Why feminism is wrong

[Edgy Opinions]

They are the primary defenders of sexism in the modern age

That certainly doesn't apply to most other strongly religious countries with strong rich/poor divides besides mine.

It's actually an accurate message that they provide, swapping biological essentialism for differences in socialization and social expectations. That's the message people need to consider here.

The thing is that they want a monopoly of their voice inside their own spaces. (The ones from which I was banned from because I "take away someone's protagonism in their own fight./Mock their activism by saying its precepts are majorly flawed./Is just an overall shitty undesirable go doesn't contribute jackshit and thinks highly of his own opinions./Acts like a cis man and lives like a cis man.")

One is theoretically free to set alternative ones, as long as they aren't openly hostile. It becomes really fucked up because people in these spaces are very faithful and communicative with the other ones, and gossip goes around fast.

I honestly could talk about my own issues and counter-argument all their lies, fallacies and toxicity, but I'm too lazy to blog like that, even more so in Facebook. Besides it's politically interesting for the reactionaries who greatly outnumber us.

[Ostroeuropa]

They are the primary defenders of sexism in the modern age

That certainly doesn't apply to most other strongly religious countries with strong rich/poor divides besides mine.

It's actually an accurate message that they provide, swapping biological essentialism for differences in socialization and social expectations. That's the message people need to consider here.

The thing is that they want a monopoly of their voice inside their own spaces. (The ones from which I was banned from because I "take away someone's protagonism in their own fight./Mock their activism by saying its precepts are majorly flawed./Is just an overall shitty undesirable go doesn't contribute jackshit and thinks highly of his own opinions./Acts like a cis man and lives like a cis man.")

One is theoretically free to set alternative ones, as long as they aren't openly hostile. It becomes really fucked up because people in these spaces are very faithful and communicative with the other ones, and gossip goes around fast.

I honestly could talk about my own issues and counter-argument all their lies, fallacies and toxicity, but I'm too lazy to blog like that, even more so in Facebook. Besides it's politically interesting for the reactionaries who greatly outnumber us.

You are right. I shouldn't have posited that without the caveat that they are the primary defenders of sexism in the modern age in secular countries.
In religious countries, it's certainly religious institutions.
As for protagonism or whatever? I honestly don't care. Fighting for your special demographic to be privileged is sexism/racism whatever, not protagonism.
The major civil rights reforms emphasized the equality of all persons, not the specialness of a demographic and how it needs some change in society.

[Dumb Ideologies]

They are the primary defenders of sexism in the modern age

That certainly doesn't apply to most other strongly religious countries with strong rich/poor divides besides mine.

It's actually an accurate message that they provide, swapping biological essentialism for differences in socialization and social expectations. That's the message people need to consider here.

The thing is that they want a monopoly of their voice inside their own spaces. (The ones from which I was banned from because I "take away someone's protagonism in their own fight./Mock their activism by saying its precepts are majorly flawed./Is just an overall shitty undesirable go doesn't contribute jackshit and thinks highly of his own opinions./Acts like a cis man and lives like a cis man.")

One is theoretically free to set alternative ones, as long as they aren't openly hostile. It becomes really fucked up because people in these spaces are very faithful and communicative with the other ones, and gossip goes around fast.

I honestly could talk about my own issues and counter-argument all their lies, fallacies and toxicity, but I'm too lazy to blog like that, even more so in Facebook. Besides it's politically interesting for the reactionaries who greatly outnumber us.

My viewpoint - I was mentioned here, so the thread came up in my daily ego-search - is along similar lines.

In "pure" theoretical-academic terms I would definitely fall under the "feminist" umbrella. The biggest problem with "feminism" that I have encountered is that the vast majority of "actually-existing-campaigning feminists" are far less developed in their own theoretical understanding. It's not just the radfem fringe, even some of NSGs most prominent feminists are dreadful on trans issues, advancing outdated second-wave notions of gender and claiming that trans folks are nothing but misguided victims of the oppressive institutions of gender and that we'll disappear when their super-duper campagna reaches its zenith and gender swishes down the nearest plughole.

I'm not going to define myself as part of a movement where the majority in a given room full of people hold beliefs that infantilize and patronize me and deny any notion of my individual agency. Sometimes I'll semi-define into the fringes of "transfeminism", but that's a satellite in a pretty loose orbit. But the moment you say you're not a feminist and start making criticism there's a heck of a presumptive and self-entitled backlash - that it is fundamentally unreasonable and makes you a disgusting person that you've chosen not to be part of their "club".

That all said, I have much more in common in terms of underlying values with feminists than with MRAs who often seem to be little more than storage containers for highest-grade toxic reactionism and who wouldn't even go as far as *pretending* to be friends of the trans community.

Ultimately, I'm gonna have to sit over here in my own very special snowflake-shaped tent, waiting with a gun and a pack of sandwiches to take out any Feminazis, patronizing infantilizers, or Men's Reich Activists who trespass onto my land...

[Ostroeuropa]

That certainly doesn't apply to most other strongly religious countries with strong rich/poor divides besides mine.

It's actually an accurate message that they provide, swapping biological essentialism for differences in socialization and social expectations. That's the message people need to consider here.

The thing is that they want a monopoly of their voice inside their own spaces. (The ones from which I was banned from because I "take away someone's protagonism in their own fight./Mock their activism by saying its precepts are majorly flawed./Is just an overall shitty undesirable go doesn't contribute jackshit and thinks highly of his own opinions./Acts like a cis man and lives like a cis man.")

One is theoretically free to set alternative ones, as long as they aren't openly hostile. It becomes really fucked up because people in these spaces are very faithful and communicative with the other ones, and gossip goes around fast.

I honestly could talk about my own issues and counter-argument all their lies, fallacies and toxicity, but I'm too lazy to blog like that, even more so in Facebook. Besides it's politically interesting for the reactionaries who greatly outnumber us.

My viewpoint - I was mentioned here, so the thread came up in my daily ego-search - is along similar lines.

In "pure" theoretical-academic terms I would definitely fall under the "feminist" umbrella. The biggest problem with "feminism" that I have encountered is that the vast majority of "actually-existing-campaigning feminists" are far less developed in their own theoretical understanding. It's not just the radfem fringe, even some of NSGs most prominent feminists are dreadful on trans issues, advancing outdated second-wave notions of gender and claiming that trans folks are nothing but misguided victims of the oppressive institutions of gender and that we'll disappear when their super-duper campagna reaches its zenith and gender swishes down the nearest plughole.

I'm not going to define myself as part of a movement where the majority in a given room full of people hold beliefs that infantilize and patronize me and deny any notion of my individual agency. Sometimes I'll semi-define into the fringes of "transfeminism", but that's a satellite in a pretty loose orbit. But the moment you say you're not a feminist and start making criticism there's a heck of a presumptive and self-entitled backlash - that it is fundamentally unreasonable and makes you a disgusting person that you've chosen not to be part of their "club".

That all said, I have much more in common in terms of underlying values with feminists than with MRAs who often seem to be little more than storage containers for highest-grade toxic reactionism and who wouldn't even go as far as *pretending* to be friends of the trans community.

Ultimately, I'm gonna have to sit over here in my own very special snowflake-shaped tent, waiting with a gun and a pack of sandwiches to take out any Feminazis, patronizing infantilizers, or Men's Reich Activists who trespass onto my land...

The MRA is fairly divided on trans issues.
There seems to be a range from:

Transmen are men and have a stake in mens rights, transwomen are perceived as men and subject to discrimination because of it, and that is a mens rights issue.

To:

Transmen are not men, and transwomen are not women, but if they are discriminated against because they dress in female attire, it is a mens rights issue.

I agree that the MRA has a problem with the latter camp being too widespread, but the former camp is also present.
I don't identify as an MRA because I also think women have rights issues that need to be addressed, and i'm worried about the trans aspects of both movements.
I can't be MRA+Feminist, because I am adamantly not a feminist. Their ideology is fucked, and their rhetoric is sexist.
So I just identify as a gender abolitionist.

[Hirota]

That all said, I have much more in common in terms of underlying values with feminists than with MRAs who often seem to be little more than storage containers for highest-grade toxic reactionism and who wouldn't even go as far as *pretending* to be friends of the trans community.

Are you familiar with TERF's?

With regards to MRA's as far as I know, no significant number of MRAs are trans-exclusionary. It's not a popular site I know, but there are a few articles on AVfM written by members of the trans community. They're generally supportive on reddit. Nonetheless I agree there really is a lot of discrimination against trans-people, but I would dispute the implication that it comes from only one particular demographic.

I guess your experience will inevitably vary.

[Ostroeuropa]

That all said, I have much more in common in terms of underlying values with feminists than with MRAs who often seem to be little more than storage containers for highest-grade toxic reactionism and who wouldn't even go as far as *pretending* to be friends of the trans community.

Are you familiar with TERF's?

With regards to MRA's as far as I know, no significant number of MRAs are trans-exclusionary. It's not a popular site I know, but there are a few articles on AVfM written by members of the trans community. They're generally supportive on reddit. Nonetheless I agree there really is a lot of discrimination against trans-people, but I would dispute the implication that it comes from only one particular demographic.

I guess your experience will inevitably vary.

I'd say the majority of MRA's are pro-trans.
Then it's a minority who are implicitly anti-trans by denying their gender identity, but accepting the oppression they otherwise suffer.
And then a very small minority who are explicitly anti-trans by both denying their gender identity, and not giving a fuck about the oppression they suffer. (As in, so what if they wear a dress and get mocked for it? They aren't a woman!)
The latter sort of MRA are usually despised.
The middle ones are cringeworthy, and i'd describe them as trans-ignorant rather than anti-trans.
(As in, well, I don't believe you are a woman, but it's certainly terrible that people berate you for acting like one!) etc.
The former are basically pro-trans rights. So I dunno.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't identify as an MRA because I also think women have rights issues that need to be addressed, and i'm worried about the trans aspects of both movements.
I can't be MRA+Feminist, because I am adamantly not a feminist. Their ideology is fucked, and their rhetoric is sexist.
So I just identify as a gender abolitionist.

I'd advise you get all your shots before trying to abolish my gender. I have very sharp claws and teeth.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't identify as an MRA because I also think women have rights issues that need to be addressed, and i'm worried about the trans aspects of both movements.
I can't be MRA+Feminist, because I am adamantly not a feminist. Their ideology is fucked, and their rhetoric is sexist.
So I just identify as a gender abolitionist.

I'd advise you get all your shots before trying to abolish my gender. I have very sharp claws and teeth.

I'd just take away the roles, then wait to see what happens.
If it sticks around, i'd concede I'm wrong about what gender is.

[The Justinian Horde]

I don't identify as an MRA because I also think women have rights issues that need to be addressed, and i'm worried about the trans aspects of both movements.
I can't be MRA+Feminist, because I am adamantly not a feminist. Their ideology is fucked, and their rhetoric is sexist.
So I just identify as a gender abolitionist.

I'd advise you get all your shots before trying to abolish my gender. I have very sharp claws and teeth.

Don't waste them on a , *cringe* gender abolitionist .

[The Justinian Horde]

I'd advise you get all your shots before trying to abolish my gender. I have very sharp claws and teeth.

I'd just take away the roles, then wait to see what happens.
If it sticks around, i'd concede I'm wrong about what gender is.

Eww

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'd advise you get all your shots before trying to abolish my gender. I have very sharp claws and teeth.

I'd just take away the roles, then wait to see what happens.
If it sticks around, i'd concede I'm wrong about what gender is.

Trying to "abolish" gender is only going to play into the hands of the biological essentialists. The advent of the concept and language of "gender" has helped massively in denaturalizing roles and expectations.

[The Northumbrian Republic]

I'd just take away the roles, then wait to see what happens.
If it sticks around, i'd concede I'm wrong about what gender is.

Trying to "abolish" gender is only going to play into the hands of the biological essentialists. The advent of the concept and language of "gender" has helped massively in denaturalizing roles and expectations.

A slightly relevant question: Does the English language have gender-neutral pronouns and/or neuter/neutral nouns (like in Icelandic)?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Trying to "abolish" gender is only going to play into the hands of the biological essentialists. The advent of the concept and language of "gender" has helped massively in denaturalizing roles and expectations.

A slightly relevant question: Does the English language have gender-neutral pronouns and/or neuter/neutral nouns (like in Icelandic)?

it, they.

[The Justinian Horde]

A slightly relevant question: Does the English language have gender-neutral pronouns and/or neuter/neutral nouns (like in Icelandic)?

it, they.

Xir

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Trying to "abolish" gender is only going to play into the hands of the biological essentialists. The advent of the concept and language of "gender" has helped massively in denaturalizing roles and expectations.

A slightly relevant question: Does the English language have gender-neutral pronouns and/or neuter/neutral nouns (like in Icelandic)?

'They' was good enough for Shakespeare so it's good enough for me.

But you should know that figuring out which pronoun is most appropriate has been a point of contention for the last few years.

[Saints Empire of Stilwater and Steelport]

Hold your horses. I know there are a lot of feminists here, but please, read what I have to say before going off and condemning me. I am not a misogynist and I do not advocate the discrimination of women (or any kind of discrimination at all). I completely agree with you that women are being discriminated against and I fully support the idea of equal rights and status for all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. My issue is that you're doing it wrong.

Bro, you'd already be a mighty fine feminist to me but let's see what you gotta say.

Let's think of society as a living organism and look at this issue as a social disease. When you get a disease, what do you do? Do you treat the symptoms, or the cause? Because, if you don't eliminate the cause, those symptoms are just going to come back and social inequality (as well as racial inequality and every other kind of inequality) is a symptom, which you pit so many resources against, without ever considering the bigger picture and what is causing the disease.

Pro tip: social equality encompasses racial, gender, sexual, cultural, religious and so on inequality. Otherwise you're right, treating the symptoms without eliminating the cause will cause the symptoms to come back. In this case, the symptoms are gender roles and at worst laws based on them. Their cause are attitudes that make people enforce such roles. The best way in my opinion to make sure those attitudes are not passed down generation after generation is to educate your kids. There really isn't any other way. Good education and good parenting should be, if not the ultimate measure, then a good start in making more people tolerant and free their thinking from the social and cultural roles the society at large pushes on them.

The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways. Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect. What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender. How so? Because of the rigid social conventions on "gender roles" which we are all forced to abide by. While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful. In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end). These gender conventions demand that men assert their dominance in a relationship and act the way we often do. In other words, we're just as conditioned and restricted by these conventions, as you are.

Here's where I have to disagree with your assertions, because we feminists know that men as well as other genders are disadvantaged by gender roles as well and strive to remove them for that reason as well. Well, the feminism I support, anyway. Whether or not that kind of feminism which you are complaining about can be considered feminism is another topic entirely. Feminism in general has evolved over the centuries, you know. It's not just the first wave concerned by the equality of white straight cis-women compared to white straight cis men anymore. The feminist movement has modernized and grown and taken on injustice against racial, gender and sexual minorities and is more about individual freedom than before. I recommend you research third wave feminism, womanism, queer feminism, anarcha-feminism and transfeminism.

Social conventions such as gender roles, racial and ethnic status, etc, are all just another excuse for the people with a very high social status, to restrict access to their position and eliminate potential competition, thus increasing their offspring's chances of inheriting that position of power. The cause of all these issues is heredity. To prove my point, we're seeing a whole bunch of problems, like racism, slowly being eliminated, while other forms of discrimination, such as classism (discrimination against the poor), are taking their place.

Classism is a problem which depends on the region you're looking at. Europe and the western world has much less income inequality than the third world, f'instance. Wealth gaps are narrowing as the world becomes more and more progressive and left-wing day after day. Income inequality seems impossible to take down, but so did the divine right of kings and the prevalence of religion. Look at the world now: we have come so far and we will go even farther.

I imagine that, at some point in the distant past, there was a struggle for social status and resources, in primitive human culture. At some point, that struggle was won by a group of males, for a some unknown reasons (it is possible that the opposite might have happened and females could have won, which would have resulted in a completely reversed scenario with women on top). Ever since then, that winning group has done everything in its power to not only consolidate its grip on the position which they have acquired, but to expand their power even further. Nowadays, we call these people "the 1%" and they're the ones who control the media, finances, etc, thus they're in a position to dictate which conventions should the society follow. In fact, all of these social conventions are the result of people playing by the rules of the privileged few, due to a misguided belief that thus, they are able to climb the social ladder just one step further. What you do not realize, is that the game is rigged. The people who make the rules will only seek to further their own interest and eliminate any and all potential competition, by making it impossible for people to compete in the first place. Thus, you have issues such as discrimination, which cause social frictions, malcontent, disappointment and stagnation and are invariably leading the human race towards its own destruction.

It has traditionally and historically been the fair-skinned heterosexual cis men leading over other groups, yes. The 'one percent' or the 'elite', call it what you will, can be a potential threat to your everyday Joes and Marys just working to get by with its financial and political power.

Try going through a mental exercise with me. Imagine a world without inheritance. A world without an elite which has that position of power, merely because they inherited their advantage. If power and wealth were not hereditary, we could have a world where one had to earn his or her place, through their own merit. In my opinion, the only way to solve society's issue is through making people in power have more responsibilities, while eliminating heredity in its entirety (100% inheritance tax and the abolition of aristocracy). All those taxes could then go towards making the world a place where every person has the chance to succeed in life on his/her own. Think of it this way. What would you rather leave your children? Material assets like money and social position, thus very little motivation for self-improvement? Or a world which offers your children the possibility to start in the same position as everyone else (by eliminating the concept of pole position), thus stimulating them to grow and evolve? Leveling the playing field would only increase competition, thus promoting an accelerated improvement of society and the human race as a whole.

That would be the most just society we can get. An anarchy, one might even say, since the elite wouldn't be there anymore. There'd still probably be a government appointed by the people in that system.

What I propose, is that you stop looking at this issue from such a narrow angle. Its not just about women's rights, its about humanity as a whole. Why not try to point out the negative effects that discrimination against women, has on men? Instead of addressing just one of the symptoms, why not seek to promote a world in which everyone starts off with the same chances and has an equal amount of support, to succeed in life?

And we're back in feminism. I will leave you with a plethora of useful links that I recommend you to check out. They are about strains of feminism that aren't indifferent about men's issues and rights. Feminism isn't just a crowd of 'militants' or 'radicals' or whatever you call feminists with anti-freedom, anti-sex, anti-men and so on attitudes. It is not just a bunch of Rebecca Watsons or Anita Sarkeesians. They are nothing more than drops of mud in an ocean.

• The Three Waves of Feminism
• The Black Woman's Manifesto
• What is Queer Feminism
• Anarcha-Feminism: Why the hyphen?
• The Transfeminist Manifesto

Should be interesting reads. Most of these branches of feminism can be found on Wikipedia as well, so you can read about them there too if you are so inclined.

[South New Caledonia]

My Opinion:
Ohhhhh... And I thought that no one believes in the things I believe in. Here are my thoughts regarding this issue:
1. Humans are egoists naturally, they always want to be the best. Did you ever want to be the ruler of the world, a famous person or a scientist who discovers something very very important? Yes, if not then something is wrong with you or you have been brainwashed by the catholics. Earth would be a paradise if everyone would have the same starting position and everything would depend on his character and skills, I agree but it is impossible sadly.
2. I have a feeling that Feminists want to make women better than men instead of making them equal.
3. If a man loves for example kitties he is going to be stoned, even if he has long hair he is going to be discriminated. The current system discriminates both genders.
4. Capitalism is not bad until the so called 1% are the only ones who profit from it.
5. Shortly: I totally agree with you.
6. F""k The System!

[Shaggai]

If that was ever true, why in several major Hollywood films and series women are represented as weak damsels who can't do a thing by themselves?

Wait a bit, both women and children. Are represented as very stupid, almost mindless people.

If offensive stereotypes is their fear, they're doing a piss-poor job.

Because that stereotype is so ubiquitous that they can't be singled out for it maybe?
Even that is giving way now to generic strongwoman with no personality who is competent and bland.
They are becomming plot devices and macguffins, because if they were an actual person, people would rave about how awful the depiction is.

Could also be that it wasn't until recently that women started objecting to being portrayed as damsels in loud enough a tone, or in large enough numbers. Let's not forget that feminists are a minority.

<insert "Why not both?" meme here>

The problem is that representation is stuck in an uncanny valley between terrible stereotypes and actual decent representation.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Because that stereotype is so ubiquitous that they can't be singled out for it maybe?
Even that is giving way now to generic strongwoman with no personality who is competent and bland.
They are becomming plot devices and macguffins, because if they were an actual person, people would rave about how awful the depiction is.

Could also be that it wasn't until recently that women started objecting to being portrayed as damsels in loud enough a tone, or in large enough numbers. Let's not forget that feminists are a minority.

<insert "Why not both?" meme here>

The problem is that representation is stuck in an uncanny valley between terrible stereotypes and actual decent representation.

I don't think I've heard the term "uncanny valley" in a while.

[Royal Hindustan]

To everyone representing feminism on this thread, do you believe chivalry and feminism can coexist?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

To everyone representing feminism on this thread, do you believe chivalry and feminism can coexist?

I don't claim to represent feminism, but I think that Chivalry could be described as the idea that the strong should support and protect the weak, and so shouldn't have to clash with feminism so long as one doesn't insist on defining all women as weak, and one recognizes that a woman can be chivalrous.

Of course, to a degree chivalry is tied up in masculine concepts of protection and authoritarian concepts of strength, and the strong and weak are kept in their places by social convention, coercion, and force. There's nothing in Chivalry about challenging abusive power structures, just addressing some of the symptoms of them.

So ultimately it will come down to how you define Feminism.

[Shaggai]

To everyone representing feminism on this thread, do you believe chivalry and feminism can coexist?

I don't claim to represent feminism, but I think that Chivalry could be described as the idea that the strong should support and protect the weak, and so shouldn't have to clash with feminism so long as one doesn't insist on defining all women as weak, and one recognizes that a woman can be chivalrous.

Of course, to a degree chivalry is tied up in masculine concepts of protection and authoritarian concepts of strength, and the strong and weak are kept in their places by social convention, coercion, and force. There's nothing in Chivalry about challenging abusive power structures, just addressing some of the symptoms of them.

So ultimately it will come down to how you define Feminism.

And how you define chivalry.

[Absolute Moralia]

It is more or less no different than standing up for the rights of monkeys and claiming they're superior to humans or something, let alone equal.

[Farnhamia]

It is more or less no different than standing up for the rights of monkeys and claiming they're superior to humans or something, let alone equal.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Cardissina]

The name of feminism has been corrupted, so.