Feminism is NOT equality

[slant]

The concept of feminism and all variations of feminism do not promote equality. Feminism is inherently sexist and by performing in such a way it defeats its own missions statement, perpetuating problems between the sexes by dividing them.

I have long heard that people have a misconception about feminists, that if a person were to meet a true feminist they would not react so negatively to it. In other words, most people

 

[invisible]

awesome essay Slant. i loved it. us feminists need to join forces with you.

 

[invisible]

i mean... listen to you. crap! ;-)

 

[bickelz]

Someone on this forum said they were "humanist" instead of any other sort of specific rights activist. I think this is a great approach.

Though to be honest, I don't really know much about feminist theory apart from what is commonly known by everybody. I have read some stuff by feminist writers and to be honest, I really doubt they're all extreme. There are some women who want to outlaw men though and these are (hopefully) the fringe.

For our final essay in my lit class this last quarter, we had to peer review a couple of drafts. The first draft I read of this one girl's essay made me feel like she wanted to castrate me. "All men just want women for sex"...I was like: Nope.

Her argument wasn't very good and the teacher, who I kinda picked up was feminist, didn't like her argument either.

I think, in the end, the best we can strive for is true equal opportunity. Men and women are completely different and should be treated as such. But sexism goes beyond recognizing the differences between men and women.

 

[bamf]

Good and interesting points. I agree that fundamentally we all should be striving for equal human rights. However, I do not believe that one can merge all of the issues into a general humanist banner and be effective. I like Freire's theory that he presented in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In it, Freire goes on to explain oppression and the "only" true escape from it. In states of oppression, every person involved is dehumanized. The oppressed are dehumanized (obviously), and the oppressors are losing their own humanity by oppressing a group. The oppressors are in a position of power over the oppressed, and the theory states that the only way for the oppression to end and for there to be true equality is if the oppressed actively resist the oppressors and overtake them. If "equality" is handed down from the oppressors it is not true equality, because the oppressors have essentially deemed the oppressed as worthy of gaining the equality, thus perpetuating the power imbalance. This is why I think movements like Feminism are highly important. Should those in "power", whoever they may be, decide to "give" women equal rights, then the power imbalance is continued. Women must struggle for and gain this equality through their resistance for it to have any true meaning and merit. I am a feminist in the sense that I support the general cause, just like I am a humanist in that I support the over-arching cause for human equality on all levels. To lump them all into one umbrella, however, is doing a great disservice to the individual needs of the smaller faction groups contained under the banner of humanism. Of course, once these groups gain equality on their own (by destroying the power-structure of their oppressors) they cannot become oppressors themselves or else the entire cycle of dehumanization simply continues. The fringe "feminists" (who I would argue are not true feminists, and have a twisted understanding of the term) who advocate women over men do a disservice to humanist goals in general.

 

[88chaz88]

Feminism at it's core is the fight for equal rights.

Bah, in lieu of writing an essay, what bamf said.

 

[This]

I think the key is for men and women to gain better understandings of themselves and of feminine and masculine polarities rather than trying to blame one another for the hurt they have inflicted onto one another. It would also probably help if both these groups stopped generalizing the opposing one.

 

[slant]

I just want to point out my sentence here: This may be true for the radical feminist, but the true feminist only wishes for women to gain access to the same rights as men have.


I am not advocating that extremist feminism is feminism.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Someone on this forum said they were "humanist" instead of any other sort of specific rights activist. I think this is a great approach.

Though to be honest, I don't really know much about feminist theory apart from what is commonly known by everybody. I have read some stuff by feminist writers and to be honest, I really doubt they're all extreme. There are some women who want to outlaw men though and these are (hopefully) the fringe.

For our final essay in my lit class this last quarter, we had to peer review a couple of drafts. The first draft I read of this one girl's essay made me feel like she wanted to castrate me. "All men just want women for sex"...I was like: Nope.

Her argument wasn't very good and the teacher, who I kinda picked up was feminist, didn't like her argument either.

I think, in the end, the best we can strive for is true equal opportunity. Men and women are completely different and should be treated as such. But sexism goes beyond recognizing the differences between men and women.

Yup that's what I tend to say.I think I may have been the one to coin that phrase as well. Humanists vs other specific activists roles.

And I second everything slant posted. I've been trying to point this out for a long time. But sense I'm male , people simple assumed I'm a sexiest bigot. Which I may be a lot of things but that is not one of them.

 

[the]

Men are not equal amongst themselves, women are not equal amongst themselves. Physically it is generally obvious and easy to discern that men and women are not equal but different. Men and women obviously do things that the other cannot simply due to their nature.

Thusly men and women will never be equal.

I dont think we are really looking for equality. The use of the word equality in the feminist movement and any movement is just silly on it's face to many.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Men are not equal amongst themselves, women are not equal amongst themselves. Physically it is generally obvious and easy to discern that men and women are not equal but different. Men and women obviously do things that the other cannot simply due to their nature.

Thusly men and women will never be equal.

I dont think we are really looking for equality. The use of the word equality in the feminist movement and any movement is just silly on it's face to many.

Good points. I always like the term different yet equally valued. In that making everyone the same based on any idea is bad. But no matter ones gender they hold human value.

 

[the]

Good points. I always like the term different yet equally valued. In that making everyone the same based on any idea is bad. But no matter ones gender they hold human value.

I think that moving in the right direction. But people are valued less, the less they are capable of. No matter what if you think about it.

Men are of more value in some areas and not so much in others. The same is true for women. People with skills are valued the most. Handicapped are valued less in the work force. People who are paralyzed are valued the least of all. I think you get the drift.

Its almost like a new concept that requires a new word.

 

[bickelz]

Men are not equal amongst themselves, women are not equal amongst themselves. Physically it is generally obvious and easy to discern that men and women are not equal but different. Men and women obviously do things that the other cannot simply due to their nature.

Thusly men and women will never be equal.

Fuckin' logic and science. They kinda ruin things.

 

[Quiet]

I consider myself a feminist and I agree wholeheartedly with you Slant.
I have met extremist feminists that literaly just hate men or think that there's some kind of competition between men and women. Unfortunately extremists of any nature tend to warp things out of perspective, and then because they tend to be louder than moderates, they also get more attention.
I think equality is definately the key. Yes men and women are different from each other, and women are different from other women, and men are different from other men but how does that make them unequal? We all have the same fundamental needs and same human rights. The men/women/masculine/feminine dichotomy seems more vague and ambivalent everyday. I think what we are moving towards is hopefully a society where everyone is free to be who they are as long as they are not impeding on anyone elses human rights. In saying that, it has only been through powerful and sometimes extremist movements and revolutions that have forged the 'fair' society we now live in. I think that because oppressive hegemonies and status quos are so ingrained into culture we often need extremist and loud voices just to get people's attention in the first place for them to even consider that there are other opinions and perspectives. Once people start talking about things and the body of knowledge grows, the more extremist voices are neutralised in favour for the more 'moderate' views, which then becomes status quo.
Unfortunately, even as I type this the majority of the people in the world do not have access to human rights and feminism has barely scratched the surface of what it needs to achieve.
On the other end of the scale, my good friend was telling me about a new type of 'genderless' preschool in Sweden where all pupils are treated equally and have access to same resources and choices in their schooling- no pink/blue, him/her etc. Apperantly the school is totally booked out and has a lengthy waiting list. Sounds very novel and innovative and it will be fascinating to see the results.
Anyway sorry if i started to ramble- I enjoyed reading everyones posts

 

[turquoise]

I agree with most of the OP, except...

I just want to point out my sentence here: This may be true for the radical feminist, but the true feminist only wishes for women to gain access to the same rights as men have.

I am not advocating that extremist feminism is feminism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

While I'm not going to claim to have statistical numbers, or that this statement isn't somewhat subjective, a massive portion of 'feminism' is clearly just gender-war power struggle type stuff, and has nothing to do with equality. It's no less extreme than the male sexism they claim to hate so much. For the ones a tier below that, they aren't really so much concerned with equality as just power, for example absurd laws that protect females over males, or general social biases that perform the same function without being officially implemented.

Somewhere below that you have the sane people with reasonable expectations on complicated issues, not essentially fighting for the right to be completely abusive towards any male they deal with and be socially and legally protected from the consequences, while continuing to get all the pro-female biases involved in things like divorces, custody battles, informal social interaction, etc.

The point of all this being that it seems somewhat intellectually dishonest to try and sweep the majority of what is actually practiced and referred to as 'feminism' under the rug while glorifying a small subset of them. (edit: Majority might be assuming too much. It's not like I'm heavily involved with feminism and qualified to say. You see the same sort of parallels in civil rights, animal rights, environmentalism, abortion stuff, etc. To try and moderate my previous statements.)

The oppressors are in a position of power over the oppressed, and the theory states that the only way for the oppression to end and for there to be true equality is if the oppressed actively resist the oppressors and overtake them. If "equality" is handed down from the oppressors it is not true equality, because the oppressors have essentially deemed the oppressed as worthy of gaining the equality, thus perpetuating the power imbalance.

The problem here (I think) is that it tends to lead to the pendulum swinging too far the other direction. If you think I'm at least somewhat correct about my above statements, you have to see where things will probably continue in this direction for a while, then there will eventually be a reactionary movement in the opposite direction, until things are more similar to the state of gender relations in the 50s, and the cycle will repeat. Maybe it'll eventually level out, but I tend to think equilibrium is a hard to achieve thing since people naturally struggle to have power over one another, hence asymmetrical power structures are favored in society over equality, and in the end many people (men and women alike) don't want equality, they either want to be the controller or the controlled, as each position can be favorable to them in some way. In human relationships, equality seems to make for a very unstable equilibrium.

Not that I wholly disagree with the sentiment. If you want fairness you generally have to fight for it, because most people won't just give it to you.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Feminism at it's core is the fight for equal rights.

Bah, in lieu of writing an essay, what bamf said.

I love animals... that's why I harm them.

Actions speak louder than words.

Similarly, one cannot take an animal which meows and put a sign on it saying 'dog' and point at it and say, ITS A DOG, IGNORE THE MEOW!

 

[88chaz88]

I love animals... that's why I harm them.

Actions speak louder than words.

Similarly, one cannot take an animal which meows and put a sign on it saying 'dog' and point at it and say, ITS A DOG, IGNORE THE MEOW!

Your post could have so many meanings it'd be foolish to try an assume one of them.

I'll be happy to debate with you once you explain your post which consists entirely of analogies.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Your post could have so many meanings it'd be foolish to try an assume one of them.

I'll be happy to debate with you once you explain your post which consists entirely of analogies.

Story telling is the most basic way of communicating a point without having to shove your opinions in other peoples faces.

Basically, I see a spade I call it a spade. I hear of these people called feminists. On aggregate they claim they want equality between sexes, but, on aggregate they spend most of their time advancing a discriminatory agenda.

One can claim they support whatever, but I don't believe it until they act in accordance with what they claim to support.

 

[88chaz88]

Story telling is the most basic way of communicating a point without having to shove your opinions in other peoples faces.

I'm a troll. I don't mind people's opinions being shoved in my face, I practically ask for it every day.

Basically, I see a spade I call it a spade. I hear of these people called feminists. On aggregate they claim they want equality between sexes, but, on aggregate they spend most of their time advancing a discriminatory agenda.

One can claim they support whatever, but I don't believe it until they act in accordance with what they claim to support.

Oh yes, totally agreed. If you see someone discriminating against any gender, then you can safely say they're not a feminist, despite the fact they use that title to try and validate their own opinions.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I'm a troll.

With Love,
Jim