartens (fear of the sex monster), and the continued efforts to make 'straight white men' shut up, diminishing their value based on their sex and race. This is where we stand right now and it caused a huge, firm divide.

"How legit is modern feminism"? I think it has strived off far the very rightous path it started out on. Just like the so-called patriarchism was ultimately wrong (although an evolutionary necessity (see "Mr and Mrs Darwin", by Shelby McKinston, PhD anthropology), we don't want it to become matriarchism. In these regard, I think modern feminism is dangerous, as it successfully shuts down critical voices and undermines important traditional societal values (like family, realizing what's really important, spending efforts on real work instead of internet discussions, etc.). It also nurtures counter-movements, giving rise to rightwing parties all over the world (USA, England, Hungary, Austria, Turkey, partially Germany, Italy, etc.).

Do I think feminism is important? Yes, I do, as feminism was imagined in the 90s. Do I think feminism in its current form as supported by gaming outlets like Kotaku, Polygon, The Verge and instigators like Jason Schreier and Patrick Klepek, as perpetuated by activists and journalists on Twitter, is legit? No, absolutely not. It causes misery, aggression and divide.

 

[strange headache]

Eh, I think there is room for reasoned feminism in the likes of Camille Paglia or Cathy Young. Unfortunately their voices are often drowned by the histrionic shrieking of the social media harpies like Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny who are more interested in their own career rather than furthering the cause of women around the world.

Unfortunately, the nuanced and oftentimes self-critical approach of the former will never be as popular as the feminist brand of the latter who are peddling their intellectually bankrupt snake-oil through a narrow minded message of female deresponsibilization by putting the ills of this world squarely on the shoulders of men. They are selling the message that people want to hear, not what they need to hear. It's always nice if you can point fingers at others without critically reflecting on yourself.

Demanding of others what you're not willing to do yourself is exactly the sort of moral double-standard that is giving modern feminism its bad reputation. If you want to swoon over some sexually attractive media personality, that's fine, but don't come shouting when others do it too and dare calling it 'objectifying'. That sort of feminism isn't about equal rights anymore, it's about demanding special privileges for your own social group while demonizing others. When they do it, it's 'empowering' but when others do it, it's 'demeaning'. Let's not kid ourselves, whole sectors of the entertainment industry are comprised of people who are only there because men and women alike like to look at them.

But worst of all is that each and every single one of these feminist articles are prone to some kind of inductive fallacy. Feminist writers like Valenty usually start with a personal anecdote that fits the agenda, be it real or not, in order to construe some grand generalizations about the opposite gender. It's stupidly transparent, but it sells because it's easily relatable to those who want to read that stuff. It's that kind of inflammatory self-centered narcissistic approach that is far removed from the intellectual rigor of somebody like Young or Paglia. But hey, nuanced opinions don't drive outrage clicks, hence why traffic dependent news websites have come to like that sort of content. Most of the times, these radically subjective opinions aren't even logically consistent with themselves, but they don't care as long as their male counterparts are being trapped in a perpetual catch-22 situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On the other side you have reasoned feminist thinkers who are constantly being derided and smeared by these modern feminist outrage bloggers. Despite receiving a strong headwind, not once have I seen women like Young or Paglia put themselves into the victim role. They don't strive on controversy or clamor for emotional pity, but let their arguments speak for themselves instead. Those are women I have immense respect for and whose arguments I like to engage with, contrary to the likes of Cathy Newman and Erin Biba.

Don't believe me? Well just compare this...



...to this.

 

[Bolivar687]

^ I love Camille but she'll never get recognition because she's too dangerous - a lifelong lesbian and non-gender conforming person who has rigorously criticized and dismantled the underlying assumptions of the LGBT narrative.

 

[Autoignition]

What I think really sums up female culture when I was growing up is Sex and The City, which was about a group of smart, independent women, but ones who are focused on nice clothes, nice shoes, finding romance and having a Cosmo with their gal pals, why would it be anything else? That's what most women like, right?

Just like male culture is cars, drinking multiple beers a day, and football, amirite?

Christ almighty. I think you're the one who needs to pull your head out of the 60s.

 

[natejasper]

How can I post a topic ?? I dont know how?

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

When I was growing up in the 90s and the 00s, feminism was usually referred to in a past tense, the story basically went "once upon a time women were expected to stay at home, cook dinner and make babies, then the 60s happened and women burned their bras and now they're free to have any sort of life of their choosing, the end."

I have to pop in just to say that this quote is the worst part of what often passes under the feminist banner. It's worse than pseudo-history, and it borders on being a core foundational myth of our era, telling the story of our unique triumph over all prior eras and societal arrangements of labor. Because -- before enlightened, Western, capital-hungry nations suddenly realized this deeper truth -- everyone clearly had it wrong, and just couldn't see how obvious it is now that spending your life at a menial job for an employer outside the home, making an average wage and being generally disposable, is the high point to which women must aspire over that small, secondary world of home & family. There are few views more ridiculous than this one.

More to the point, the problem is that we're still measuring history by the terms of 1950s versus 1960s, which is the narrowest possible view. This means that a cartoon memory of the 50's still plays our imagined stand-in for the past, even though the domestic world we believe to have dominated then was more of an anomaly than a continuity. The entire framing of the problem as "women are kept at home in boredom" belongs to a time in which the home had already been reduced to a shadow of what it represented in prior eras; on the contrary, the domestic sphere was the primary place of activity and ongoing labor in most times, even for men, as a place of perpetual maintenance and building of a living in which all the family members were daily involved. It wasn't just a quiet place to have a family meal and then watch television; it was a communal center of life, usually for much more than the isolated nuclear family. The post-war push for efficiency and market progress led to the hyper-nuclearization of family units, the drift to suburbs, and notion of work being a long commute away, the refashioning of selfish pursuits as virtues by the pull of the market; but you'd have to be remarkably naive to believe that the 60's represented a true rebellion against any of that. Most of what we see as a brave rebellion for progress was more of a mere congealing of this new individualist and consumer framing of life, spearheaded by the young who were useful dupes.

In short, read a historian like Christopher Lasch, who has a sharp eye for dismantling this myth of the home as a prison and the 60s as any kind of genuine turning point.

 

[appaws]

Feminism was a victim of its own success in accomplishing goal number one, bringing western women into the public sphere on a relatively equal footing with men.

Once that equal opportunity was provided, the biological and personality differences between typical men and women were revealed to be very deeply ingrained and not "socially constructed." This is one of those "hate facts" that everybody actually knows but will never speak of openly, or you end up like Lawrence Summers, who was sympathetic to feminist goals. "Third-wave" feminists are not all that interested in equality, they prefer doing battle against the implacable reality of biology.

 

[Keylime]

I think men and women are fundamentally different, and yet deserve equality in all opportunities of life.

The only area I think I run into problems is when it comes to sports or other general physical activities. Like a man->woman trans person competing in the UFC as a woman. I don't know what to do about it, but I think we all know that that doesn't really seem to be fair based on the fundamental differences I mentioned above.

 

[NahaNago]

Isn't the main thing with modern feminism pushing for females into positions and old school feminism is like females should be able to have these positions.

 

[MoFuzz]

Isn't the main thing with modern feminism pushing for females into positions and old school feminism is like females should be able to have these positions.

It may be oversimplifying things a bit, but that's certainly one way of stating things that isn't wrong.

If we were to frame it a bit more generally, I would say that society should aim towards something like equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome. Google, just as one real life example, shouldn't be seen as fostering a "toxic work environment" by the public just because they have more men in certain positions. Placement should be based on merit, ability and experience, not the colour of your skin or your identity group.

 

[buizel]

My sister was quite a big feminist up until a few years ago when the third wave feminism came about. She sees third wave feminism as nothing more than sexist, double-standard tripe where women are easily able to play the victim to boost their social status.

She is quite an artist, and she recently had a rant about the VisibleWomen hashtag on Twitter, saying she should be noticed for her work and not her gender, and she refuses to play a part in it because it stands against what feminism was originally about.

Third-wave feminism is about cherry picking the benefits or crutches of being a women, and using them for personal gain under a facade the 'social justice'.

 

[JordanN]

I reject the idea of gender being a social construct. I use to believe we're all the same, but now I realize that's ridiculous.
As long as evolution has existed, so have differences in our DNA. However, if someone wants to identify or believe they're a different gender, then that's completely up to them.

For the patriarchy, yeah men rule or have more power in certain fields. I don't regard this as necessarily being evil though.
A man who works hard and becomes CEO of a big tech company should be fine. If a woman goes the same route, that's ok too. Or, she's free to start her own business and thus avoid all the obstacles from a "man dominated company".
I rather not force companies to abandon going the meritocratic route in favor of hiring on "feelings".

 

[SatansReverence]

How can I post a topic ?? I dont know how?

You're a new member so you can't.

If you ask another member nicely they may do it on your behalf however.

 

[Autoignition]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...

As long as evolution has existed, so have differences in our DNA.

That's not how DNA works. We all have the same DNA.

 

[Dunki]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...



That's not how DNA works. We all have the same DNA.

No we do not have the same DNA....

• Researchers analyzed the genetic differences between men and women
• They analyzed the expression of 20,000 genes in the body tissues of donors
• They found that 6,500 of them are expressed differently in men and women
• For example, gene expression for muscle building was higher in men, and that for fat storage higher in women
• A gene that was active in women's brains may protect the neuron's from Parkinson's disease - which has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in men
• The study emphasizes the need for a better understanding of the differences between men and women in genes that cause disease or respond to treatments

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...etic-differences-men-women.html#ixzz5H7O5uOy7

Sorry did not find another english source but rather German ones.

Also we do know that testosterone levels also play a big part as well. A higher level will likely give you problems with speech paterns social beahviour etc. To say we are all the same makes it really simple and wrong

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The label has certainly been co-opted by a lot of people of questionable integrity. But that is how it is with labels. You put a label on yourself, and you're asking yourself to be judged by the worst aspects of that label. Just be yourself. People who want to talk about labels when talking about themselves, can come off as people who want to use their label or movement as a shield. Like they cannot stand behind their own convictions or dare to speak out when they see shit they don't like coming from their own base.

Just stand up for yourself. Calling yourself a crossfitter or a vegan or a democrat. You're none of those things, and those things really don't say anything interesting about you. It's such a trite way to approach the world like putting yourself into boxes forehand. It's rarely that it's a all-or-nothing with anything you do. Hopefully you're more than someone who is just agreeable to everything the movement or label is associated with. So if you don't want to have those bad chips on your shoulder, why call yourself that in the first place?

 

[Autoignition]

No we do not have the same DNA....

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...etic-differences-men-women.html#ixzz5H7O5uOy7

Sorry did not find another english source but rather German ones.

Also we do know that testosterone levels also play a big part as well. A higher level will likely give you problems with speech paterns social beahviour etc. To say we are all the same makes it really simple and wrong

I do hope you find another English source, because I won't give clicks to the Daily Mail; they're one of those sources I don't trust.

 

[Dunki]

I do hope you find another English source, because I won't give clicks to the Daily Mail; they're one of those sources I don't trust.

Why not go for the study itself?

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0352-z

 

[cryptoadam]

Well first off Women do have it tougher than Men, regardless of how far we have come. A good portion of Men still feel that they should have "power" over women and thats why we see so many powerful men getting caught up in this Metoo stuff. So ya its never going to be easy for women and the pay gap is still something that exsists.

OTOH Women's rights at least in the West has come a long way from the 50's and 60's and Women have made much headway. But feminism is probably IMO being held back by leftist politics, that is essentially the victim olympics and a race to the bottom. Since most of the left sees itself as an oppressed group that has to fight oppression, leftist politics quickly devolves into who is the most oppressed. Then you add in intersectionality which is all about oppressed groups coming togethor to whine about their oppression even if they have nothing in common.

So we see these oppression olympics playing out. Black Women want to call out white women for being privilaged within the womens march. Then trans women are at odds with the other Women because they are more oppressed. And to a leftist if their is oppression there has to be oppressers. So to my point above if black women are oppressed, then white women must be the oppressers since they are white and white equals privilage.

So since now each sub group wants to be the most oppressed because if you aren't oppressed you are an oppressor, and thus locked out of the leftist little groups, so now everyone wants to make sure they are the most victimized and most oppressed. Its not about fighting for a cause and lifting yourself up. Because if you do that then all of a sudden the tables are turned and now you have "privillage" and if you have "privillage" that automatically means you oppress others. So everyone has to keep up the victim game and be more oppressed then other people. So women going from being forced to stay at home and make babies, to being CEO's, doctors, billonairs etc... isnt' actually good because now they aren't victims anymore.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[zumphry]

Then you add in intersectionality which is all about oppressed groups coming togethor to whine about their oppression even if they have nothing in common.

this...is not what intersectionality is, like, at all lol

 

[Dunki]

this...is not what intersectionality is, like, at all lol

It is more like the leader of the opreession olympics telling people no matter how much you are oppressed I am much more oppressed because of reasons I often just imagine. Also it is the reason the left has become such a useless opposition due to constant infighting on who is suffering more and if you do not agree with it you are automatically the alt right.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but....

What the fuck is this shit?

Are you honestly trying to draw a line of inequality in a discussion about a the merits of a movement for equality?

Once you introduce yourself like this if you told me water was wet I’d seek out a second opinion.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...



That's not how DNA works. We all have the same DNA.

Making broad assumptions about one's gender/sex and claiming that those of the opposite have no right to have an opinion on feminism. Quality.

Also you are the one who does not know how DNA works. We do NOT have the same DNA - there are a myriad of differences between the male and female sex that has been studied ad nauseum for the past (nearly) 2-3 decades. Those links were pulled after a 4 minute Google Scholar search, with hundreds more beyond it.

 

[Autoignition]

What the fuck is this shit?

Are you honestly trying to draw a line of inequality in a discussion about a the merits of a movement for equality?

Once you introduce yourself like this if you told me water was wet I’d seek out a second opinion.

Are you honestly trying to say that men have the same world perspective and life experience as women?

Sociology exists. Men and women don't have the same life experiences. Neither do different races/ethnicities.

This discussion is as productive, to me, as a bunch of white people talking about what's best for the black community.

Making broad assumptions about one's gender/sex and claiming that those of the opposite have no right to have an opinion on feminism. Quality.

Also you are the one who does not know how DNA works. We do NOT have the same DNA - there are a myriad of differences between the male and female sex that has been studied ad nauseum for the past (nearly) 2-3 decades. Those links were pulled after a 4 minute Google Scholar search, with hundreds more beyond it.

Thank you for the myriad of sources.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I think feminism and all the work people put in during and after the equal rights movement needs to be propped up in our society more. It should be transmogrified as a very egalitarian mindset that should ripple through and be a backbone of society at large.

Unfortunately I don’t think current feminism that is broadly expressed in media is that and it looks to be more about anti-capitalism and post modernist thinking.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Are you honestly trying to say that men have the same world perspective and life experience as women?

Sociology exists. Men and women don't have the same life experiences. Neither do different races/ethnicities.

This discussion is as productive, to me, as a bunch of white people talking about what's best for the black community.

You certainly prove that wherever we go, there we are.

 

[Dunki]

Are you honestly trying to say that men have the same world perspective and life experience as women?

Sociology exists. Men and women don't have the same life experiences. Neither do different races/ethnicities.

This discussion is as productive, to me, as a bunch of white people talking about what's best for the black community.



Thank you for the myriad of sources.

When less than 7% in the UK see themselves as feminists in the US it like 15% then they also do not represent women. Feminism can only speak for their own ideology they have created and not for a gender, race or whatever. So in this regard there are only feminists (male or female) and non feminists (male or female)

 

[zumphry]

It is more like the leader of the opreession olympics telling people no matter how much you are oppressed I am much more oppressed because of reasons I often just imagine. Also it is the reason the left has become such a useless opposition due to constant infighting on who is suffering more and if you do not agree with it you are automatically the alt right.

Uhh...no, broski. Although your definition says a whole lot about you. Intersectionality is about exploring the way that systems of oppression affect people from across social strata, like sexuality, gender, race, class, age, disability, and so on. Like how white men experience sexism in different ways than black men do.

 

[Dunki]

Uhh...no, broski. Although your definition says a whole lot about you. Intersectionality is about exploring the way that systems of oppression affect people from across social strata, like sexuality, gender, race, class, age, disability, and so on. Like how white men experience sexism in different ways than black men do.

Thats not what this is on the internet. But believe what you want to. I see it as a huge problem for the left since its segragated the whole political group into very little groups and makes them enemies instead of allies. But thats just me.

 

[Gander]

I think there is legit feminism, unfortunately what has also joined this movement in disguise is the lesbian agenda. Woman that want equal rights and and equal pay don't hate men or scoff at the natural order of things. The people losing their shit at the sight of mother breastfeeding her child, are probably people that don't want to be reminded that they don't fit the typical sexual norm. Men admit that rape is wrong but then we get into gray areas where women are being sexually aggressive when they shouldn't be and everybody thinks it's funny or ignores it.

 

[zumphry]

Thats not what this is on the internet. But beleive what you want to. I see it as a huge problem for the left since its segragated the whole political group and makes them enemies instead of allies. But thats just me.

I have no idea what you're talking about. That's the basic definition of intersectionality, which the poster I quoted had mis-defined.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Are you honestly trying to say that men have the same world perspective and life experience as women?

Sociology exists. Men and women don't have the same life experiences. Neither do different races/ethnicities.

This discussion is as productive, to me, as a bunch of white people talking about what's best for the black community.



Thank you for the myriad of sources.

No problem.

I would argue against your mindset of feminism. Feminism (at least with my own experience), is the push for equality for both sexes, men and women. I have seen many push for the equality of child custody for male parents, and making sure that male rape victims can get the help they need (just like women). Suggesting that men do not have a say in a talk about feminism is strange to me.

The issue comes when we have many different groups within feminism that push for a very specific mindset, some pushing for a more... misandrist approach. This can lead to confusion, confrontation, and antagonistic attitudes for the movement as a whole.

 

[Autoignition]

No problem.

I would argue against your mindset of feminism. Feminism (at least with my own experience), is the push for equality for both sexes, men and women. I have seen many push for the equality of child custody for male parents, and making sure that male rape victims can get the help they need (just like women). Suggesting that men do not have a say in a talk about feminism is strange to me.

The issue comes when we have many different groups within feminism that push for a very specific mindset, some pushing for a more... misandrist approach. This can lead to confusion, confrontation, and antagonistic attitudes for the movement as a whole.

I belong to the group of feminists that you're referring to in the second paragraph, however I don't feel as though this is the approach to the discussion that's being taken in this thread. The vast majority of the replies in here boil down to, "women have enough, this is all just for attention" when it's verifiably untrue that women and men are equal in all walks of life. Sometimes, this means advocating for men's equality, too, but the fact is that we're still not equal.

I also disagree with the railing against third wave feminism, because people are conflating "third wave" with radfems, but I don't have the time right now to go into the difference between those two groups/ideologies.

 

[Dunki]

I have no idea what you're talking about. That's the basic definition of intersectionality, which the poster I quoted had mis-defined.

Mabye this will help

 

[Dr. Claus]

I belong to the group of feminists that you're referring to in the second paragraph, however I don't feel as though this is the approach to the discussion that's being taken in this thread. The vast majority of the replies in here boil down to, "women have enough, this is all just for attention" when it's verifiably untrue that women and men are equal in all walks of life. Sometimes, this means advocating for men's equality, too, but the fact is that we're still not equal.

I also disagree with the railing against third wave feminism, because people are conflating "third wave" with radfems, but I don't have the time right now to go into the difference between those two groups/ideologies.

I am not sure of the various "waves" of feminism. Nu-Wave, third wave, fourth wave, etc - I just know that there are some "feminists" that do not push for equality, but demonize the other gender/sex and push for superiority (the radicals as you had referred to). These extra labels just seem overly confusing.

This is where I think a lot of the issue lies. People in this thread are seeing mostly those loud, angry types instead of the more common types as we both had mentioned. This leads to their view of feminism as a whole to be highly skewed and the movement to be coloured in a poor light.

 

[Punchpudding]

I gave the OP a like because it doesn’t hate on feminism but brings up the narcissism aspect which I think has some merit.

The book “the narcissism epidemic” showed that up to 10% of twentysomethings showed aspects of narcissism personality disorder(https://www.today.com/popculture/me-me-me-americas-narcissism-epidemic-2D80555351#.UFeoVBiHdIt). That was ten years ago, how much worse is it today?

Everyone wants to be exceptionally unique and amazing (or righteous or infamous…) and social media has been feeding that desire to pathological extremes. How many school shooters posted “evil signaling” photos of themselves with guns and combat gear? How many users make “virtue signaling” posts to make themselves look righteous (without actually doing anything righteous)?

I think there could be a real cultural problem and narcissism might play a part in it. I’m not sure you’d want to classify the resulting ravings as “modern feminism” though!

 

[strange headache]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...

I'll remind you of that the next time you or one of your feminist friends are railing against masculinity. If you have any arguments to make, feel free to do so instead of passive-aggressively making broad generalizations that contribute nothing to this discussion. That's not any better than the stereotypical views about women expressed by male chauvinists. Your identity as a person doesn't define the validity of your arguments and neither does your anecdotal experience.

Intersectionality is about exploring the way that systems of oppression affect people from across social strata, like sexuality, gender, race, class, age, disability, and so on.

Congratulations, you've just used different words to describe the exact same thing as stated above.

 

[JordanN]

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...

I'm Libertarian. I believe I have the best perspective when it comes to promoting freedom of the sexes.
I will never use religion, government, feelings, money etc as tools to oppress either gender. I can't imagine any better argument that doesn't also infringe on my own personal freedoms of where women and men should stand in society.

You say there are no differences in our DNA, so how do you explain that women on average have smaller brains than men?
I'm not saying this to be sexist or put down women. I'm just talking about the raw science that has shaped the difference in all animals over the period of millions of years.

Or here's a picture I saved since I'm an artist. If it's not DNA, tell me what caused these differences?

 

[zumphry]

Mabye this will help

She literally does not even know the definition of what intersectionality is, lol.

 

[ramuh]

I think feminism is a loaded word. The continued push for equality in professional settings should always be maintained, but like others have said the movement has been hijacked for personal reasons.

 

[zumphry]

Congratulations, you've just used different words to describe the exact same thing as stated above.

How do you figure this

Then you add in intersectionality which is all about oppressed groups coming togethor to whine about their oppression even if they have nothing in common.

is the same as

exploring the way that systems of oppression affect people from across social strata, like sexuality, gender, race, class, age, disability, and so on.

It's not about people who 'have nothing in common', because it's in fact about people who DO have things in common, but experience them differently because of a unique viewpoint. Another example, gay men and gay women. Both gay, but their experiences are not 1:1 because men and women walk through the world differently. But as gay people, they have many common struggles and experiences. I hesitate to label that "whining about oppresssion even if they have nothing in common".

Thanks for your feedback, you didn't help at all!

 

[KevinKeene]

Are you guys really going through with this "men and women have different dna" crap? :/

The male and female part of a species have slight differences due to the different tasks that come with each of the two genders. But they're still the same species!

You make it sound as if there's a vast difference in dna to the point of where men and women are no longer comparable as one species. Come the fuck on.

:/

 

[Dr. Claus]

Are you guys really going through with this "men and women have different dna" crap? :/

The male and female part of a species have slight differences due to the different tasks that come with each of the two genders. But they're still the same species!

You make it sound as if there's a vast difference in dna to the point of where men and women are no longer comparable as one species. Come the fuck on.

:/

Humans also share 90% DNA with Cats and 50% DNA with Bananas. Just wanted to point that out because it is a cool little statistic and an excellent example of the redundancy in much of the DNA between species.

Anyways, the claim was that we share the same DNA, which was proven to be false. There are still significant differences withing the core genome of Homo Sapiens that separate the two sexes. Increased chances of certain diseases or higher risk of specific cancers, changes in muscle mass, intelligence, brain development, hormone levels - all this is designated by the DNA within each of us.

Ultimately, point being is that DNA differs between sexes by a quantifiable amount.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Humans also share 90% DNA with Cats and 50% DNA with Bananas. Just wanted to point that out because it is a cool little statistic and an excellent example of the redundancy in much of the DNA between species.

Precisely; "we share X% of DNA" is meaningless, and misunderstands DNA's effects.

Think of it more like language, where strategically changing a single letter in a sentence can completely alter or invert the meaning of the whole. That is essentially how genetics and sex interact, so that it's not only the Y chromosome, but across the shared body of genes that you will see entirely divergent effects turned on or off based on the sex hormones present.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Precisely; "we share X% of DNA" is meaningless, and misunderstands DNA's effects.

Think of it more like language, where strategically changing a single letter in a sentence can completely alter or invert the meaning of the whole. That is essentially how genetics and sex interact, so that it's not only the Y chromosome, but across the shared body of genes that you will see entirely divergent effects turned on or off based on the sex hormones present.

You. I like you.

Excellent explanation and a great simplification of the misery and confusion that is Genetics.

 

[strange headache]

It's not about people who 'have nothing in common', because it's in fact about people who DO have things in common, but experience them differently because of a unique viewpoint. Another example, gay men and gay women. Both gay, but their experiences are not 1:1 because men and women walk through the world differently. But as gay people, they have many common struggles and experiences. I hesitate to label that "whining about oppresssion even if they have nothing in common".

As explained above and by your quote 'intersectionality' is about measuring stacks of oppression based on immutable personal characteristics such as gender and skin color. The more external characteristics that are deemed disadvantageous somebody has, the more he is considered to be oppressed himself and the more privileges he should be granted through the 'progressive stack'. So yes, it is a race to the bottom since your level of influence is basically dictated by how many disadvantageous characteristics you have.

Furthermore, if you claim that the individual experiences of a person are intrinsically shaped by their immutable characteristics and cannot be intersubjectively shared between people, because "everybody experiences the world differently", then yes it would follow that these people have very little in common. Short of literally being that specific person or sharing the same characteristics, you have no say in these kinds of intersectional discussions. That's not how dialectic works and it's not how the validity of an argument should ever be established.

It's basically this in a nutshell:

Thanks for your feedback, you didn't help at all!

If you think your antagonistic attitude towards others will lend credence to your words, you're sorely mistaken... 'broski'.