Feminism implies woman should have superiority over men which I do not believe should be the case. However, equalists believe that both sexes are equal. And this is what I believe I am.
The sexes are fundamentally different, there is no arguing that.
Feminism implies woman should have superiority over men which I do not believe should be the case.
That is nonsense. While I have ran into (very very few) naive and bitter women who mistake feminism with "hating men" and create/support female-superiority arguments (taken from the watered down and misrepresented "feminism" that is spoon fed to us by misguided TV shows and misguiding politicians) this twisted idea of feminism hardly reflects the movement. Nothing about it implies superiority.
Those that say "I believe in women's right but I am not a feminist" fail to see the hypocrisy in their statement. It is as if to say "I believe in the right to vote but I'm not a suffragist."
What we need is for the basic human rights of the sexes to be equal.
And that is what makes someone a feminist.
Feminism is trying to fix the problems of inequality by only focusing on the problems of one group, this group historically being white women. In fact the feminist movement sold out African American slaves in the 1800s and have historically put their qualms above those who are far more subjugated. Feminism is a group of women who want men to not have a sexual drive or be attracted to women for looks alone. When we all know the way someone looks automatically factors in to how we deal with that person. Both sexes do it yet it is some how only wrong that men do it. Then the fact that men have a sex drive becomes evil where as when a woman has a sex drive it is totally with in her right. Then you have the fact that women serve less jail time, when sole custody more often, and pay less child support than men. If feminists wanted equality they would be fighting for everyone to be equal, they are hiding under the banner of equality to attempt to align themselves with groups that most people agree with who truly fight for equality. Equality is everyone being the same, not "feminist equality" which is men completely devoid of any attraction to females on any level and for women to still hold all of the things they have that are better than men. Men are the only ones who have to sign up for the draft, men spend more time in jail for equivalent crimes, male genital mutilation is often times accepted, feminists are people who try to sound like they want equality. If a person truly wants equality they will be a human rights activist. They fight for all people of ever race, creed, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, etc etc, to be equal, that is equality.
In fact the feminist movement sold out African American slaves in the 1800s and have historically put their qualms above those who are far more subjugated.
In the 1800 there were such biased feminist as, in the 1800's and early 1900's, there were many other humans who were not-white-men demanding equality at the same time. If we are going to argue feminism's inherent evil based on the competitive element in early civil rights movements, we shouldn't leave out the white-men who ran the unequal world in the first place. It is not a productive argument but, if your aim is to demonize feminism, it is the path the discussion will go down.
Feminism is a group of women who want men to not have a sexual drive or be attracted to women for looks alone.
A common misconception used to discredit feminism.
Which feminist group are you referring to?
Men cannot have a sex drive? Sounds a little dramatic.
It is nonsense. Someone says "Women are humans, not objects to appease your sex drive" and some guy cries "Feminist are trying to kill all of our hardons!"
All humans, male and female, oogle over their preferred sex. I would be lying if I said I never stopped to gawk at a male jogger and thought about sex - even for just a second (though probably for much longer than a second). However, I do not project those thoughts onto that person. I still treat them as a human being. I do not expect men to jog shirtless for my satisfaction. I do not make comments or arguments about how the physical attraction of a person is the only measure of their worth. I do not openly rate the attractiveness of a guy to his face and suggest that he change his appearance to receive my approval. I do not yell vulgar remarks at him. I do not complain about other men do not give me raging lady-boners. I do not assume that, because a man is scantly clothed, I am entitled to harass him or touch him. I do not assume that because a man is drunk he deserves whatever I end up doing to him.
Because, as a woman, I know exactly what it feels like to be treated as such.
Harassment is not the same as "finding someone attractive."
Perhaps that is not what you are arguing here but, too often when this argument comes up, this is exactly what a man is trying to defend: The privilege to harass someone.
So anyway, yes, this is a feminist telling you to go forth and gawk at the people who give you boners. Swoon, drool, fantasize until your pupils dilate into hearts, make you go blind and your palms grow fur. Acknowledge your sex drive, don't be ashamed of it and, hopefully, find some mind-blowing, consensual, adult activities while you are at it.
But it is not repressing anyone's sexuality to say that women should be not expected to cater to your sex drive.
(...anything more I have to say about this is about the ass-backwardness of sexuality in our culture that pits men and women against one another in disastrous mind games rather than honest dialogue...)
Then you have the fact that women serve less jail time, when sole custody more often, and pay less child support than men. If feminists wanted equality they would be fighting for everyone to be equal, they are hiding under the banner of equality to attempt to align themselves with groups that most people agree with who truly fight for equality.
This is not currently a prominent issue, but it is an issue amongst feminist that women who are carrying the financial needs of a household, should still be expected to be the primary caregivers as well. It is a touchy issue to press as it suggests that children are a "burden" that parents may try to pass off onto one another. But equality in custody battles isn't something feminist are against.
Where are the men united for this right, by the way? I am aware of The Father's Rights movement but whenever someone argues this point, that women are automatically given custody, they never actually advocate Father's Rights.
This unbalance was created, unwittingly, by early feminists who, in the 1800s, were trying to fight to keep their families after divorce. Back then, if a couple were divorced, the women was excommunicated. Without support, she was left to live alone and the best she could hope for was lowly employment. Rightly, women fought for their right to keep ties and support to their families. Women, back then, argued for the right to keep the children they gave birth to. Since women couldn't support children alone back then, men were expected to continue to support their offspring.
It "seemed like a good idea" at the time, but this was an idea forged before greater strides in women's rights...for example, we have more women working today and divorced women aren't discarded from society. These actions done by turn-of-the-century-feminst did well to serve women's rights, however, roles have shifted in society and parental custody/child support needs revising.
I do not know any feminists who would not like to see men share the role of parenthood equally and, yes, that includes equal rights to child support. (All other things, such as drug addiction and income, being equal, of course.)
As for prison time, well, I have some pretty strong opinions against prison altogether, for men and women. So while I think that sex should not be factor in conviction, I can very well form an argument that more people should be in prison. Suffice to say I would like to see fewer men in jail.
Equality is everyone being the same, not "feminist equality" which is men completely devoid of any attraction to females on any level and for women to still hold all of the things they have that are better than men.
I haven't come across any feminist literature that claims this...even the very laughable Scum Manifesto didn't explicitly say that women can have sex and men cannot...in fact...it teased that no one should have sex. (Have I mentioned that the Scum Manifesto is unpopular amongst most real feminist groups? It is humored as a cathartic shock-value piece. Not too unlike rape jokes that seem so edgy among wannabe comedians. I do not know any feminist, other than the young and naive who embrace the man-hating misconception as it is the only exposure they have had to "feminism", that applaud SCUM or find it representative of their agenda.)
Men are the only ones who have to sign up for the draft, men spend more time in jail for equivalent crimes, male genital mutilation is often times accepted, feminists are people who try to sound like they want equality.
No, again. Feminist want equality. Feminists want women in combat along side men. Feminists think genital mutilation to anyone, anywhere, is horrible. Personally, I have strong feelings against circumcision...however, you'd be surprised by how many men feel that circumcision is "right".
If it sounds like a feminist wants equality - it is probably because they want equality.
Feminism is only one example of a civil rights group. As a whole, civil rights groups all pretty much want the same thing for everyone, however, as one large, diverse group, it is hard to organize and address every issue. Sub-groups, such a feminism, are necessary and effective. But that does not mean one cannot be a feminist and also work for the equal rights of other groups simultaneously.
The arguments you bring up make it very clear that you do not know what feminism is and that you infer what feminism might be based on the what you have been told by other people who also don't know what feminism is.
And that is what makes someone a feminist.
Depending on who you ask, 'equal rights' or 'equal rights AND opportunity' is the going definition.
I am surprised this is still going on. I haven't commented in... prolly almost two years now? Anyhoo,
Yes, I'm being slightly ironic and tongue-in-cheek, but the bottom line is, most of the arguments calling for "clarification of what 'feminism' means" and saying stuff like, "Women hit their kids, domestic violence isn't just done by men!" and stuff are missing the point entirely.
I prefer humanism to feminism.
what misconceptions in particular are you talking about?
Okey dokey smokey. That makes sense to me yung-un.
I disagree with feminism because it is connected to awful awful things and i don't feel that woman should attempt to reclaim that word ever. I think we should just burn that term with fire and come up with a new one.
Things like SCUM manifesto and Cosmo are feministic.
SCUM is bad for obvious reasons, the woman was insane, the book is insane, and no one who shot andy worhol is good.
Cosmo is kinda a devil in disguise, if you don't read the content you won't understand why it's so bad.
But it gives us quotes such as "Can i vagazzle and still be a feminist?" or "Put your hand in your pants, If you have a vagina, and want to empower it. Congrats your a Feminist"
It's patronizing to women and hateful to men and generally getting nothing done.
I'm for equality and I don't think I need a special word for every group i want to be equal.
With the utmost respect and sensitivity, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The first wave of feminism brought about the 19th amendment and birth control. The second wave brought Title VII, Title IX, Equal Pay Act. The third wave is working on Queer Theory, Transgender politics, Intersectionality, and Masculinities. Feminism is not just about women. It's about learning about gender and sexuality. It's about fighting for a place in this patriarchy. It's about fighting hundreds of years of discrimination. It's not hateful to men. It's not patronizing to women. You are a white male, you're not oppressed, and you never have been, and you never will be, so why do you think you could not only understand, but then pass judgement?
Women in Utah are still paid 55 cents for every dollar men make. How is that equal?
Women still don't have the right to their own bodies, their own sexualities, their own lives, and their own reproductive systems.
Women are still getting raped and then being blamed and judged and looked down upon for allowing themselves to be a victim. She had it coming. She was being a tease. Did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it.
Are men able to crossdress yet? Women can crossdress. We do it every day. Why can't men?
Does everyone have the right to marriage? The right to love? Feminists help fight for marriage equality.
Is 50% of Congress female? Have we had a female president? Are 50% of CEO's women?
This is why we need feminism. We do need a special word. This is the only way we can bring attention. If we don't have a name, if we can't call it out, if we don't have an identity, then what are we? We'll fade into the background and be overtaken. The world loves labels. Humans can't escape them.
The world still needs feminism. We're not a bunch of bra-burning hairy-legged manhaters, like the world likes to perceive us to be.
You say you think we're getting nothing done. How hard have you looked?