Criticisms of Feminism

[Nazi Flower Power]

Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."

[Napkiraly]

It seems OP you should actually first find out what feminism actually is. Because many have been pointing out that these gender roles hurt men and women for quite some time now.

[The Black Forrest]

And it is still utterly useless commentary that contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Your opinion was worthless.

That's your opinionm, I think it offers a lot of insight.

Observation without explanation is worthless.

[The Black Forrest]

It seems OP you should actually first find out what feminism actually is. Because many have been pointing out that these gender roles hurt men and women for quite some time now.

Isn't it easier to be spoon fed?

[Sun Wukong]

Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."

It's almost as if people criticize feminism without bothering to learn what it is at all.

But no... that couldn't be. Who would be so dishonest?

[Susurruses]

Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.

1. That's horseshit and you know it, sex does come in a simple binary, there's no spectrum, and there's no mayonnaise gender.
2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological

1.) Intersex people exist.

2.) You have no idea what a social construct is.

[Susurruses]

Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."

It's almost as if people criticize feminism without bothering to learn what it is at all.

But no... that couldn't be. Who would be so dishonest?

_Men.

[Sun Wukong]

It's almost as if people criticize feminism without bothering to learn what it is at all.

But no... that couldn't be. Who would be so dishonest?

_Men.

I confess, I chuckled.

[Napkiraly]

It seems OP you should actually first find out what feminism actually is. Because many have been pointing out that these gender roles hurt men and women for quite some time now.

Isn't it easier to be spoon fed?

Unfortunately that seems to be the rage these days.

[Forsher]

I don't think men can watch after a fetus, considering we aren't seahorses???? ONce it's fully baked, sure, but the bun in the oven kinda can't leave.

Which I think probably had the effect of encouraging women to hang around a bit more at wherever the base of operations, as it were, was. Eventually the males were more likely to have the sticks and with the sticks it's typically easier to have the power.

So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

Which are generally trivial in every day modern life.

Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.

Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Except human children are far more helpless than, say, those of puppies... and require feeding. The former can be handled by anyone, the latter... for some time... by any lactating female. So it's not so clear cut, especially back when the whole pregnancy and childbirth stuff was considerably more risky than it is today.

Aye, but that still doesn't mean the women were unable to pick up a spear and go hunting, if necessary, as having too few hunters in a tribe would have led to starvation.

I'm no expert, or indeed no informed layman, but I believe hunting was what we might term a high risk activity. That's in terms of physical danger and the chance of success... i.e. resource wastage. Ideally, you'd prefer to have as much food coming from alternative sources.

a man can work overtime consistently and of course get payed more than a woman coworker, and men do work significantly more overtime on average than women).

There is a mistake here that really annoys me because it's a) very basic and b) very common. It's spelt paid. That's p-a-i-d. Payed is a different word that relates to tar and ships.

Ever single female STEM major I knew changed to humanities majors before the end of freshman year, and it's an extremely common trend across the entire nation.

I have severe difficulty believing you. Mind you, you could just know a bunch of exceptions or, maybe, people who weren't sure of what they wanted to do initially.

Most women can't make the cut, or don't utilize the massive amounts of woman-only resources and opportunities that fill my university mailbox to the brim every week. The only women I see around the lab I work at are all Asian immigrants except for one. ONE. Something needs to be done to encourage women to use the resources available to them without lowering standards of high education/skill fields to meet arbitrary employment quotas.

You seem to be American and, to my knowledge, quotas have difficulty existing there. Likewise, I am sure that such things exist. For instance, I remember in year ten some of the girls in my science class went to a women in science thingy for the day. I can't really remark on its success as an encouragement but I'm sure such things exist where you are and I am also sure that more developed ones do too.

YES when women put their middle finger up to gender roles they can make the cut, as easily as men. This is what I keep saying. Over, and over, and over again. And you seem to have omitted the most on "most women can't make the cut." So long as most women believe they cannot make the cut, they may become disheartened and give up. I have said multiple times that this is the cause and what neds to be changed. I keep saying that this is due to the current status quo which needs to change. As the far as the words I'm using doing the exact opposite, that seems to stem from your desire to infer a different message than I'm putting forward.

When you set a post up with what borders on a rant directed at the idea that tehre is a pay gap and then continue the forthright tone (although, arguably no longer a negative one) with a statement as, well, sharp as "Women can't make the cut" the implication is quite different. What I am saying is, if you don't want your message to get confused, don't make it look like what it isn't. I would agree that your substance is not so far removed from that of the people you're "arguing" with but I would disagree with how you've presented it.

[Empire of Narnia]

Feminists want equality between males and females. I am a feminist. Every group has radicals though, but they shouldn't make everybody forget about what the movement is really about.

[Jinos]

Even being against Feminism as I am, this is a really poorly thought out argument that...yeah actually does mischaracterize feminism.

They already care about gender roles hurting men (although a lot LESS than they care about gender roles hurting women).

Feminism's problems lie elsewhere.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Feminists want equality between males and females. I am a feminist. Every group has radicals though, but they shouldn't make everybody forget about what the movement is really about.

That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."

^ This

[Empire of Narnia]

Feminists want equality between males and females. I am a feminist. Every group has radicals though, but they shouldn't make everybody forget about what the movement is really about.

That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.

Women are still discriminated against in a lot of jobs. Look at Sony if you don't believe that. Certain developing countries still have laws that discriminate against women. For example women in Saudi Arabia can't drive even though Sharia law says nothing about cars.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.

Women are still discriminated against in a lot of jobs. Look at Sony if you don't believe that. Certain developing countries still have laws that discriminate against women. For example women in Saudi Arabia can't drive even though Sharia law says nothing about cars.

Yes, but I'm talking about the western countries. It's well known that Islamists discriminate against woman, but feminism isn't a big thing in those countries.

[Jinos]

That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.

Women are still discriminated against in a lot of jobs. Look at Sony if you don't believe that. Certain developing countries still have laws that discriminate against women. For example women in Saudi Arabia can't drive even though Sharia law says nothing about cars.

As much as I disagree with the other guy. Please don't bring up Saudi Arabia or other third world countries that haven't even seen first wave feminism as a way to defend third wave feminism.

Nobody buy the most ardent and reactionary of male chauvinists actually thinks women aren't oppressed out there, or that feminism isn't necessary. When people talk about the problems of feminism, they are only referring to third wave feminism in the western developed world.

[New Armarzia]

I usually avoid all of these opinion discussions as I admittedly am easily offended and when it comes to these kind of arguments I often see it pointless to be the 100th person to say "I don't support abortion or I support religion" being that these kind of discussions have very little basis in fact, only opinion. But there was a lot in this OP that I disagree with...so I decided to sneak away from the RP part of the forums to journey into this scary side and say my thoughts on this.

Don't expect many to read this as it will be long, but here it is anyway...

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.

Not the best way to start off presenting my opinions as this is just me being nit picky with this paragraph...but given the actual definition of feminism, the advocacy of woman's rights based upon that of men's rights which can be further simplified to mean the advocacy of gender equality using the state of men as the baseline, most of this paragraph is you declaring that you are in fact a feminist...

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.

Still not going well for me with presenting these opinion, myself and I am assuming many others actually just treat the symptoms of diseases and wait out the disease...but that is besides the point. However, the cause of gender inequality has to do with the fact that throughout almost the entirety of human history (and the histories of many other species of mammals) our species has been patriarchal and pretty much still is. Now I am of the belief that this due to some biological instinct, not saying that it right or wrong...but that this what humans as a species of animals tend to lean towards more naturally. And I don't state this as fact, just my belief...would have to look that up and figure out if my sources are even reputable (or at least reputable to the standards of NSG).

However, if the true source is hormones or chemicals in our minds then there is little we can do about it at the moment. So the next best source would be that humans have pretty much always been patriarchal (I currently can't think of a single society that was predominately led by women), and given he definition of feminism is bringing the rights of women up to the standards of men to make both equal...I would say feminism is doing exactly what you are saying people should.

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.

Now this paragraph is difficult for me to read every time, but I will tackle it nonetheless. Let us skip the first few sentences and save them for my awesome analogy coming up later. So lets start off with males being equally discriminated against...very subjective and one I would have to disagree with completely. The severity of discriminations is much more heavily aimed at women. And furthermore I believe you are mixing up stereotypes with expectations, a stereotype is an assumption of how one acts where as an expectation is the belief of how one should act (not stating this to offend your intelligence, just saying it in case). No normal father and mother or father and father or mother and mother or firefox and gender fluid whatever has a son and says "I sure hope our sone grows up to be unfaithful and insensitive." If you are around people who actually believe that, I am sorry to say you aren't around the greatest of people. Now I do agree there are some harmful expectations of males being "tough" and "detached from certain emotions" there is nothing similar to that of unfaithfulness and complete insensitivity. And I would argue that in modern Western society for the most part these expectations are phasing away. They are still present...but the fact I have two ex-military very Mormon parents from Texas who would be completely fine if I was a transgender pansexual (sadly I am a heterosexual male) speaks bounds in my eyes or ears or mind. But this paragraph is getting long so to the next point...

Alright, there is some more stuff I could say but I really want to get to my analogy so here goes...and in keeping theme with your medical analogy of earlier, when their are few organs and multiple people who are on the list to receive it, it is often given to the person who needs it the most. So if the two people on this list are males and females and the list is for the prevention of discrimination and there is only enough for one, then it should go to females as discrimination is far more severe against this gender. The discrimination against them affects their livelihood and what they are able to accomplish in life and not so much so for men. The belief of women as weak results in violence towards them, not nearly as much for men. While I may be wrong, I feel it is safe to say that the majority of cases of domestic abuse and rape have women as victims, not men (not stating that they are never victims). These two points should show that discrimination has larger impact on a woman's life then a man's, they do for me at least.

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.

So this is starting to journey into the realms of political viewpoints for me so I will keep my statements hear shorter as this has little to do with if feminism is wrong...so I disagree with you, I am sure you guessed that before hand. They aren't excuses for the upper class to restrict access, it is just happens to be a consequence. Those are all forms of defense against what is perceived as a threat, which is difference and change. I truly believe people behave this way for the same reason animals treat anomalies among their species badly (such as albino animals in a pack), out of a fear of difference...you can't be sure someone who is different will have the same interests (not advocating this, just explaining it).

While I can't state 100% that it is fact with confidence, I am fairly certain that it is safe to say your last sentence is wrong. Classism has always existed and the fact that things such as capitalism and socialism, economic systems with the idea that you don't have to stay poor, exist today and feudalism, an economic system based around no one moving up or down in class, no longer exists. Compared to let's say 1920s America both classism and racism has been reduced...it is just that racism is being eliminated at a faster pace then classism...furthermore addressing an issue always make it seem bigger (or reveal it for what it is). Looking at the 40s compared to the 50s in the US, it may seem the 50s were more racist then the 40s, but it is just that racism was addressed. Classism is being addressed more today so information on it is becoming more widely known so it has the appearance of becoming worse.

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.

As I said before, I believe it was biological, not some struggle for power. Whatever species we evolved from was likely patriarchal as well due to evolution and natural gender roles in nature so it naturally occurred among more primitive humans causing us more "civilized" humans to be born in a world that was already patriarchal. This "struggle" was won due to the nature of gender roles in animals and evolution, not unknown reasons. Your 3rd sentence I agree with, but most people in those positions would do the same thing as it is a desirable thing.

These people turning into the 1% I am iffy on...I can understand your leap, but it is kinda ignoring much of human history and the fact that men who consolidated power for men and people who are economically successful are different. But I'll go with it. But do understand there are plenty of people within the 1% who at some point in their life were far below the 1%...that alone should disprove your whole "misguided belief that one can climb social ladders" because well, people have and do. Being that you are referencing 1% and climbing social ladders I will assumed you are American like myself (USA#1 ) and have my points reflect it. The whole American dream and "land of opportunity" does not mean you are guaranteed to do better in life...it means you have the opportunity to change your status in life. The problem is people misunderstands that it is an opportunity, not a guarantee.

People who make the rules do seek to further their own interests...just like every single other human being on the planet, not unique of them or that creative to be honest. And your theory of discrimination is caused by the ruling elite or in a modern sense, capitalism, and this will be the end of humanity...I completely disagree, now I am not zoologist (i really hope that is the right term), but I don't believe there is one species of animal who has died out due to discrimination...and discrimination (or at least gender roles and fear of difference) does exist in nature. And quite honestly, while I am not saying it is necessarily worth it, good things come out of discrimination and friction in a society that allows the opportunity for people rise in standing because it helps strengthen people and mold their characters to become leaders or role models. But I'll move on being that feminism hasn't been mentioned once in any of these paragraphs...

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.

Too communist, not enough 'Murica for me! Just kidding, but I do completely disagree with this as it essentially means your successes in life end with your life which is horrifying to me and it also kinda makes everything the property of the government which I mean should have some sort of right to some of my income. To answer the question that you provided, if my only two choices were the ones provided I would choose material assets and social position every time rather then a chance for my children to fail in life as my responsibility to my kids would to be provide for them the best I can. And the guarantee of a comfortable, successful life is much more enticing then the mere chance at it. But once again this is completely ignoring the fact that people do rise the economical and social ladder more frequently then you seem to realize.

And a 100% inheritance tax just provides incentives for ridiculous expenditure as their is no point to maintaining large amount of wealth. And where do you draw the line? Do you just tax money? People will just spend it on other materials to pass on....do you tax value? Then you will be taking away memories and personal treasures just for the sake of absolute equality. And success is objective, leveling the playing field does not guarantee everyone a chance for success. In all actuality this would be a form of discrimination against those who aren't smart. As those who are smart would rise in this system and those who aren't wouldn't. And now you have the same situation all over again.

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?

I think I may have a better proposition...what if, and I know this is kinda crazy but bear with me as we are almost at the end of this, but what if everyone who criticizes feminists helped stop discrimination against men....but by stopping discrimination against men I do not mean criticizing women and/or feminists as that doesn't do anything but cause more discrimination.

There are two reasons I see why feminism is more popular then the focus on stopping the discrimination. First off people are more likely to help those similar to themselves then those different so women feminism is very enticing for females, and second people are more likely to help those who are visibly worse off then better off so that is another reason why people prefer feminism over its counterpart.

Now, why don't people do both? Well my personal belief is that it would be inefficient. There is some quote that I don't feel like looking up that goes along the lines that doing two things at once is the same as doing nothing as you are not focusing on something by splitting your efforts. And furthermore being that there are two sides to this, much of the discrimination has to do with contrasts...men have to be strong because women are weak, men can't show emotions because women do. Well if women are brought up to the same level of rights as men, those contrasts should just go away as they wouldn't work anymore. But what do I know...I am sure most aren't going to read this rambling, but if someone does and I got something factually wrong please let me know as it would be much appreciated

[Esternial]

Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."

The most significant issue is that those that are actually intelligible on certain subjects are rarely the ones the make the post about it, either because they don't feel it's worth their time or underestimate their own knowledge on it, while those that have little understanding often find themselves overconfident and post their crappy reasonings all over NSG.

And this, sweet Nazi flower, is why we can't have nice things.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

As much as I disagree with the other guy. Please don't bring up Saudi Arabia or other third world countries that haven't even seen first wave feminism as a way to defend third wave feminism.

Latin America, Eastern Europe, Korea and Japan, then.

[Empire of Narnia]

As much as I disagree with the other guy. Please don't bring up Saudi Arabia or other third world countries that haven't even seen first wave feminism as a way to defend third wave feminism.

Latin America, Eastern Europe, Korea and Japan, then.

I thought Latin America had Canada-style gender equality for the most part.

I also don't like the term third-world because it's a cold war term that is nowadays mostly used as an insult. I prefer to say developing country.

[CTALNH]

Really?
How does sexual reproduction tie into one's paycheck, do tell.
Or into one's ability to do construction work? Teach? Work in finance?

I eagerly await your explanation.

Men and women are biologically different. Laying a social construct over that to attempt to force them to be socially equal is not going to help. The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.

Welp someone just went full .....!

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Women don't earn less than men, women choose to have different careers which usually pay less and they work more in part time.

[-Ebola-]

The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.

Then maybe you should try that. Asexual replication is pretty awesome.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Latin America, Eastern Europe, Korea and Japan, then.

I thought Latin America had Canada-style gender equality for the most part.

I'd compare it to an in-between of Southern Europe and East Asia.