The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... cally.html

One solid argument against feminist apologists saying it's only a minority of the movement.

The largest mobilization of women in a long time, with feminists from dozens and dozens of organizations collaborating and:

We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights.
This is the basic and original tenet from which all our values stem.

Semantically troubling if you actually know anything about how sets work. Apparently, nobody bothered to explain that Human Rights = Womens Rights leaves out a portion of the population.

We believe Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice. We must create a society in
which women, in particular women—in particular Black women, Native women, poor women,
immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women—are free and able to care for and
nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural
impediments.

"In particular women."
?

Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of violence against our bodies. One in three
women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime;

Here we see the usual VAWA narrative erasing womens role in domestic violence and male victims.

and one in five women have been raped.

Debunked rape hysteria, misinformation, black propoganda against males.

. Further, each year, thousands of women and girls, particularly
Black, indigenous and transgender women and girls, are kidnapped, trafficked, or murdered.

As are boys. Notably, the perpetrators aren't mentioned here, whereas when it's men perpretrating a problem, it does get mentioned. Most child traffickers are women. It's the ommission of this fact while including facts about male perpetration elsewhere that leads me to conclude this is a sexist element of the document.

We honor
the lives of those women who were taken before their time and we affirm that we work for a day when
all forms of violence against women are eliminated.

Women experience dramatically less violence than men.
"Homes for homeless whites."

We believe it is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the
criminal justice system.

Oh. oh wow, maybe we'll get a good policy here. Hey, maybe... maybe i'm wrong, maybe we can-

The rate of imprisonment has grown faster for women than men, increasing by
700% since 1980

*Sigh.* Men face a sentencing gap. Whining about it being closed (Slowly.) is the act of a supremacist movement. This is no different than if there was the largest march of white people in history angry about the ratio of white prisoners growing. This is the movement we're dealing with. When you pretend it's an equality movement, you're spitting in the face of those victimized by it. This is clear, blatant, supremacy.

We believe in Gender Justice. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from
gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the institution
of awarding power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity to the exclusion of others.

Circumcision not on the agenda.

We believe in equal pay for equal work and the right of all women to be paid equitably. We must
end the pay and hiring discrimination that women

Pay gap propoganda.

We believe that all workers – including domestic and farm workers - must have the right to
organize and fight for a living minimum wage, and that unions and other labor associations are critical

Well, maybe something about 2016 got through.

The 14
th Amendment
has been undermined by courts and cannot produce real equity on the basis of race and/or sex. And in a
true democracy, each citizen’s vote should count equally. All Americans deserve equality guarantees in
the Constitution that cannot be taken away or disregarded, recognizing the reality that inequalities
intersect, interconnect and overlap.

I am absolutely, unequivocally, opposed to an equal rights ammendment so long as these supremacists are allowed to get away with what they do. We saw how title 9 was abused. Until our institutions idea of "Equality" is not synonymous with "Female Supremacy" such an amendment is a danger to society, and would give them further license to enact civil rights abuses against men.



At what point do you abandon this idea it's not most feminists who are a problem?
Tell you what. I'll believe it when you organize a march of comparable size.

For fun, check the signatories and realize how many institutions are run by these misandrists.

[Hirota]

Prove it then. I provided evidence. Your "thoughts" are not evidence.

Technically you provided evidence that people don't like the label feminism, yet still strive for gender equality regardless.

The original chain of conversation was:

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

And it's evident you are in the minority with this perspective.

Technically I actually provided evidence that people don't consider themselves feminist whilst striving for gender equality. Grene Knyght - without any evidence, disputes the claim that you are in an increasing minority who considers themselves feminist. Evidence was provided on my part, therefore burden of proof lies with Grene Knyght to support the counter-claim.

Nonetheless, if most people no longer like the label feminism, yet still strives for gender equality, this is evidence that:

A) Feminism isn't the only way to strive for gender equality - in spite of how hard and how often feminists like to pretend (including on these boards) otherwise, demonstrating a collective delusion amongst (at least) a proportion of the remaining hardcore feminist demographic.

and/or

B) There is a majority of people out there who reject Feminism - and Feminists need to try and rationally understand why that is the case instead acting delusional and either ignoring it, dismissing it without evidence (exactly as Grene did) or pretending it's untrue and smearing anyone who brings it up

Even if I didn't label myself a feminist, I would aim for such.

So? Plenty of individuals critical of feminism support gender equality - including most of the critics on these boards (excluding the occasional flyby Tradcons, of course). The other groups such as Egalitarians and MRA's get repeatedly shat on by Feminists for supposedly seeking to "trivialise" womens issues by having the temerity and common sense to understand that equality is not a zero sum game. As someone who appears to support intersectionalism I imagine you have some understanding that this isn't a binary issue.

I only use the label I do to give an idea of what kind of theory I have behind the ideas I have on issues at hand.

It's your choice if you wish to associate with an increasingly marginalised and radicalised term or not. I know I'm capable of understanding that not all feminists fit with the man hating stereotype, but it's getting increasingly difficult to recognise that when they seem to be rapidly becoming the only feminists left.

[Mattopilos]

-snip-.

Okay, fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood what claim you were actually trying to make with the short statement you made.

[Mattopilos]

She has a ""Classical""-liberal feminism, or "Equity"-feminism or whatever she calls it. Basically she is against gender feminism and "Victim"-feminism. I would say few in the liberal feminist movement entirely agree with her, but that would have to do with them agreeing with radfems in certain aspects.

And blog for a blog. Are we using right-wing sites to spite my views or something? (jk)
I think I made it clear I am against male rape ignorance - that feminists can view male rape as much less than female rape, either in number or worth.

This might be off-topic but:

How can you be an anarchist and communist at the same time? Doesn't that go against each other?

anarcho-communism has existed as an ideology for a while. communism and egoism hasn't, however.

[Lavochkin]

This might be off-topic but:

How can you be an anarchist and communist at the same time? Doesn't that go against each other?

anarcho-communism has existed as an ideology for a while. communism and egoism hasn't, however.

Forgot that even existed. *sigh* It's been a long day.

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights.This is the basic and original tenet from which all our values stem

I think you are playing semantics yourself. I think it is suggesting is is human rights to uphold the rights of women. It may not say that "men's rights are human rights", but it also doesn't say that women rights are the ONLY rights. I find this a game of semantics.

We believe Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice. We must create a society in
which women, in particular
women in particular Black women, Native women, poor women,
immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women are
free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural
impediments

I think it means it is expanding on the idea of what women they speak of i.e. "When we say women, we mean a diverse group of women". I don't think it is saying "ONLY women".

Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of violence against our bodies...

I don't think it is erasing it. But yeah, I do have an issue about it not being more general. To be fair, it seems to be a very specific movement, so eh.

and one in five women have been raped.

Given how fucking inconsistent trape statistics are, and how vague the statement is, they might be downright wrong, or may be including ATTEMPTED rapes.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victim ... l-violence
Not too sure myself, so I won't say much more on the number.

Further, each year, thousands of women and girls, particularly
Black, indigenous and transgender women and girls, are kidnapped, trafficked, or murdered.

Again, this is a specific movement, given it is literally called "The Women's march", no the "Rape victims march" or something. I do wish for a more broad focus in feminism, however. Do you know where I can find information on human traffickers themselves rather than those trafficked? Can't find it anywhere. In Australia, numbers point to boys being trafficked for non-sexual purposes and a large amount of women for sexual exploitation. Can't find anything on the Traffickers themselves, unless I have to dig uber-far into a document.

We honor the lives of those women who were taken before their time and we affirm that we work for a day when
all forms of violence against women are eliminated.

It did say all forms, but I do agree when it comes to domestic violence the numbers point to men as victims as well. How many women v. men are 'taken' by domestic violence?

We believe it is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the
criminal justice system...
The rate of imprisonment has grown faster for women than men, increasing by
700% since 1980

It does seem like a strange focus to take, given they did make the first comment. I agree here. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'supremacist movement', but I know your views on the issue, so that is up to you to conclude that.

We believe in Gender Justice. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from
gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the institution
of awarding power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity to the exclusion of others.

For either gender, yes.

We believe in equal pay for equal work and the right of all women to be paid equitably. We must
end the pay and hiring discrimination that women

Not really. It doesn't mention the pay gap, and focuses on initiatives:

Nations and industries that support and
invest in caregiving and basic
workplace protections
including benefits like paid family leave, access to affordable childcare, sick
days, healthcare, fair pay, vacation time, and healthy work environments have shown growth and
increased capacity

Would be neat to have that a focus on a not totally woman focused march. Because that it is. From the name.

We believe that all workers – including domestic and farm workers - must have the right to
organize and fight for a living minimum wage, and that unions and other labor associations are critical

A joke about idpol, I assume.

The 14
th Amendment
has been undermined by courts and cannot produce real equity on the basis of race and/or sex. And in a
true democracy, each citizen’s vote should count equally. All Americans deserve equality guarantees in
the Constitution that cannot be taken away or disregarded, recognizing the reality that inequalities
intersect, interconnect and overlap.

This doesn't mention a focus on just women. This one seems pretty well rounded. This one actually focuses on intersectionality.

At what point do you abandon this idea it's not most feminists who are a problem?
Tell you what. I'll believe it when you organize a march of comparable size.

For fun, check the signatories and realize how many institutions are run by these misandrists.

Still don't think it is not 'most feminists', but whatever you say, bucko. IT is a large march, yes, but who says all feminists or even most went to this march, or that all feminists even agree with it?

When Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International, the NAACP, and other organizations with explicitly political agendas started coming aboard last month, it became clear that the march was planning on sacrificing mass appeal for the chance to use its hypervisibility in support of critical, if controversial, issues. Some white women have even decided not to attend the march because they were uncomfortable with discussions about race and privilege that arose on the march’s official Facebook page.

Not going to bother waiting for an answer to that, for fear of being called an apologist. I mean, I would say the comment about MRAs, but I fear that would have a backlash here.
Most of the groups are for Black women's rights, it seems.

[USS Monitor]

Ostro, people don't march in the streets over issues where they already have what they wanted, or at least most of what they wanted. Moderate feminists aren't out holding rallies because we already got the main things we wanted in the form of women's suffrage, most universities becoming co-ed, and improved job opportunities. It's not that moderate feminists are rare. It's that there isn't sufficient motivation for us to get off our couch and protest, because we don't feel oppressed and outraged on a daily basis. If you don't feel offended every time a guy breathes near you, if you don't have panic attacks about getting raped every time you pass a man on the sidewalk, it's really tempting to save your gas money or your bus fare and just stay home -- so most people do.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro, people don't march in the streets over issues where they already have what they wanted, or at least most of what they wanted. Moderate feminists aren't out holding rallies because we already got the main things we wanted in the form of women's suffrage, most universities becoming co-ed, and improved job opportunities. It's not that moderate feminists are rare. It's that there isn't sufficient motivation for us to get off our couch and protest, because we don't feel oppressed and outraged on a daily basis. If you don't feel offended every time a guy breathes near you, if you don't have panic attacks about getting raped every time you pass a man on the sidewalk, it's really tempting to save your gas money or your bus fare and just stay home -- so most people do.

Fair criticism, but then the question becomes why aren't they out marching like this on mens issues?
They cannot simultaneously claim to be an equality movement and not do so. At the very least, the concession has to be made that they simply care less about them.

"I'm alright Jack" is still a form of supremacism, in my opinion. Especially as the "Got what they wanted" often involves lopsided proposals that leave men unprotected or further victimizes them.

Suffrage - Draft
Co-Ed v Misandry on campuses/lack of safe spaces for men.
Improved job opportunities V lack of help for stay at home dads, etc.

So all you've done is managed to frame it as; Most Feminists are either supremacists, or comfortable with supremacy.

There are some who go out of their way to work on it. Thing is, i've noticed that lots of them eventually abandon the label, for good reason. (Red Pill documentary producer, for example.)

[Alvecia]

Ostro, people don't march in the streets over issues where they already have what they wanted, or at least most of what they wanted. Moderate feminists aren't out holding rallies because we already got the main things we wanted in the form of women's suffrage, most universities becoming co-ed, and improved job opportunities. It's not that moderate feminists are rare. It's that there isn't sufficient motivation for us to get off our couch and protest, because we don't feel oppressed and outraged on a daily basis. If you don't feel offended every time a guy breathes near you, if you don't have panic attacks about getting raped every time you pass a man on the sidewalk, it's really tempting to save your gas money or your bus fare and just stay home -- so most people do.

Fair criticism, but then the question becomes why aren't they out marching like this on mens issues?
They cannot simultaneously claim to be an equality movement and not do so. At the very least, the concession has to be made that they simply care less about them.

The same could be asked of a great many men I imagine. There's probably quite a few reason raging from lack of interest, lack of opportunity, etc

[Ostroeuropa]

Fair criticism, but then the question becomes why aren't they out marching like this on mens issues?
They cannot simultaneously claim to be an equality movement and not do so. At the very least, the concession has to be made that they simply care less about them.

The same could be asked of a great many men I imagine. There's probably quite a few reason raging from lack of interest, lack of opportunity, etc

Men, sure, but i'm not talking about women, i'm talking about feminists. MRAs do tend to organize around these issues, hold conferences, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

The argument USS monitor put forward was basically:

"The reason they aren't out marching is they already feel comfortable enough." Despite being nominally pro-equality, and despite comfortable enough revolving around womens issues being resolved.

So far as I can tell, that means they are comfortable with female supremacy.

Were the situations reversed and mens issues resolved while womens remained, they would be marching. That seems to be the underlying implication.

As arguments in favor of feminists go, it's still no good. Again, some of them do manage to be of use to the goal of equality, but i've seen no indication it's a significant number of them, and often, those feminists are forced to work with the MRM because the number of feminists doing this is so lacking.

[Alvecia]

The same could be asked of a great many men I imagine. There's probably quite a few reason raging from lack of interest, lack of opportunity, etc

Men, sure, but i'm not talking about women, i'm talking about feminists. MRAs do tend to organize around these issues, hold conferences, etc.

Fair.
The MRA movement has a pretty bad rep, not all of it unfounded. I doubt many feminists would want to associate with an organisation that, true or not, has a reputation for being distinctly anti-feminist.
There also that the MRA's haven't had decades of build up. In comparison to feminism, they're small fry.

I also reckon you might actually see quite a lot of feminists advocating for mens rights. They just don't do it as feminists, because what's feminism to do with mens rights.
Myself for example, on womens issues, I'm a feminist, on mens issues, I'm an egalitarian.

[Ostroeuropa]

Men, sure, but i'm not talking about women, i'm talking about feminists. MRAs do tend to organize around these issues, hold conferences, etc.

Fair.
The MRA movement has a pretty bad rep, not all of it unfounded. I doubt many feminists would want to associate with an organisation that, true or not, has a reputation for being distinctly anti-feminist.
There also that the MRA's haven't had decades of build up. In comparison to feminism, they're small fry.

I also reckon you might actually see quite a lot of feminists advocating for mens rights. They just don't do it as feminists, because what's feminism to do with mens rights.
Myself for example, on womens issues, I'm a feminist, on mens issues, I'm an egalitarian.

Feminists do work with the MRM. Often the ones who finally acknowledge feminism is causing many of the problems and are subsequently chased out of the movement, with only the MRM willing to work with them. (See, cassie jaye for instance.)
A significant number of MRAs are ex-feminists.

[Alvecia]

The argument USS monitor put forward was basically:

"The reason they aren't out marching is they already feel comfortable enough." Despite being nominally pro-equality, and despite comfortable enough revolving around womens issues being resolved.

So far as I can tell, that means they are comfortable with female supremacy.

Were the situations reversed and mens issues resolved while womens remained, they would be marching. That seems to be the underlying implication.

As arguments in favor of feminists go, it's still no good. Again, some of them do manage to be of use to the goal of equality, but i've seen no indication it's a significant number of them, and often, those feminists are forced to work with the MRM because the number of feminists doing this is so lacking.

Eh.
I mean, If I were to go out marching for every issue or movement I followed, I'd never be home.
There's such a thing as compassion fatigue. You have to pick and choose your battles, focus on one or two, or you'll never be able to give every one the attention and enthusiasm it deserves.
Personally I tend towards LGBT and atheist issues.
The MRM is still small, lacking momentum, and arguably not as severe as others. .
There's a case to be made that feminism is at that point in the Western world, which is why you see relativley large amounts of extremists these days. As Monitor mentioned, many would consider it job well done.

[Alvecia]

Fair.
The MRA movement has a pretty bad rep, not all of it unfounded. I doubt many feminists would want to associate with an organisation that, true or not, has a reputation for being distinctly anti-feminist.
There also that the MRA's haven't had decades of build up. In comparison to feminism, they're small fry.

I also reckon you might actually see quite a lot of feminists advocating for mens rights. They just don't do it as feminists, because what's feminism to do with mens rights.
Myself for example, on womens issues, I'm a feminist, on mens issues, I'm an egalitarian.

Feminists do work with the MRM. Often the ones who finally acknowledge feminism is causing many of the problems and are subsequently chased out of the movement, with only the MRM willing to work with them. (See, cassie jaye for instance.)
A significant number of MRAs are ex-feminists.

It's difficult to really argue this point because I suspect I have a somewhat different definition of feminism.
An ex-feminist to me is someone who no longer cares for equality of the sexes. Which I suspect is not the case for those you've mentioned.

[Ostroeuropa]

The argument USS monitor put forward was basically:

"The reason they aren't out marching is they already feel comfortable enough." Despite being nominally pro-equality, and despite comfortable enough revolving around womens issues being resolved.

So far as I can tell, that means they are comfortable with female supremacy.

Were the situations reversed and mens issues resolved while womens remained, they would be marching. That seems to be the underlying implication.

As arguments in favor of feminists go, it's still no good. Again, some of them do manage to be of use to the goal of equality, but i've seen no indication it's a significant number of them, and often, those feminists are forced to work with the MRM because the number of feminists doing this is so lacking.

Eh.
I mean, If I were to go out marching for every issue or movement I followed, I'd never be home.
There's such a thing as compassion fatigue. You have to pick and choose your battles, focus on one or two, or you'll never be able to give every one the attention and enthusiasm it deserves.
Personally I tend towards LGBT and atheist issues.
The MRM is still small, lacking momentum, and arguably not as severe as others. .
There's a case to be made that feminism is at that point in the Western world, which is why you see relativley large amounts of extremists these days. As Monitor mentioned, many would consider it job well done.

here's the thing though.
You say you care about LGBT issues.
If the only thing you ever bothered to care about was Lesbians, you'd be lying.

That's the problem.

[Chestaan]

Male privilege does not examine any institutional and societal biases that negatively affect men. There is some acknowledgement of biases within the government and society that negatively affect men but this is framed within the context of the "patriarchy". Which is basically a method of paying lip service to men who do suffer from some pretty terrible things rather than any meaningful attempts at reform.

This is worth note as well.

One of the most common ways men are discriminated against in society in a real, tangible, scientifically quantifiable way is prison sentencing.

A detailed source for your perusal. A simpler summary if you want.

Basically, women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration for the same crimes, and if they are sentenced to prison, will serve 63% less time than men convicted of the same crime. This is a pretty big deal - it's roughly six times as large as the discrepancy between white and black defendants (which is ALSO a problem, incidentally).

This study came out in 2012. It's a pretty strong case for blatant institutionalized sexism against men in the justice system.

Now, what do feminists, generally, think?

They quite literally bemoan that women are winding up in prison and we need to do something to keep women and girls out of prison.

A pipeline is a human made structure, moving substance swiftly and uninterrupted from point A to B. The school to prison pipeline does just that, sending young children of color, disproportionately girls, from school to incarceration.

Oh fuck off. Well, maybe it's that tiny insignificant organization The National Organization for Women.

Let's try something a little different.

What? Surely you jest.

It sounds like a radical idea: Stop incarcerating women, and close down women’s prisons. But in Britain, there is a growing movement, sponsored by a peer in the House of Lords, to do just that.

The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.

Well, clearly they're working towards equality.

Wow, this level of misandry is just ridiculous! This is why I can't call myself a feminist, the reasonable feminists have long lost the battle to make the movement as a whole represent equality. The worst thing is that you almost never see feminists calling this kind of thing out. It also reminds me of an image from a newspaper that has been doing the rounds:

http://i.imgur.com/6XIAJfG.jpg

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminists do work with the MRM. Often the ones who finally acknowledge feminism is causing many of the problems and are subsequently chased out of the movement, with only the MRM willing to work with them. (See, cassie jaye for instance.)
A significant number of MRAs are ex-feminists.

It's difficult to really argue this point because I suspect I have a somewhat different definition of feminism.
An ex-feminist to me is someone who no longer cares for equality of the sexes. Which I suspect is not the case for those you've mentioned.

I disagree, and so do many others. Feminism is about appropriating the language of equality to justify focus on white middle class women and their grievances.

The existence of "Womanism" as the PoC alternative to feminism also justifies the mens rights movement by similar arguments. Criticism of how feminism isn't really an equality movement in practice, but a vehicle for the grievances of white middle class women, will be supported by those who agree with that view, even if the context of that criticism is from PoCs. It's an example of how the future could potentially line up if White Middle Class feminism continues to double down and not take on board these criticisms. There's potential for a coalition to form against white middle class women from working class white women, PoC women, and men, who feel left out of the conversation and having their issues ignored. TL;DR: It's upvoted because it aligns with the view many people have about feminism. The grievance PoC women have with feminism resonates with the grievance MRAs and such have with feminism, and reddit tend toward supporting those views. PoC criticism of White Feminism gets upvoted as a consequence. It's not a case of "Shut the fuck up for once." it's a case of "You're the only person here with a megaphone. If you don't start representing all of us instead of your own narrow self-interest, we're going to take it from you."
It's like if the only megaphones at occupy wall street were in the hands of middle class white women constantly talking about violence against women and the rape on campuses. That's not why we're here. Bring it up if you like, but the rest of us are here for a different reason. Followed by being berated and shouted down if they try to bring up the 1% of something.
It's supposed to be a gender equality movement. Not a way for you to monopolize the conversation. If it's just a white womans movement, fine, we'll leave. But stop pretending.

"You're selfish and making it so nobody elses problems get noticed." - Literally Every Demographics Feedback To The White Womans Movement

[Alvecia]

Eh.
I mean, If I were to go out marching for every issue or movement I followed, I'd never be home.
There's such a thing as compassion fatigue. You have to pick and choose your battles, focus on one or two, or you'll never be able to give every one the attention and enthusiasm it deserves.
Personally I tend towards LGBT and atheist issues.
The MRM is still small, lacking momentum, and arguably not as severe as others. .
There's a case to be made that feminism is at that point in the Western world, which is why you see relativley large amounts of extremists these days. As Monitor mentioned, many would consider it job well done.

here's the thing though.
You say you care about LGBT issues.
If the only thing you ever bothered to care about was Lesbians, you'd be lying.

That's the problem.

Ehh.
Maybe. It'd be a focus on the L, but would still fall under the umbrella.
Depends why I was doing so. Am I doing it because I only care about Lesbians, or am I doing it because I think I could do a lot of good by narrowing my attention and resources?

[Ostroeuropa]

here's the thing though.
You say you care about LGBT issues.
If the only thing you ever bothered to care about was Lesbians, you'd be lying.

That's the problem.

Ehh.
Maybe. It'd be a focus on the L, but would still fall under the umbrella.
Depends why I was doing so. Am I doing it because I only care about Lesbians, or am I doing it because I think I could do a lot of good by narrowing my attention and resources?

You're doing it because you'll spend cab fair to go to a march on lesbian issues, but don't think its worth your time to do it for the others.

[Alvecia]

It's difficult to really argue this point because I suspect I have a somewhat different definition of feminism.
An ex-feminist to me is someone who no longer cares for equality of the sexes. Which I suspect is not the case for those you've mentioned.

I disagree, and so do many others. Feminism is about appropriating the language of equality to justify focus on white middle class women and their grievances.

Exactly my point.
I consider feminism to be the focus on womens right with the end goal of equality of the sexes. I don't consider to be feminism what you consider to be feminism.
With such a fundamental disagreement on the definitions, it difficult to have a proper conversation.

[Alvecia]

Ehh.
Maybe. It'd be a focus on the L, but would still fall under the umbrella.
Depends why I was doing so. Am I doing it because I only care about Lesbians, or am I doing it because I think I could do a lot of good by narrowing my attention and resources?

You're doing it because you'll spend cab fair to go to a march on lesbian issues, but don't think its worth your time to do it for the others.

Or maybe because I can only afford one cab journey.
Some people are able to do a small amount for lots of causes, others are able to do a lot for one particular cause. It doesn't mean you care any less about another.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree, and so do many others. Feminism is about appropriating the language of equality to justify focus on white middle class women and their grievances.

Exactly my point.
I consider feminism to be the focus on womens right with the end goal of equality of the sexes. I don't consider to be feminism what you consider to be feminism.
With such a fundamental disagreement on the definitions, it difficult to have a proper conversation.

If feminism is about what you claim it is, why has it been so terrible at results for others outside of incidental benefits they receive when white womens problems are fixed?

Why would there be two splinter movements claiming this; Womanism and The MRM?
Why would there be internal acknowledgement that feminism is acting racist and needs to change, but vehement denial it's also acting sexist by the same mechanism?

Why would the movement be steeped in other types of supremacicism like homophobia, transphobia, etc?
Why has ever step to get it to modernize been like pulling teeth?

I view it as no different to other forms of traditionalist mindsets. It's had to be dragged kicking and screaming into not being a problem for society, one step at a time. It isn't a solution, it's a problem. The problem is white middle class womens self-interested activism throughout history. If it was about equality, we wouldn't have seen this level of resistance to every small step toward... fucking equality.

Feminists it doesn't apply to are falling for a shell game imo.

It's like arguing that trickle down economics and tax cuts and corporate bailouts and stuff are "For the economy" rather than the treasury being ransacked by powerful interests.
You've been conned. I accept you disagree, but I still can't unsee it.

"Equality movement dominated by white guys. After 30 years of trying, finally accepts gay people aren't evil. 30 years later, after heavy resistance and the whole time shoving more pro-white male legislation down our throats, accepts black men have problems to. Still refuses to accept women should be allowed to organize in their interests, though. But it's an equality movement. Trust us. Not just a wounded supremacist beast whose had its limbs hacked off, one at a time."

[Alvecia]

Exactly my point.
I consider feminism to be the focus on womens right with the end goal of equality of the sexes. I don't consider to be feminism what you consider to be feminism.
With such a fundamental disagreement on the definitions, it difficult to have a proper conversation.

If feminism is about what you claim it is, why has it been so terrible at results for others outside of incidental benefits they receive when white womens problems are fixed?

Why would there be two splinter movements claiming this; Womanism and The MRM?
Why would there be internal acknowledgement that feminism is acting racist and needs to change, but vehement denial it's also acting sexist by the same mechanism?

I believe I also mentioned this above, and have touched on it in discussions past.
I think you're conflating feminism with Feminists.
Feminists are the movement, feminism is the concept, the ideal.
For the most part, feminism is no longer needed in the West. Women are no longer as severly opressed as they have been in the past.
This leaves the movement in something of a bind. A movement needs a cause, and there just aren't as many big issue causes to rally behind anymore, so the only people you really have left in the movement are the fanatics. The ones who shout and bang drums, screaming "Look at me! I'm relevant! Give me attention!"

[Ostroeuropa]

If feminism is about what you claim it is, why has it been so terrible at results for others outside of incidental benefits they receive when white womens problems are fixed?

Why would there be two splinter movements claiming this; Womanism and The MRM?
Why would there be internal acknowledgement that feminism is acting racist and needs to change, but vehement denial it's also acting sexist by the same mechanism?

I believe I also mentioned this above, and have touched on it in discussions past.
I think you're conflating feminism with Feminists.
Feminists are the movement, feminism is the concept, the ideal.
For the most part, feminism is no longer needed in the West. Women are no longer as severly opressed as they have been in the past.
This leaves the movement in something of a bind. A movement needs a cause, and there just aren't as many big issue causes to rally behind anymore, so the only people you really have left in the movement are the fanatics. The ones who shout and bang drums, screaming "Look at me! I'm relevant! Give me attention!"

I focus more on the tangible effects of a movement. That could be the issue. The ideals behind it don't matter, if the tangible effect doesn't line up with them. Especially when it's known, and feedback is given.