Feminism in decline

[Ostroeuropa]

Definitions are for dictionaries. As a matter of simple realities feminism just doesn't work the way you're claiming it does.

Feminism is an idea. Feminists try, with varying degrees of success, to actualize that idea in the real world. Feminists are always talking about how we can try to do better at that.

Constructive criticism is always welcome within feminism (sometimes overly so... some feminists seem to spend all their time criticizing other feminists rather than confronting systematic sexism... but that's another topic)

Then why is it that feminists seem categorically unwilling to abandon their gynocentric lens of the situation, and instead adopt an approach that women are privileged in some spheres, men are privielged in some spheres, and in areas where one lags behind the other, we should raise them to equalize.
That both men and women oppress eachother and are oppressed by this system.

As you said, you don't believe there are any issues where men need to be raised to womens level.
I would argue this is sexism. It also happened to you because of feminist ideology.

It is precisely as sexist as thinking there are no issues where women need to be raised to mens level.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism is an idea. Feminists try, with varying degrees of success, to actualize that idea in the real world. Feminists are always talking about how we can try to do better at that.

Constructive criticism is always welcome within feminism (sometimes overly so... some feminists seem to spend all their time criticizing other feminists rather than confronting systematic sexism... but that's another topic)

No, you just want to steal all the worlds gold. I'm much too important to refute any examples, trends, or really any type of evidence you present but I'm ready to repeat that until you believe it.

I tend to avoid being in feminism because I view it as the wrong path towards gender equality so maybe it's true that criticism is welcomed from within but any time someone suggests doing away with due process on college campuses might be a bad idea they're accused of being rapethirsty and a short while ago someone pointed out an inconsistency in the way paternity and maternity are handled and you accused him of wanting control over women's bodies. Feminist response to constructive criticism tends to vary from "how dare you?" to "how dare you, rapist?"

[Apollion]

Trying to get back to the original topic in the OP, I feel that feminism (or at the very least, this movement of feminism) is in decline because most people don't feel that the current movement of feminism does not represent their values and attitudes. Despite anecdotal evidence, research has demonstrated that men, transgendered, and other genders have consistently felt that feminism does not heed their concerns in a satisfactory way. Despite what many self-identifying feminists claim, the facts and evidence remains that increasingly large tracts of people have stopped identifying with the movement and that they don't see the movement in a positive light.
Which means that the movement needs to change its direction (and thus, creating a new wave of feminism) or the movement is replaced with another ideology / movement, e.g. egalitarianism. Current feminists can claim that feminism fights for all genders equally (which is already disputed), but the actual application of those claims does not approach such principles.

On a personal note, I am in favor of equal rights for all peoples, including all genders. However, the current state of feminism does not meet the my expectations for equal advocacy.

[New Edom]

Here's an irony. Feminism is the only ideology whose supposed moderates consistently respond as the above poster did. Christian moderates can admit to excesses and atrocities in the past and presents; Communists can admit the existence of Josef Stalin and Pol Pot; patriots can admit that their countries don't have perfect histories and that even some beloved leaders have done some bad things from time to time. This is part of being human; our ideas might be great, but the human element will often prevail. This is part of having humility.

All of your examples are only half-true. There are plenty of Christians who deny or are ignorant to Christian atrocities, anti-revisionist communists exist, and "patriot" is a near meaningless term.

If you look at how I phrased things, the key word is 'can'. I am aware that there are many Christians who deny or are ignorant of Christian atrocities and that there are anti-revisionist communists. The issue is not whether or not such people exist.

However what cannot be denied is that generally feminists to a far greater degree refuse to acknowledge that there is any anti-male sentiment within feminism expressed by people who are prominent and influential within the movement, and for far less cause than the above ideologies do.

[New Edom]

Trying to get back to the original topic in the OP, I feel that feminism (or at the very least, this movement of feminism) is in decline because most people don't feel that the current movement of feminism does not represent their values and attitudes. Despite anecdotal evidence, research has demonstrated that men, transgendered, and other genders have consistently felt that feminism does not heed their concerns in a satisfactory way. Despite what many self-identifying feminists claim, the facts and evidence remains that increasingly large tracts of people have stopped identifying with the movement and that they don't see the movement in a positive light.
Which means that the movement needs to change its direction (and thus, creating a new wave of feminism) or the movement is replaced with another ideology / movement, e.g. egalitarianism. Current feminists can claim that feminism fights for all genders equally (which is already disputed), but the actual application of those claims does not approach such principles.

On a personal note, I am in favor of equal rights for all peoples, including all genders. However, the current state of feminism does not meet the my expectations for equal advocacy.

Lots of people feel that way. There are women who feel that way too, you're quite right.

What people forget sometimes, including feminists, is that until rather recently feminists were a marginalized group. They were made fun of and disliked, not for the reasons they prefer to express (bra burning, hairy armpit lesbians) but because like most busy bodies, humourless people and killjoys they were considered a general social buzzkill. People increasingly liked the idea of social equality between men and women, but I think most people took that to mean that gender roles would shift into something more fitting towards modern society.

You could also say in fairness tat feminiss did raise some important issues and start some important public conversations, and still do, but still not believe that they get to define what equality is. However that's exactly what they started doing a few years ago. In a sense feminism has been completely rebranded so that they can immediately claim all conversations about gender equality, The end result of this can look like anytime a feminist appears in public they are particularly representatives for the notion of gender equality.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline.

Thankfully, people like you are declining in number.

The percentage of people believing in gender equality has actually been going up.

[Ostroeuropa]

Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline.

I hope not.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline.

Thankfully, people like you are declining in number.

The percentage of people believing in gender equality has actually been going up.

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Thankfully, people like you are declining in number.

The percentage of people believing in gender equality has actually been going up.

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

Okay. Your point? People are calling it egalitarianism now. Gender equality is not going backward, no matter how much you want it to.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

Okay. Your point? People are calling it egalitarianism now. Gender equality is not going backward, no matter how much you want it to.

I don't want it "backwards". I don't see how men and women are unequal before the law. So called tumblrites and people on Reddit arguing for different words or more sex are laughably not in favour of equality.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

No. No it's not.

That's ridiculous and insane.

[Natapoc]

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

Okay. Your point? People are calling it egalitarianism now. Gender equality is not going backward, no matter how much you want it to.

It's really not called egalitarianism (or humanism) by anyone who knows what those words mean.

For more info here's an article: http://feminspire.com/feminists-are-not ... e-renamed/


From the article, here are some definitions for you:

Feminism is a social movement advocating for equal recognition of human rights and associated protections for all genders – and not just rights and protections on paper or in theory, but rights and protections in practice.

Feminism operates on the tenet that gender is not an acceptable basis for discrimination, subjugation, marginalization, oppression, enslavement, and/or eradication. The very first distinctly unifying grounds upon which the movement arose was the concept that gender should not dictate whether or not an individual was granted personhood under the law or provided with basic human rights. It’s called Feminism because the gender being denied personhood and subjected to other oppressions was (and still is) female, hence the “fem” in feminism.

Humanism is a branch of philosophy (and ethics) that advocates for equality, tolerance, and secularism (what is commonly known as “the separation of church and state”). Humanism recognizes that human beings do not “require” religion in order to develop moral systems or behave morally. In other words, Humanism is the theory that human beings are able to use logic to determine what is ethical (right and wrong) and do not require dictations from a spaghetti monster (or other deity) in order to understand morality. Humanists advocate for education, tolerance, representative politics (rather than monarchies), and freedom of thought (from religious tyranny). Humanism is not currently an active socio-political movement.

Egalitarianism is a form of political philosophy that advocates all human beings are fundamentally equal and therefore equally entitled to resources (e.g., food, shelter, respect, social status). Egalitarianism, for all its merits, has some distinct limits in applied practice. Equality was originally conceptualized as a means to give everyone the same things, the same means as it were, and although concepts and theories of equality morphed and grew from that starting point, the fact is you can give everyone the exact same items and still have not alleviated inequality and/or unfairness. For example, stating that everyone is entitled to two apples and then handing out two apples to every person does not address the inequity of resources that pre-existed the handing out of apples (in other words, some persons might have already had two apples while others had none, some people are allergic to apples, and some people were more in need of blanket than an apple). Egalitarianism, while a fundamental ethical concept, often fails to address inequities through an intersectional lens. Egalitarianism is not currently an active socio-political movement.

As I've said before, these words all have meanings and you can't just take words that already have long histories and specific meanings and suddenly decide that everyone should just change the definition just because of your whim.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

Belief in a cause, without action, is the same as to oppose the movement.

No. No it's not.

That's ridiculous and insane.

If you do nothing to support your cause, what good is your, "support"?

[Des-Bal]

If you do nothing to support your cause, what good is your, "support"?

Substantially more than had you opposed the cause? I think the things your saying were supposed to sound cool or edgy but I'm just getting the impression you didn't think about what they meant.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Okay. Your point? People are calling it egalitarianism now. Gender equality is not going backward, no matter how much you want it to.

I don't want it "backwards". I don't see how men and women are unequal before the law. So called tumblrites and people on Reddit arguing for different words or more sex are laughably not in favour of equality.

"Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline."

You just said you oppose gender equality. By saying you oppose movements that advocate it.

And before the law =/= in all aspects of society.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

-snip-

Calm down, I'm a self-proclaimed radical feminist, you don't need to tell me that. I'm just saying that that is a widespread opinion nowadays.

[Ostroeuropa]

*Snip*

We've already addressed this claim of yours and you havn't actually provided a counter argument. We've actually addressed it several times, and you still havn't addressed ours, you just keep repeating yourself. I encourage anyone who reads this to read over the last two pages (And especially Tahars post on the subject) to see why Natapoc is wrong, and not only wrong, but refuses to actually argue the point and just keeps asserting her position.
Notably, your definition of feminism here runs straight smack into the problems I pointed out on previous pages too, such that feminism becomes an internally self-contradicting concept.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

If you do nothing to support your cause, what good is your, "support"?

Substantially more than had you opposed the cause? I think the things your saying were supposed to sound cool or edgy but I'm just getting the impression you didn't think about what they meant.

I don't really see much of a difference between passive support and passive opposition. Both do little/nothing to support a cause.

[Des-Bal]

It's really not called egalitarianism (or humanism) by anyone who knows what those words mean.

For more info here's an article: http://feminspire.com/feminists-are-not ... e-renamed/


From the article, here are some definitions for you:

Feminism is a social movement advocating for equal recognition of human rights and associated protections for all genders – and not just rights and protections on paper or in theory, but rights and protections in practice.

Feminism operates on the tenet that gender is not an acceptable basis for discrimination, subjugation, marginalization, oppression, enslavement, and/or eradication. The very first distinctly unifying grounds upon which the movement arose was the concept that gender should not dictate whether or not an individual was granted personhood under the law or provided with basic human rights. It’s called Feminism because the gender being denied personhood and subjected to other oppressions was (and still is) female, hence the “fem” in feminism.

Humanism is a branch of philosophy (and ethics) that advocates for equality, tolerance, and secularism (what is commonly known as “the separation of church and state”). Humanism recognizes that human beings do not “require” religion in order to develop moral systems or behave morally. In other words, Humanism is the theory that human beings are able to use logic to determine what is ethical (right and wrong) and do not require dictations from a spaghetti monster (or other deity) in order to understand morality. Humanists advocate for education, tolerance, representative politics (rather than monarchies), and freedom of thought (from religious tyranny). Humanism is not currently an active socio-political movement.

Egalitarianism is a form of political philosophy that advocates all human beings are fundamentally equal and therefore equally entitled to resources (e.g., food, shelter, respect, social status). Egalitarianism, for all its merits, has some distinct limits in applied practice. Equality was originally conceptualized as a means to give everyone the same things, the same means as it were, and although concepts and theories of equality morphed and grew from that starting point, the fact is you can give everyone the exact same items and still have not alleviated inequality and/or unfairness. For example, stating that everyone is entitled to two apples and then handing out two apples to every person does not address the inequity of resources that pre-existed the handing out of apples (in other words, some persons might have already had two apples while others had none, some people are allergic to apples, and some people were more in need of blanket than an apple). Egalitarianism, while a fundamental ethical concept, often fails to address inequities through an intersectional lens. Egalitarianism is not currently an active socio-political movement.

As I've said before, these words all have meanings and you can't just take words that already have long histories and specific meanings and suddenly decide that everyone should just change the definition just because of your whim.

1. Until you show us your badge proving your affiliation with the word police you have no authority to tell people what they can and cannot do with words.
2. Denial that male rape is even a thing that happens is a product of women not being granted personhood. Yep. You're actually making a pretty good case for why the name should be changed.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

If you do nothing to support your cause, what good is your, "support"?

People who casually support a cause provide three things: a larger background noise that helps signal boost the work of activists, a gradual shift in the general culture, and a 'breeding pool' from which actual activists arise.

They absolutely are not the same as those who oppose the cause, and to say that they are is bugfuck insane.

[Teutonic Germany (Ancient)]

I don't want it "backwards". I don't see how men and women are unequal before the law. So called tumblrites and people on Reddit arguing for different words or more sex are laughably not in favour of equality.

"Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline."

You just said you oppose gender equality. By saying you oppose movements that advocate it.

And before the law =/= in all aspects of society.

I don't believe these movements actually support equality in terms of the law. Hence, the quotes.

[Des-Bal]

I don't really see much of a difference between passive support and passive opposition. Both do little/nothing to support a cause.

Now you're specifying passive. What you're saying is true unless you vote or communicate.

[Natapoc]

2. Denial that male rape is even a thing that happens is a product of women not being granted personhood. Yep. You're actually making a pretty good case for why the name should be changed.

Wait. What? What does that even have to do with anything I said and who is denying that men can be raped?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"Great. Hopefully, all movements towards gender "equality" decline."

You just said you oppose gender equality. By saying you oppose movements that advocate it.

And before the law =/= in all aspects of society.

I don't believe these movements actually support equality in terms of the law. Hence, the quotes.

We're not talking exclusively about the law. We're talking about gender equality in all aspects of society.