1st world Feminism. Is it necessary?

[rageoftyrael]

So, I've been paying a decent amount of attention to feminism recently and I've come to a conclusion. We don't need it. To be clear, we don't need it in the United States. From what I've been able to see, we don't need it in any other 1st world countries either, as they all have similar anti discrimination laws. Now, I'll be clear, I know we need feminism in 3rd world countries. That isn't what we are talking about here though.

So, you might ask me, why is it we don't need feminism in 1st world countries? Well, to put it simply, men and women have equal opportunity. We have laws in place that make discrimination based on sex illegal. Women have all the same rights as men. So, if you ask me, the real question isn't, why DON'T we need feminism, it's more why DO we need feminism?

Now, just to be clear here, I'm no woman hater. I respect women as much as I do men. While I enjoy looking at women more than I do men, I don't base my respect for people's thoughts and ideas based on their genitals. I also want to say, before anyone tries to throw it in my face, I don't consider myself to be an MRA or some other such thing. I agree with plenty they have to say, but I don't identify as a member of any of those organizations.

So, as I mentioned up earlier, I'm challenging feminists or anyone else who is up for it, to tell me why we NEED feminism in 1st world countries. I'll happily cross swords with anyone who wants to have a rational discussion and not simply scream at me for being a supposed woman hater.

 

[Laika]

The basic problem with your position is that legal equality of rights is not the same as the equality of condition or treatment. Whilst the law can assert negative liberties, that is freedom from legal discrimibation, that is not the same as asserting a positive liberty for women, that they are indeed treated equally in areas which the law cannot or should not regulate. For there to be truly equal oppurtunity on the workplace, it requires more than legal prohibition of discrimination. it requires a moral acceptance of discrimination as wrong and a (rational) intolerance to sexism and establishing that as a socio-cultural norm of behaviour.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The basic problem with your position is that legal equality of rights is not the same as the equality of condition or treatment. Whilst the law can assert negative liberties, that is freedom from legal discrimibation, that is not the same as asserting a positive liberty for women, that they are indeed treated equally in areas which the law cannot or should not regulate. For there to be truly equal oppurtunity on the workplace, it requires more than legal prohibition of discrimination. it requires a moral acceptance of discrimination as wrong and a (rational) intolerance to sexism and establishing that as a socio-cultural norm of behaviour.

I dont think its discrimination when you view women different, because they are different. It would be wrong to view them inferior though but i dont believe anybody does that apart from trolls. And the funny thing is most of these people who are enamored with feminism tend to put so much of their energy on these trolls that they are convicted men really do view women as inferiors.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We need "feminism" because we have to rely on the law to guarantee equality between the genders.
If equality was the norm in peoples minds, we would no longer need it.

 

[MARCELLO]

What's the first world feminism meaning? Are we questioning the females' feminism who wear prada? Or working in advertising business?

 

[Quintessence]

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the various attempts to remove basic women's liberties that, nauseatingly, still continue into the 21st century of America. Did you miss when companies like Hobby Snobby were able to weasel out of a health care mandate because they didn't like some of the health care services it provided to women? Are you unaware of various laws proposed in many states that would force women to have frivolous medical procedures before having an abortion? Have you missed the very strange phenomena in health care where impotency drugs for males are covered but contraceptives for women face hurdles or lack of coverage?

Also, what @Laika said.

 

[Revoltingest]

Brave you are to take up this bruising issue!

So, I've been paying a decent amount of attention to feminism recently and I've come to a conclusion. We don't need it. To be clear, we don't need it in the United States. From what I've been able to see, we don't need it in any other 1st world countries either, as they all have similar anti discrimination laws. Now, I'll be clear, I know we need feminism in 3rd world countries. That isn't what we are talking about here though.

So, you might ask me, why is it we don't need feminism in 1st world countries? Well, to put it simply, men and women have equal opportunity. We have laws in place that make discrimination based on sex illegal. Women have all the same rights as men. So, if you ask me, the real question isn't, why DON'T we need feminism, it's more why DO we need feminism?

Now, just to be clear here, I'm no woman hater. I respect women as much as I do men. While I enjoy looking at women more than I do men, I don't base my respect for people's thoughts and ideas based on their genitals. I also want to say, before anyone tries to throw it in my face, I don't consider myself to be an MRA or some other such thing. I agree with plenty they have to say, but I don't identify as a member of any of those organizations.

So, as I mentioned up earlier, I'm challenging feminists or anyone else who is up for it, to tell me why we NEED feminism in 1st world countries. I'll happily cross swords with anyone who wants to have a rational discussion and not simply scream at me for being a supposed woman hater.

It's a tricky question, one which begs a question.....
To whom is it necessary?
I see feminism as a subset of the more inclusive egalitarianism.
But for some individuals, it's compelling (ie, "necessary") to see it from the female perspective.
This is reasonable.....if something uniquely vexes one (eg, abortion rights), then one may see this as a solely female issue.
(My perspective on abortion is that it's part of the libertarian issue of individual bodily autonomy.
So I'm neither feminist nor MRA. I could even be both....but I wouldn't admit it.)
Similarly, one may focus upon men's rights if one has suffered gender based discrimination in a child custody case.

A problem: Some elements in feminism create a tail-wagging-the-dog public image which harms their cause.
Fanaticism, paranoia, hostility, & misandry in a vocal few tarnishes the majority's image in the eyes of many.
This hinders their effectiveness when trying to persuade those of differing values & opinions.

Another problem: I notice that some ardent feminists here will narrowly define what feminism is, & limit who
is a feminist. It is this singular thing, called "third wave" or otherwise limited such that many other flavors of
feminism are ignored. (At last count, I found about 2 dozen kinds of feminism fleshed out on the internet.)
There's even "libertarian feminism". I could identify with that, except that the latter word becomes redundant.

So whether my fellow posters identify as "feminist" or not, I only urge respecting the freedom of your fellow
hominids & cetaceans. Liberty doesn't specify a gender.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So, I've been paying a decent amount of attention to feminism recently and I've come to a conclusion. We don't need it. To be clear, we don't need it in the United States. From what I've been able to see, we don't need it in any other 1st world countries either, as they all have similar anti discrimination laws. Now, I'll be clear, I know we need feminism in 3rd world countries. That isn't what we are talking about here though.

So, you might ask me, why is it we don't need feminism in 1st world countries? Well, to put it simply, men and women have equal opportunity. We have laws in place that make discrimination based on sex illegal. Women have all the same rights as men. So, if you ask me, the real question isn't, why DON'T we need feminism, it's more why DO we need feminism?

Now, just to be clear here, I'm no woman hater. I respect women as much as I do men. While I enjoy looking at women more than I do men, I don't base my respect for people's thoughts and ideas based on their genitals. I also want to say, before anyone tries to throw it in my face, I don't consider myself to be an MRA or some other such thing. I agree with plenty they have to say, but I don't identify as a member of any of those organizations.

So, as I mentioned up earlier, I'm challenging feminists or anyone else who is up for it, to tell me why we NEED feminism in 1st world countries. I'll happily cross swords with anyone who wants to have a rational discussion and not simply scream at me for being a supposed woman hater.

We can start with a competent overview from wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_the_United_States

Gender inequality in the United States

has been diminishing throughout its history and significant advancements towards equality have been made beginning mostly in the early 1900s. However, despite this progress, gender inequality in the United States continues to persist in many forms, including the disparity in women's political representation and participation, occupational segregation, the gender pay gap, and the unequal distribution of household labor. In the past 20 years there have been emerging issues for boys/men, an achievement and attainment gap in education is a discussed subject. The alleviation of gender inequality has been the goal of several major pieces of legislation since 1920 and continuing to the present day. As of 2012, the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 22nd best in terms of gender equality out of 135 countries.[1]

To add, the 14th Amendment does not cover sex equality in all facets of public or private transactions or representation or opportunity (SCOTUS Scalia mentioned as such, and we wouldn't have needed the 19th Amendment to guarantee women the right to vote). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - which is cited by the EEOC in civil court cases on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation - does not cover equality in all cases per marital status or with small children. And finally, the U.S. still has not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, either, which would give overall equal rights and liberties to each sex, though other countries have ratified similar provisions.

When it comes to women's health care in the U.S., we base much of the access and provisions on antiquated gender roles for reproductive expectations of women's health, and less so on the woman's individual care without expectations for gestating and birth. Men do not have the same restrictions on health care based entirely on individual heath that women have.

And since you've made sure everyone knew you don't hate women, I've been here for a while as a feminist - and activist off RF - and I don't hate men. Now with that said, swords have been crossed, and I look forward to your response to my first counterpoint.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

We can start with a competent overview from wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_the_United_States



To add, the 14th Amendment does not cover sex equality in all facets of public or private transactions or representation or opportunity (SCOTUS Scalia mentioned as such, and we wouldn't have needed the 19th Amendment to guarantee women the right to vote). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - which is cited by the EEOC in civil court cases on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation - does not cover equality in all cases per marital status or with small children. And finally, the U.S. still has not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, either, which would give overall equal rights and liberties to each sex, though other countries have ratified similar provisions.

When it comes to women's health care in the U.S., we base much of the access and provisions on antiquated gender roles for reproductive expectations of women's health, and less so on the woman's individual care without expectations for gestating and birth. Men do not have the same restrictions on health care based entirely on individual heath that women have.

And since you've made sure everyone knew you don't hate women, I've been here for a while as a feminist - and activist off RF - and I don't hate men. Now with that said, swords have been crossed, and I look forward to your response to my first counterpoint.

I dont understand why you(anybody) would want gender equality? Tell me please.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I dont understand why you(anybody) would want gender equality? Tell me please.

Are you disagreeing with the OP, then? That gender equality is already present?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Are you disagreeing with the OP, then? That gender equality is already present?

No im asking: why would YOU want gender equality?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I look forward to your response to my first counterpoint.

As do I.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No im asking: why would YOU want gender equality?

It's a human right.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No im asking: why would YOU want gender equality?

You don't?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

It's a human right.

I dont understand. Why do you want to have human rights which include gender equality?

 

[Revoltingest]

I dont understand. Why do you want to have human rights which include gender equality?

If I may butt in.....
It could appear that your query is a challenge to their values, rather than a request to elaborate upon them.
Please clarify.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

If I may butt in.....
It could appear that your query is a challenge to their values, rather than a request to elaborate upon them.
Please clarify.

Is it hurting their feelings of common sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it hurting their feelings of common sense?

With contentious issues, posters oftentimes focus on inferred premises behind questions instead of the questions themselves.
If one takes this into account, then discussion is less likely to be derailed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I dont understand. Why do you want to have human rights which include gender equality?

Because women are entitled to the same freedoms from want and fear as men. From violence, poverty, illiteracy, and from lack of access/control to resources.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

With contentious issues, posters oftentimes focus on inferred premises behind questions instead of the questions themselves.
If one takes this into account, then discussion is less likely to be derailed.

Why would you want to discuss an issue unless youre interested in it and have something to lose or something to gain from it? so i was asking for the motivation and interest of his defense of gender equality. if he has only little to no justification then id view it as bizzarely arrogant to defend a position you yourself are ignorant about.