1st world Feminism. Is it necessary?

[Revoltingest]

The species will make it, maybe, I'm much worried about the general quality of living, and you know civilization and technology, and not millions upon millions of people starving to death and fighting over resources.

Aye, that's the real question.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Let's not forget all the other species we share this planet with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's not forget all the other species we share this planet with.

Well, I did include all hominids & cetaceans in post #7.
(Egalitarianism can be broad indeed.)

 

[SomeRandom]

1) Out of curiosity, what is "modern" feminsm? I've not come across that term from within, as we tend to identify through the various umbrellas of feminism (eco-feminism, anarcha-feminism, sex-positive feminism,etc.)....is "modern" from Third Wave on?

I ask because I've rarely received a fleshed out answer. I've also come across phrases like "modern feminism" to be more of a snarl word, more so than a description of feminist talking points.

2) I know you don't like Sarkeesian, but how much of Third Wave feminist writers, lecturers, and bloggers do you know? I've noticed when women's rights talking points come up, you and i are very much in agreement.....and much of these topics are feminist talking points.

3) Finally, do you agree with the OP? That 1st world feminism isn't necessary anymore?

1. Like I said, they are probably just a vocal minority at best. But they just give me the creeps. I don't think I can give a proper answer to that as I'm still learning about all the issues and the cause as a whole.

2. Not very many off hand. I like the lady from Factual Feminist, though. (I don't think I agree with her on everything.) But she's pretty boss.
I know of Feminist Frequency, The Verve, Jezabel etc. Granted they're pretty sensationalist. Most of my distaste comes from those who attack art (and video games) unfairly and those who promote those trigger warning things or "safe spaces." Usually labeling something innocuous as sexist or insensitive or what have you. So those SJW type of feminists and their male cohorts or "White Knights" as the internetz likes to call them, for some reason. Then there's those viral campaigns, the potty mouth princesses or that lady who says she is raped every time her father hits her mother or someone cat calls another lady etc. (The other anti rape Indian campaign I saw was a hell of a lot better though.)
Then that stupid Gamergate crap, the Shirtgate crap and those who want to rid the world of men or have them just be breeding stallions.. Just those types of things really leave a bad taste in my mouth. I could probably ignore them as just extremist dickheads being overly sensitive hipsters with nothing to do but complain about ****, but I'm hearing more and more about them lately, for some reason. And I don't likes it.

3, No I think feminism/egalitarianism whatever you want to label it as, is still needed in the 1st world. I don't know, I guess I'm still trying to wade through feminism as a whole and trying to figure out what aspects I agree with and which ones I want to shun. But for now at least, I like the term egalitarian or humanist better. Because I want equality for the sexes and to me it's like more of humanistic label. Like feminism as a term implies a very gender specific way of looking at things, like you're approaching the equality from the perspective of a woman. Not saying that's entirely accurate, but the connotations are there. Egalitarian or humanist says nothing about your gender, it's like you're approaching things as a neutral human being. If that makes sense?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, I did include all hominids & cetaceans in post #7.
(Egalitarianism can be broad indeed.)

Even broader than that.

 

[Aquitaine]

This thread is perfect and self-completing: OP asks if Feminism is still needed in today's society, and the third poster in the thread has continually demonstrated why it is indeed still needed.

 

[MD]

i love it when non-feminists define feminism for feminists like me.

Sorry. Not sure if it counts or you care, but I really respect you.

 

[MARCELLO]

I wish we discussed 3rd world feminism where feminism roughly means trying and helping not be beaten,killed,burnt or stoned or getting permit from father to go to school.

 

[rageoftyrael]

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.

I can agree with the concept that men and women are different. This is pretty much self evident. I can also understand how a vocal minority can skew someone's opinion of what something really is, as that may have something to do with my dislike of feminism.

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

You know, I didn't really clarify what type of feminism i felt was unnecessary, which i should have, because from what I've seen so far, there are actually plenty of issues that still need addressing, I just don't believe that the women who are at the forefront of feminism are the ones who have the slightest capability to do it. They are to busy screaming sexist at every other thing a man does or says to actually help anybody. So, while I can see the need for continued measures to bring about true equality, i don't really think feminism, as it has presented itself to the media, is the one that's gonna do it.

Brave you are to take up this bruising issue!


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.

Yeah, as I said earlier in this post, I think part of my problem with feminism isn't necessarily the goals of the women who actually have something meaningful to say, it's the women who don't have anything meaningful to say at all. I think i've been soured on feminism because of these "feminists" who basically make a living by being "feminists" so they have to make everything about sexism or the like, to get the views. I've also taken to watching videos by people who basically bash these "feminists" for being so stupid, but it occurs to me that by doing so, i'm simply willfully, if not intentionally, inundating myself with the idiocy of the vocal minority who haven't the slightest clue. By doing this, i've convinced myself that we don't need feminism, because we don't need imbeciles complaining about nothing, doing nothing. Just by reading a bit on here, I've seen a bit of intelligent feminism in action and I find I don't mind feminism as much.

 

[rageoftyrael]

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.

Okay, as I've been looking at feminism, I do see the need for more equality. I don't necessarily think feminism is the vessel that will achieve that equality, but I don't see it as purely bad. I will, however, try to poke some holes in the claims that were made in the wikipedia explanation.

1. The disparity in women's political representation and participation. I think the actual issue here, isn't the lack of female politicians, it's more the idea of why aren't there more female politicians. I think feminists believe that the only reason that there aren't more women in political positions is because they are pressured away from it, or simply aren't fostered in their desire to become politicians. I suppose I'm not actually poking a hole in this one, because I can see a need to try and teach people that there isn't anything a woman can't do if she desires to do it.

2.The gender pay gap. From what I've seen, there is in fact a gender pay gap, but it isn't the vaunted 77 or 78 cents on the dollar that many feminists want to tote. I actually remember having a study pushed forward as proof for this "fact" and saw that yes, at the very beginning of the study, it shows that men on average make a dollar to a woman's 77 cents. This doesn't, however, take into account really much of anything at all. There are no mitigating factors in this number. If you continue to read the study, which I'm guessing most feminists who touted this study didn't bother to do, it actually explains that if you take into all the differing factors that can cause a pay disparity, like different jobs, different values, different work ethics, and so on and so forth, the pay gap actually narrows down to about 95 or 96 cents. This is still a pay gap, but it isn't nearly the sensational 23% many feminists are touting. Of course, I've also heard that recently, young women are beginning to out earn young men, so perhaps we should take the microscope and look at this? I'm just kidding, anyone with half a brain knows why young women are beginning to out earn young men and that's because of the education system. Girls are beginning to graduate in higher numbers than boys, and higher numbers of college applicants are girls. It only stands to reason that as more females get educations and take better jobs and more men don't graduate who get less good jobs, that the pay disparity might start to lean in the opposite direction. So, while I have no problem with taking a microscope to the actual pay difference, and figuring out what is causing it and fixing it, if need be, I can't begin to support the idea that the sensational 77 cents lie should be taken even remotely seriously.

3. The unequal distribution of household labor. I find this one kind of funny. At worst, you can really only argue that women clean house more because that's what they are taught they are supposed to do. So, at most, you can really only say that we need to try and teach everyone that there isn't such a thing as men and women's jobs, just jobs. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this. I tend to feel that it has a lot more to do with value. I, as a man, don't value a clean house nearly as much as many women do. Don't get me wrong, I actually do value a clean house, just not to the extent that I know many women do. Now, if I dont value a clean house all that much, than why would I go out of my way to clean the house? It only makes sense that the person who values these things would take more of their personal time to clean the house. Now, do I think that in a relationship, there should be some semblance of fair and reasonable splitting of household responsibilities? Yeah, but I see that as a decision that has to be made by each couple, and isn't really something that is anyone elses business.

So.... I didn't actually poke a hole in the first one, and I don't have anything to say in opposition to the rest. Some of the things I've read make me think that perhaps things aren't as equal as I thought, though I will again assert that I don't believe feminism is necessarily the group that's gonna be able to fix these things. I also think it's fair to say that there are plenty of crappy aspects to being a man as well, which is simple truth, regardless of whether or not women have it worse or not. so, to my line of thinking, i'm not gonna hop on the feminism train, which seems to happily ignore men's issues, as humanitarianism or egalitarianism seem to be more my bag.

 

[psychoslice]

I myself don't like the feminism movement, it only causes division between the sexes, there are also women who psychologically disturb men, men can be physically violent towards women, and women can be very psychologically disturbing towards men, each sex has to try to understand each other, but division will never work, that being male or female.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

I think the argument will be that they needed at the beginning. Though it is clear to me that some women are far more sexist and genda biased than men. There agenda, though, has nothing to do with ''equality'' but everything to do with gaining more power and wealth.
I am not for feminism in any way shape or form, BUT, I think the fact that it raised its baby-killing, family-wrecking, job-taking arrogant, selfish head is because of the inadequacies of men and the failure to value them properly in the first place- and not just female-insecurities and greed.
There, that, as they say, has put the cat amongst the pigeons!

 

[Robert.Evans]

I myself don't like the feminism movement, it only causes division between the sexes, there are also women who psychologically disturb men, men can be physically violent towards women, and women can be very psychologically disturbing towards men, each sex has to try to understand each other, but division will never work, that being male or female.

That said, take a look at these sick, sick people. The men, certainly in part of Papau New Guinea, in this area, are animals! and that is put it midly. It is a good example of men doing wrong that rising up feminism in the first place I think.

http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

I don't know if ''equality'' is the best word to use. No one is equal with anyone else, some are stronger, some richer, perhaps what we need is a more just and fair society and not equality. I think that word is used by women to manipulate men and make them feel guilty because they have had more in the past. It is not that way in UK now, it appears women have more, more opportunities, more money.

 

[psychoslice]

That said, take a look at these sick, sick people. The men, certainly in part of Papau New Guinea, in this area, are animals! and that is put it midly. It is a good example of men doing wrong that rising up feminism in the first place I think.

http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/

But there are so many women that drive men to do what they do, not in all cases but it certainly happens, and I know that it shouldn't happen, but the truth is that it does happen, and we should not blame all men, most men are good people, and that's a fact if you don't like it or not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's a human right.

That would be your own gender biased opinion I suppose?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

You are supposed to have them anyway...you should not need feminism to get it. It is more to do with power and money and I think always has been due to female insecurities around men

 

[Robert.Evans]

........And i also believe women were much healthier and happier before the sexual revolution even though the media has used whatever is in their power to portray it otherwise. Women arent happy or healthy anymore, men became effeminate because of these morality issues and women became more boyish, cutting their hairs short wanting to be a man. Marriages have become less and less common, while most of them end up in divorce after a couple of years. Women dont get any men. Men dont get any women. No children are being had. All of this because of gender equality. Name one other (irrational)illness for these 1st world problems.

I think you are right. I don't think they are more happy- greed is a big motivator. But men must have been missing something for them to do it in the first place. An education and a cleaner easier workplace is always going to be in favour of women. If jobs had been given more home based, I doubt we would be where we are now in the west. Family breakdown is responsible for much strife and a worse crime rate amongst single parent families.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But there are so many women that drive men to do what they do, not in all cases but it certainly happens, and I know that it shouldn't happen, but the truth is that it does happen, and we should not blame all men, most men are good people, and that's a fact if you don't like it or not.

Your picture made me think you were female. I thought it an unlikely thing to say as a woman. You are a man, as I. I don't disagee with you, but men are not perfect either, and certainly raping an eight year old girl while no one does anything about it is not right in anyone's eyes (that was in the link)

 

[Kirran]

Would you still think it is a wrong when women arent included for being 'differnt' to men (i.e. in the sense of out-spokeness)? Or do you think women are exactly the same as men and are equal to males in every aspect?

On women not being included for being different to men: I would stand against this, because it specifically excludes women simply because they are women. A person's gender should not be regarded in including them.

As for women and men being exactly the same: neither group is homogenous by even the most elastic stretch of the imagination, so the statement is essentially meaningless.

Of course I didn't assume this to be the case. I merely said if it is true, as opposed to I do think it is true.
It mostly depends on the people he has been in contact with and their individual views. How was your experience in Manchester, if you don't mind me asking.

Well, it was pretty good. Big city, lots to engage in, some nice temples, a nice Triratna Buddhist Centre. The chaplaincy was easy to engage with. Quite a few parks, although not as green as some other cities I've been to (or the farm where I grew up). Pretty multicultural - big Pakistani and Middle Eastern community in one of the areas near my house, and the city also has a big Chinese community.