Replacing "Feminism"

[Camicon]

if it was about equality, it woulden't be FEMinism.

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

"Achieving equality by promoting only a single group". That's as stupid an idea as "Men can't possibly be disadvantaged in any aspect of society".

Look at the legal system. Now, please tell me what feminist groups are doing to correct the massive disadvantages that men face.

[Priory Academy USSR]

if it was about equality, it woulden't be FEMinism.

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

Men do need an equivalent movement. It's just that they seem to spend half of their time bashing feminists instead of actually addressing the problems-or maybe do the insane thing and work together for a better world.

[Gravlen]

Look at the legal system. Now, please tell me what feminist groups are doing to correct the massive disadvantages that men face.

*Looks*

*Fail to see a massive disadvantage*

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

"Achieving equality by promoting only a single group". That's as stupid an idea as "Men can't possibly be disadvantaged in any aspect of society".

Look at the legal system. Now, please tell me what feminist groups are doing to correct the massive disadvantages that men face.

I will make you a deal: If you point out one or more specific disadvantages that men actually face under the current law anywhere in the U.S., then I will either point out what feminists groups are doing about it or I will agree that feminism is inadequate and support an independent men's movement.

Your turn: Go!

[Ashlak]

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

Men do need an equivalent movement. It's just that they seem to spend half of their time bashing feminists instead of actually addressing the problems-or maybe do the insane thing and work together for a better world.

This. So called "Men's Rights Movements" don't actually care about men, they're just anti-feminist.

The only problem with feminism is that it hasn't been able to shake the image that was hoisted upon it by transphobic radfems and more recently, social justice warriors from places like Tumblr.

[The Steel Magnolia]

its annoying enough when people inside the various movements fight over semantics. we shouldn't have to put up with outsiders telling insiders what words they should use.

It's a hard one to take seriously. "I'd be with you if it just wasn't called feminism...I'd be all about gays reacting positively about themselves in the face of a society that tells them they are dirty if they just didn't call it 'pride'..."

It all seems a bit...made up.

The people who decide that movements comprising hundreds of thousands, millions, of supporters should bend their activities to their will or be undeserving of their support.

They do this not because they particularly care about a movement (in fact, it's a pretty strong indicator that they hold little interest in the advancement of its aims), they do this either because they view it with suspicion and think "well, if they're going to maybe get somewhere I'm at least going to get something out of it", or because they view it with outright hostility and think "this way I'll be able to condemn them for not doing x" (see, e.g.: "feminists don't do enough for men's rights, so I can't support them").

The people who do this, the people I was referring to, are fundamentally different to people who say "I wouldn't necessarily call myself a feminist because I don't support all of what you do, but I do support some of it". There is a good argument for engaging with these people on some issues; where interests overlap, or where they find themselves drawn to support a particular campaign. There is little point in attempting to get them to agree with the stuff they don't agree with - either they think what you're doing is right or they don't. Still; these people are useful, and are worth working with, but they must accept that they don't get to set the agenda and the movement shouldn't change to suit them. The people that egalitarian movements should really be reaching out to, though, are those who willingly offer their support because they feel that what that movement is trying to do is the right thing to do. Not those who ask for us to give them something in return. Qualified, conditional, support is barely support at all. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time with people that hold no interest in what the movement is trying to achieve, but will happily make demands of it for their own ends.

Why? Because here's the deal: progressive movements win. Movements that fight for recognition of rights of minorities win. Egalitarian movements win. Every time. It can take decades, but the result is always that those of us who seek recognition of equal rights, or equal treatment, or recognition of a minority group, are always on the winning side. Why waste time trying to convince people to support a movement when they don't believe in what it's trying to do? It's a complete waste of time and energy. If they don't believe that it's the right thing to do they will never believe that it's the right thing to do. If they say "I would support you, but I don't like that you don't do enough for men" then move on. If they say "I would support you, but feminism's for girls" then move on. All we have to do is wait for them to die and in the meantime keep spreading the message to those who are interested in what we're trying to do, even those who don't fully align themselves with the movement but who support some of its goals, and who think that what we're trying to do is the right thing to do. If they say "I like most of what you do, although maybe not x, but I'm happy to accept that I don't get to set the agenda and will support you on the things I like" then you have something to work with.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Those are not even 99% of them.I could throw a rock and it would have to by some miraculous occurrence fly halfway around the world to actually hit even one that thought that way.

Transphobic radical feminists are not exactly a thing of the past. And the amounts of crap I've heard from even "good" cuddly-wuddly liberal feminists which starts supportive and then slips off into about how in a more enlightened world trans* wouldn't be necessary - yeah. it's pretty damn tiresome. It's pretty annoying when "right-on" poorly-informed outsiders appropriate your struggles whilst not actually listening to what you say about yourselves.

Ironically, I've heard that more from self described liberals than I have feminists.

[Gravlen]

Feminism as a concept (3rd wave, gender equality version) is still important, but it seems that the term is getting in the way of its own progress. Be it from poor marketing and explanation, or from resistance on the part of the majority, the term "feminism" conjures up images of female superiority. Is it time to abandon the term? Is there a more effective term we could use? Should feminism merge with other sexual and gender rights movements? Other social and civil rights groups?

I'd like to see a unified sexual and gender movement...one focused on equal treatment and protection regardless of gender identity, gender presentation, sex, sexual orientation, or the perception of these. I lack a good term for it, but would also eventually like to see it meld with groups supporting other minority rights.

You know, in Norway the fight has been about likestilling since at least the 70's, and in Sweden it's been about jämställdhet since the start of the 70's. In Denmark it's been about ligestilling since the 60's. All of these terms translate into (gender) equality.

So this would be where your thoughts would lead us, would it not? A focus on equality, equal treatment and protection regardless of gender identity etc.? And while on the one hand we see the Scandinavian countries at the head of the curve when it comes to gender equality, on the other hand we see people complaining about how "gender equality has gone too far" and how it should be scaled back in certain areas. They say this with a straight face.

So I guess my point is, what's in a name? When you look at the people complaining about feminism and the focus on equal right from the perspective of a woman, do you honestly think they'll be won over by a name change? Or do you think they'll join the group of people thinking women are getting to be too equal?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

this brings up the question of is equality good?
in a realistic way, not an excuse to discriminate, but men and women are biologically suited to preform predesigned tasks.
beside, often the best way to achieve equality is not to demand it, but earn it, for example Margaret thatcher was a massive waypoint in equality, yet didn't believe in feminism.

Ahahahahhaha. No.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

Men do need an equivalent movement. It's just that they seem to spend half of their time bashing feminists instead of actually addressing the problems-or maybe do the insane thing and work together for a better world.

No, they really don't need an equivalent movement considering that feminism is doing it just fine.

[Ordealius]

Even animals get to have civil rights put on them. Some lawyers train specifically to protect an animal in a court of law. Should we include them in a civil rights term. As far as I see it, it would just make the whole thing hilarious.

[Faolinn]

Men don't need an equivalent movement so it is a movement that crusades for women for they do need it.

"Achieving equality by promoting only a single group". That's as stupid an idea as "Men can't possibly be disadvantaged in any aspect of society".

Look at the legal system. Now, please tell me what feminist groups are doing to correct the massive disadvantages that men face.

....And delusional people like you are what make me feel ashamed to be a man some times.

[Grandais]

I'm curious, how did this misguided, radicalist 'social justice' movement on tumblr come about anyway? Was it just the appearance of a cool new system for people to blog and circlejerk each other?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm curious, how did this misguided, radicalist 'social justice' movement on tumblr come about anyway? Was it just the appearance of a cool new system for people to blog and circlejerk each other?

They basically have taken one critical theory class and think they know how the world works.

[Nickabeth]

No idea how people propose to fight sexual oppression if not by fighting SEXISM.

I imagine them standing in the middle of a black civil rights march and shouting about why everyone was so obsessed with race.

The obsession of the dominant CULTURE with race (sex, orientation, etc) as a means of maintaining capitalistic order via multiple hierarchies never seems to bother these folks, merely the progressive movements which oppose these things as unethical.

[The Steel Magnolia]

No idea how people propose to fight sexual oppression if not by fighting SEXISM.

I imagine them standing in the middle of a black civil rights march and shouting about why everyone was so obsessed with race.

The obsession of the dominant CULTURE with race (sex, orientation, etc) as a means of maintaining capitalistic order via multiple hierarchies never seems to bother these folks, merely the progressive movements which oppose these things as unethical.

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

[Nickabeth]

No idea how people propose to fight sexual oppression if not by fighting SEXISM.

I imagine them standing in the middle of a black civil rights march and shouting about why everyone was so obsessed with race.

The obsession of the dominant CULTURE with race (sex, orientation, etc) as a means of maintaining capitalistic order via multiple hierarchies never seems to bother these folks, merely the progressive movements which oppose these things as unethical.

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

What, in your expedience, do the people who whine about how feminists are too focused on men vs. women seem critical of sexual inequality as a whole?

[Nickabeth]

No idea how people propose to fight sexual oppression if not by fighting SEXISM.

I imagine them standing in the middle of a black civil rights march and shouting about why everyone was so obsessed with race.

The obsession of the dominant CULTURE with race (sex, orientation, etc) as a means of maintaining capitalistic order via multiple hierarchies never seems to bother these folks, merely the progressive movements which oppose these things as unethical.

You were doing just fine until the last sentence.

What- in your expedience, do the people who whine about how feminists are too focused on men vs. women seem critical of sexual inequality as a whole?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Of course they don't care about sexual inequality, they're the ones perpetuating it.

I'm just saying that a "means of maintaining capitalistic order via hierarchies" is not the terminology you want to use if you want to be taken seriously anywhere.

The world isn't really black and white like that. Race pun not intended.

[Caninope]

Well, if it's worth anything, I disagree with the feminist methodology and framework in international relations.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Well, if it's worth anything, I disagree with the feminist methodology and framework in international relations.

Care to elaborate? I'm actually quite interested in hearing that critique.

[Caninope]

Well, if it's worth anything, I disagree with the feminist methodology and framework in international relations.

Care to elaborate? I'm actually quite interested in hearing that critique.

What, the feminist critique of international relations or my critique of academic feminism?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Care to elaborate? I'm actually quite interested in hearing that critique.

What, the feminist critique of international relations or my critique of academic feminism?

Your critique of academic feminism. I'm aware of the feminist critique of international relations and I can get that anywhere.

I've seen enough of your posts to imagine that your critique would be more substantive in nature.

[New Sapienta]

Wanting to eliminate discrimination against women= Feminism
Wanting to eliminate discrimantion against both genders= Egalatarianism

Most feminists are both but focus their work on the former.

[Rereumrari]

The reason feminism has the view it does is because feminists assume that there is no downside to being a man, so they don't focus on any or the shortcomings that men face in society (which have mostly been created by the feminized society) nor do they even seriously consider it when it is brought up. I'm honestly not even surprised that they see it this way. Feminism was founded under the belief that women were put in chains by the oppresive patriarchy and they were. That's why feminism did play a great role in giving women the right to vote, hold office, work, and participate in activities that were previously seen as male only. Because of all that, feminism was never meant to address the needs of men. Men had the right to vote, hold office, and join the army. Today, that is not a problem. Women can work, join the army, hold office, and most importantly, vote. Since women make up over 50% of the population, their input in a democracy means that they are deciding how government runs, which means the patriarchy exists no longer (at least in the first world of course).

This is why feminism needs to be repaced with an ideology that does not focus on one gender and instead focuses of people as a whole in order to fight for anyone who might be disadvantaged. Grouping up people like they are different and deserve special treatment and classification as victims for that will not ever bring equality or pride to a group.