Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Nenova · 31-35, M
its not necessary at all in some societies. in the modern world equality as already been achieved. even a child in high school can arrest his own mother. it depends on which setting needs this kind of fight for rights. in my country (Uganda) which is a 3rd world country women and men are equal. even in pay. and this is a 3rd world typical African traditional country which is considered "lawless" yet we have achieved equality even in our education. so i dont even understand what inequality you are talking about? that stuff was relevant in 1920 but not now. right now i honestly believe its just a fight of women VS men. a fight of one gender struggling to be more dominant than the other. there will always be some kind of unfairness in the world so there is never going to be a time when all inequality in the world is gone. we can only come up with percentage eg 73% equality among men and women in the modern society which is a really great number. there is never going to be 100% equality because the moment it gets to 100 and becomes 101, it will mean the sex which previously did not face the inequality will now be the one facing the inequality so it will now be the opposite sex claiming to be unfairly treated. its simply logic, since equality is a variable and keeps changing, if i was supposed to give 10$ to a woman and likewise 10$ to a man, but considering this is a variable that is never stable the moment i give 11$ to the woman the man will complain of inequality so i will try to raise the man's money to 11$ as well to even the situation but considering its a variable it will soon become 12$ and then the woman will begin shouting about inequality and the cycle will go on and on and on. there will always be a gender more dominant than the other so the real agenda of feminism is "it should be women who are the dominant gender, not men" thats what this whole fight is about. thats why radical feminists tell women not to marry and that they can comfortably live without men because marriage entails for women to be submissive to their men and this frustrates the whole agenda of women dominating men. feminists keep pretending they are fighting for peace, and justice to make the world a better place. LOL. at the heart of feminism is merely a group of desperate women craving for power, dominion, influence and attention.
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
@Nenova your argument was so incredibly biased. You literally only spoke about radical feminists. And just because equality is 73% in your world, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for 90%.and hey, maybe sexism isn't prevalent in your country. But I have traveled to third world countries, I've studied them in class, I have many friends from all over too. And I know for a fact that things aren't nearly as good for women as they are here.
What you mentioned as the "heart" of feminism, is only some people who are extremist and whom the media capitalizes on, blowing the issue out of proportion. A true feminist is one who believes in equality and champions the cause of women empowerment.
What you mentioned as the "heart" of feminism, is only some people who are extremist and whom the media capitalizes on, blowing the issue out of proportion. A true feminist is one who believes in equality and champions the cause of women empowerment.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
Feminism could probably do good in countries where women are viewed as second-class citizens. However. These are still *human rights* issues, and using such a contentious movement would probably be counterproductive, depending on how it was used.
Specifying "females" doesn't really do great for long-term balance [regardless of third wave feminism claiming it stands for generally equal rights--I disagree with that and view it as subterfuge], because I guaruntee you there are plenty of human rights violations against males in those countries, as well--despite my ignorance of the countries in question.
End of the day, this question really just boils down to how one views feminism. I view it as an innate entitlement movement, even from its origins. It definitely did good; but, imo, it just marginally sped up what was already going to happen with the advent of numerous technologies which made the female role much less onerous than it had been, pre-industrial revolution. Well, that's my opinion. At least, where the West is concerned. Naturally, I'm unaware of the cultural drivers for such treatment of women in the aforementioned countries, so I can't say exactly, ultimately.
Here's my deal. If a bunch of women are getting raped and murdered, one doesn't really need an social movement to say, "Hmm. This is a bad thing. Let's try to stop it." In fact, the creation of such a social movement is innately stratifying and contentious, since it innately separates male and female.
And honestly, if one digs into feminism's history, it's slathered with "evil demon men and poor, helpless dumb women." That's its view of the genders. Modern feminism has turned into something else, but that's the fundamental driver.
So, that stratification and contention is not very helpful for solving issues, imo. Finally: it could potentially help, to a point, imo, but definitely no, in my opinion.
Much less if there is a backlash towards that identification of men as "evil douchebags." They might not take too kindly to that and become evil douchebags.
Rather, I think encouraging changes in the cultures via media and art and non-labeled public speaking would probably help more. Along with, perhaps, international aid or potentially enforcement.
Either way, big changes are bad, when they happen too quickly. Cultural changes need to happen slowly, over time.
Specifying "females" doesn't really do great for long-term balance [regardless of third wave feminism claiming it stands for generally equal rights--I disagree with that and view it as subterfuge], because I guaruntee you there are plenty of human rights violations against males in those countries, as well--despite my ignorance of the countries in question.
End of the day, this question really just boils down to how one views feminism. I view it as an innate entitlement movement, even from its origins. It definitely did good; but, imo, it just marginally sped up what was already going to happen with the advent of numerous technologies which made the female role much less onerous than it had been, pre-industrial revolution. Well, that's my opinion. At least, where the West is concerned. Naturally, I'm unaware of the cultural drivers for such treatment of women in the aforementioned countries, so I can't say exactly, ultimately.
Here's my deal. If a bunch of women are getting raped and murdered, one doesn't really need an social movement to say, "Hmm. This is a bad thing. Let's try to stop it." In fact, the creation of such a social movement is innately stratifying and contentious, since it innately separates male and female.
And honestly, if one digs into feminism's history, it's slathered with "evil demon men and poor, helpless dumb women." That's its view of the genders. Modern feminism has turned into something else, but that's the fundamental driver.
So, that stratification and contention is not very helpful for solving issues, imo. Finally: it could potentially help, to a point, imo, but definitely no, in my opinion.
Much less if there is a backlash towards that identification of men as "evil douchebags." They might not take too kindly to that and become evil douchebags.
Rather, I think encouraging changes in the cultures via media and art and non-labeled public speaking would probably help more. Along with, perhaps, international aid or potentially enforcement.
Either way, big changes are bad, when they happen too quickly. Cultural changes need to happen slowly, over time.
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
@Tatsumi Honestly everyone can have their own interpretations of feminism. It's just how it is. I think of feminism as an idea: Equality between man and women with a keen focus in women empowerment. (I am not ignorant about the East, and I know there is huge gender disparity there). For me, it isn't what these women have made it, bra burning or free the nipple. Of course I don't think the east requires this type of feminism. But, it does require the kind of feminism where each citizen proudly says that they champion the cause of women empowerment. For me, this is true feminism. Not a bunch of women who burn bras and hate men and CALL themselves feminist.
I totally agree with your point about small changes thru media and art. I believe it is taking place, slowly nevertheless.
I totally agree with your point about small changes thru media and art. I believe it is taking place, slowly nevertheless.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@basicgirl12 Mm. Yes. Third wave feminism, modern feminism. Any reasonable person views it the way you do. I did, as well, for most of my life. It sounds very nice. One can indeed view anything any way; but, with social movements, there is also history and base beliefs and aims to consider.
In order to subscribe to a social movement, one has to likewise subscribe to the ideals that movement stands for, naturally. While the ultimate goal may be said to be "equality", the social movement called "feminism" is much deeper than that.
"Equality" is all well and good to stand for, but how one defines that is what differentiates groups. How do we achieve equality? Feminism has its already-established ideas on what is unequal and how to go about equalizing. So, if a person identifies as part of a movement, they are, by default, also subscribing to the primary notions of that movement--not just the overarching goal. Splinter cells with moderately differing beliefs branch off, but they still revolve around a set root of beliefs.
For instance, if I said I am a socialist, because I believe people should not go hungry, there are still yet many more ideas that I am associating myself with by calling myself a socialist, no? I could call it simply wanting equality for everyone, but I am also inadvertently claiming many more ideas on top of that.
To me, I prefer to view the base issues, themselves. And, well, for me, I would prefer it if every human in the world championed the empowerment of every other human. One of the worst characteristics of humanity is its tendency to devolve into an "us" vs "them" mentality. Causes way too much conflict, suffering, and death.
In order to subscribe to a social movement, one has to likewise subscribe to the ideals that movement stands for, naturally. While the ultimate goal may be said to be "equality", the social movement called "feminism" is much deeper than that.
"Equality" is all well and good to stand for, but how one defines that is what differentiates groups. How do we achieve equality? Feminism has its already-established ideas on what is unequal and how to go about equalizing. So, if a person identifies as part of a movement, they are, by default, also subscribing to the primary notions of that movement--not just the overarching goal. Splinter cells with moderately differing beliefs branch off, but they still revolve around a set root of beliefs.
For instance, if I said I am a socialist, because I believe people should not go hungry, there are still yet many more ideas that I am associating myself with by calling myself a socialist, no? I could call it simply wanting equality for everyone, but I am also inadvertently claiming many more ideas on top of that.
To me, I prefer to view the base issues, themselves. And, well, for me, I would prefer it if every human in the world championed the empowerment of every other human. One of the worst characteristics of humanity is its tendency to devolve into an "us" vs "them" mentality. Causes way too much conflict, suffering, and death.
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
Sorry for the late reply
I totally agree that the "us vs. Them" idea propagated by the movement is so troublesome as it simply polarizes the genders and makes enemies out of one another. We're on the same page there
But the premise of your argument is that feminism IS a movement
But that's not how all people view it. Feminism is an 'idea' like I said. The idea of equality between men and women. So I can without a doubt subscribe to the idea of being a feminist without subscribing to the socio-political movement of feminism today in the western world. I needn't be pro choice or believe in the wage gap to call myself a feminist:a person who advocates women's rights on the basis of their social, economic and political equality to men.
Do you see my point here?
I totally agree that the "us vs. Them" idea propagated by the movement is so troublesome as it simply polarizes the genders and makes enemies out of one another. We're on the same page there
But the premise of your argument is that feminism IS a movement
But that's not how all people view it. Feminism is an 'idea' like I said. The idea of equality between men and women. So I can without a doubt subscribe to the idea of being a feminist without subscribing to the socio-political movement of feminism today in the western world. I needn't be pro choice or believe in the wage gap to call myself a feminist:a person who advocates women's rights on the basis of their social, economic and political equality to men.
Do you see my point here?
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
@BlueMetalChick that's terrible. may I ask, what is your home country?
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@basicgirl12 Yemen
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
@SW-User they have most of those legal rights but socially they face many barriers due to their gender
sighmeupforthat · 46-50, M
basicgirl12 · 22-25, F
@firefall and what about in the west?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
TheLordOfHell · 41-45
