History UsefulNotes / Feminism

17th Nov '17 7:14:40 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Even when masculist or feminist men are involved in the discussion, there is also an ideological point to be made. Though it is not controversial to point out that sexism hurts men, it changes the tone of a discussion when a man makes that point. It is all-too-easy to infer that he doesn't really care about women's problems unless he is personally affected by them... which, in addition to being a [[ItsAllAboutMe pretty lousy attitude]], is whole ''point'' of why feminism began. [=MRAs=] may argue that the reverse is true for some feminists, who deem themselves the best at addressing issues of sexism that affects both genders.

to:

Even when masculist or feminist men are involved in the discussion, there is also an ideological point to be made. Though it is not controversial to point out that sexism hurts men, it changes the tone of a discussion when a man makes that point. It is all-too-easy to infer that he doesn't really care about women's problems unless he is personally affected by them... which, in addition to being a [[ItsAllAboutMe pretty lousy attitude]], is whole ''point'' of why feminism began. [=MRAs=] may argue that the reverse is true for some feminists, who deem themselves the best at addressing issues of sexism that affects both genders.\n
17th Nov '17 7:13:16 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


A core goal of feminism's is to push the Venn Diagram of "male tropes" and "female tropes" together until there is ''nothing'' in the AlwaysMale ''and'' the AlwaysFemale page. It has already made a lot of strides in that direction, particularly by adding things that are AlwaysMale to AlwaysFemale. But if you're the kind of person who insists that people and cultures ''must be'' AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale -- in other words, someone who agrees with the past/current system; in other words, someone who supports patriarchy -- then, yes, it ''looks like'' the "Always Male" category is shrinking and "being a man" is becoming villainized. If this concerns you, please remember that your original assumption -- "tropes must be AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale" -- bears re-evaluating. Feminism, as a whole, is not trying to destroy maleness, but rather ''redefine'' maleness, in a way that makes everyone, ''even you'', more comfortable in it. Even so, this will mean that both maleness and femininity will be obsolete concepts.

to:

A core goal of feminism's is to push the Venn Diagram of "male tropes" and "female tropes" together until there is ''nothing'' in the AlwaysMale ''and'' the AlwaysFemale page. It has already made a lot of strides in that direction, particularly by adding things that are AlwaysMale to AlwaysFemale. But if you're the kind of person who insists that people and cultures ''must be'' AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale -- in other words, someone who agrees with the past/current system; in other words, someone who supports patriarchy -- then, yes, it ''looks like'' the "Always Male" category is shrinking and "being a man" is becoming villainized. If this concerns you, please remember that your original assumption -- "tropes must be AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale" -- bears re-evaluating. Feminism, as a whole, is not trying to destroy maleness, but rather ''redefine'' maleness, in a way that makes everyone, ''even you'', more comfortable in it. Even so, this will mean that both maleness and femininity will be obsolete concepts.\n
16th Nov '17 6:07:06 PM Steam_Lord
Is there an issue? Send a Message


One problem with this is that, to many feminists, it is not just about equality. Many, like Germaine Greer, are also concerned with women’s liberation from the concept of fixed gender roles, not simply economic/social equality with men. The term egalitarianism, if adopted, would leave out a crucial theoretical aspect for many feminists. As a case in point, second-wave feminism was originally called the women's ''liberation'' movement, not the women's equality movement. The reason that the word equality tends to be used more often is that equality of the genders is seen as an essential feature of the wider goal of gender liberation. Many feminists will also argue that the term "egalitarianism" or "equalism" trivializes individual forms of discrimination by covering all forms of discrimination (sexism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, religious bigotry etc.) under one umbrella. This means that specific attention won't be given to individual issues, even if those issues intersect of some from a single framework.

to:

One problem with this is that, to many feminists, it is not just about equality. Many, like Germaine Greer, are also concerned with women’s liberation from the concept of fixed gender roles, not simply economic/social equality with men. The term egalitarianism, if adopted, would leave out a crucial theoretical aspect for many feminists. As a case in point, second-wave feminism was originally called the women's ''liberation'' movement, not the women's equality movement. The reason that the word equality tends to be used more often is that equality of the genders is seen as an essential feature of the wider goal of gender liberation. Many feminists will also argue that the term "egalitarianism" or "equalism" trivializes individual forms of discrimination by covering all forms of discrimination (sexism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, religious bigotry etc.) under one umbrella. This means that specific attention won't be given to individual issues, even if those issues intersect of some or come from a single framework.
16th Nov '17 6:05:54 PM Steam_Lord
Is there an issue? Send a Message








Lesbians have been an important part of the feminist movement pretty much from day one -- prominent lesbian or bisexual feminists include Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Julia Serano, Camille Paglia and Mary Daly. However, many feminists are straight women--in fact, it's likely that ''most'' are, if for no other reason that homosexuals are believed to make up only 10% of the population. There are also male feminists and/or feminist allies (straight, bisexual, gay and asexual), asexual feminists, transgender feminists, and feminists of any other sexuality and gender identity you can think of.
There have been a few feminist writers -- especially during the 1970's, before the movement had made as many gains as it had today -- who suggested that it might not be possible to have a truly egalitarian heterosexual relationship as long as sexism remained pervasive in society. This was fiercely debated even at the time, though, and it was certainly never mainstream feminist dogma that feminism carried a moral obligation to swear off sex with men.

to:

Lesbians have been an important part of the feminist movement pretty much from day one -- prominent lesbian or bisexual feminists include Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Julia Serano, Camille Paglia and Mary Daly. However, many feminists are straight women--in fact, it's likely that ''most'' are, if for no other reason that homosexuals are believed to make up only 10% of the population. There are also male feminists and/or feminist allies (straight, bisexual, gay and asexual), asexual feminists, transgender feminists, and feminists of any other sexuality and gender identity you can think of.
of. There have been a few feminist writers -- especially during the 1970's, before the movement had made as many gains as it had today -- who suggested that it might not be possible to have a truly egalitarian heterosexual relationship as long as sexism remained pervasive in society. This was fiercely debated even at the time, though, and it was certainly never mainstream feminist dogma that feminism carried a moral obligation to swear off sex with men.



The movement first gained coherence in TheSeventies, yes... But go back to any place and time where there has been widespread discrimination against women (namely, AllOfThem), and you will find feminism--or, at least, [[FairForItsDay something that looks like feminism if you squint hard enough]]. The word "feminism" dates back to 1895; the entire "suffragette" movement, in which British women campaigned for the right to vote, began in 1865; and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan Christine de Pizan]] was writing feminist works as far back as the [[OlderThanPrint early 15th century]]. If you believe that men can be feminists and that one does not need to ''describe'' oneself as a feminist to be one, then the very first might well be Creator/{{Euripides}}, which would make feminism OlderThanFeudalism. (On the other hand, some of his contemporaries called him misogynistic [[UpToEleven even by Ancient Greek standards]].) As for feminist action, you might as well talk about Ancient Romans getting disgusted by how Ancient Greeks treated women (this too is OlderThanFeudalism )

to:

The movement first gained coherence in TheSeventies, yes... But go back to any place and time where there has been widespread discrimination against women (namely, AllOfThem), and you will find feminism--or, at least, [[FairForItsDay something that looks like feminism if you squint hard enough]]. The word "feminism" dates back to 1895; the entire "suffragette" movement, in which British women campaigned for the right to vote, began in 1865; and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan Christine de Pizan]] was writing feminist works as far back as the [[OlderThanPrint early 15th century]]. If you believe that men can be feminists and that one does not need to ''describe'' oneself as a feminist to be one, then the very first might well be Creator/{{Euripides}}, which would make feminism OlderThanFeudalism. (On the other hand, some of his contemporaries called him misogynistic [[UpToEleven even by Ancient Greek standards]].) As for feminist action, you might as well talk about Ancient Romans getting disgusted by how Ancient Greeks treated women (this too is OlderThanFeudalism )
OlderThanFeudalism).



Most feminists would agree that there are overall differences between sexes. While sentiments like "men on average have two thirds (or 60 to 100%) greater muscular strength in the upper body" can lead to arguments if stated/interpreted wrongly, the majority of feminists would concede that, yes, most men have most women beat in raw physical strength. (Some argue, though, that women have different kinds of strength, e.g., strong hips and legs, and the ability to endure things like childbirth.) What ''really'' grinds a feminist's gears are suggestions that:
* Something that applies to one gender is universal and ''cannot'' apply to the other gender. ("[[NonActionGuy Any man]] is physically stronger than [[ActionGirl any woman]], ever, period.")
* Differences between the genders are an excuse for discrimination. ("Women are not as physically strong as men, and thus no women should ever be allowed to have jobs that require lifting heavy objects.") (Or, even worse, "Women are not as physically strong as men, and thus no woman should ever be allowed to have jobs.")
* Failure to adhere to expectations about one's gender is an excuse for ridicule. ("Any man weaker than a woman is a loser; any woman stronger than a man is a freak.")

to:

Most feminists would agree that there are overall differences between sexes. While sentiments like "men on average have two thirds (or 60 to 100%) greater muscular strength in the upper body" can lead to arguments if stated/interpreted wrongly, the majority of feminists would concede that, yes, most men have most women beat in raw physical strength. (Some Some argue, though, that women have different kinds of strength, e.g., strong hips and legs, and the ability to endure things like childbirth.) What ''really'' grinds a feminist's gears are suggestions that:
* Something that applies to one gender is universal and ''cannot'' apply to the other gender. ("[[NonActionGuy "[[NonActionGuy Any man]] is physically stronger than [[ActionGirl any woman]], ever, period.")
"
* Differences between the genders are an excuse for discrimination. ("Women "Women are not as physically strong as men, and thus no women should ever be allowed to have jobs that require lifting heavy objects.") (Or, " Or, even worse, "Women are not as physically strong as men, and thus no woman should ever be allowed to have jobs.")
"
* Failure to adhere to expectations about one's gender is an excuse for ridicule. ("Any "Any man weaker than a woman is a loser; any woman stronger than a man is a freak.")
"



There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, with CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of MaleGaze.) In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

to:

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, with CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of MaleGaze.) In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.



There are certainly a few women who seriously blame men for everything. They are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and to mainstream modern feminists as ''wrong''.

to:

There are certainly a few women who seriously blame men for everything. They are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and to most mainstream modern feminists as ''wrong''.



One particular problem area is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. These rules are typically placed due to hard experience. When feminism became a thing in the 70s, a pro-feminist counterpart movement sprung up called the "Men's liberation movement," which made the (again, not controversial) claim that sexism also hurts men in plenty of ways (cited examples include the [[DoubleStandard double standards]] in Divorce Laws, treatment of Domestic Violence and [[MenAreTheExpendableGender women's privileges such as their exemption from the Draft]];
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement see here for more information]]). This movement eventually became a mostly academic discourse and/or was partially absorbed by feminism itself, since their goals do not conflict. Later, a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", went a step further and campaigned actively against feminists, believing that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men. Some put forward contentious but not entirely wrong ideas, such as asserting either that men and women are harmed equally by sexism in different ways, things have gone the other way and now feminists are covertly oppressing men ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement not completely true, but not completely wrong either]]) and that society promotes female privileges at the expense of men. The problems began when some Men's Right's supporters began to smear all feminists by association with those feminists who are misandrists and gave the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary reactionary]] view that society should undo some of feminism's achievements (''yes'' controversial; [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment please do not discuss it here]]). For obvious reasons, "Men's Rights Activists" tend to find plenty to disagree with on feminism-centered websites, which has resulted in {{Flame War}}s, {{troll}}ing and worse. This is partially why feminists tend to be cautious about how much of that viewpoint they allow into their discussions.

For terminology reasons, some people ascribe the term "masculist" to people who ascribe to the ideals of the Men's Liberation Movement (IE men who focus on male issues but are not hostile to feminists) and "masculinist" for [=MRAs=] (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations, society and/or their self-esteem).

Even when masculist or feminist men are involved in the discussion, there is also an ideological point to be made. Though it is not controversial to point out that sexism hurts men, it changes the tone of a discussion when a man makes that point. It is all-too-easy to infer that he doesn't really care about women's problems unless he is personally affected by them... which, in addition to being a [[ItsAllAboutMe pretty lousy attitude]], would go squarely against the whole ''point'' of feminism.

to:

One particular problem area is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. These rules are typically placed due to hard experience. When feminism became a thing in the 70s, a pro-feminist counterpart movement sprung up called the "Men's liberation movement," which made the (again, not controversial) claim that sexism also hurts men in plenty of ways (cited examples include the [[DoubleStandard double standards]] in Divorce Laws, treatment of Domestic Violence and [[MenAreTheExpendableGender women's privileges such as their exemption from the Draft]];
Draft]]; [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement see here for more information]]). This movement eventually became a mostly academic discourse and/or was partially absorbed by feminism itself, since their goals do not conflict. Later, a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", went a step further and campaigned actively against feminists, believing that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men. Some put forward contentious but not entirely wrong ideas, such as asserting either that men and women are harmed equally by sexism in different ways, things have gone the other way and now feminists are covertly oppressing men ([[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement not completely true, but not completely wrong either]]) and that society promotes female privileges at the expense of men. The problems began when some Men's Right's supporters began to smear all feminists by association with those feminists who are misandrists and gave the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary reactionary]] view that society should undo some of feminism's achievements (''yes'' controversial; [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment please do not discuss it here]]). For obvious reasons, "Men's Rights Activists" tend to find plenty to disagree with on feminism-centered websites, which has resulted in {{Flame War}}s, {{troll}}ing and worse. This is partially why feminists tend to be cautious about how much of that viewpoint they allow into their discussions.

For terminology reasons, some people feminists ascribe the term "masculist" to people who ascribe to the ideals of the Men's Liberation Movement (IE (i.e. men who focus on male issues but are not hostile to feminists) and "masculinist" for [=MRAs=] (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations, society and/or their self-esteem).

Even when masculist or feminist men are involved in the discussion, there is also an ideological point to be made. Though it is not controversial to point out that sexism hurts men, it changes the tone of a discussion when a man makes that point. It is all-too-easy to infer that he doesn't really care about women's problems unless he is personally affected by them... which, in addition to being a [[ItsAllAboutMe pretty lousy attitude]], would go squarely against the is whole ''point'' of feminism.
why feminism began. [=MRAs=] may argue that the reverse is true for some feminists, who deem themselves the best at addressing issues of sexism that affects both genders.






There's no such thing as "modern" feminism in the sense of a unified movement with the same aims and ideas in the present day. As noted above, while the different waves of feminism are divided by time periods, feminism as a theory is more accurately divided by its different political tendencies. What critics tend to think of as 'modern' feminism is actually just one of those contemporary tendencies and not necessarily its most numerous. In fact, many feminists from other schools of thought have criticized radical and liberal feminism for the exact same reasons.

to:

There's no such thing as "modern" feminism in the sense of a unified movement with the same aims and ideas in the present day.day, and the same was true in other eras. As noted above, while the different waves of feminism are divided by time periods, feminism as a theory is more accurately divided by its different political tendencies. What critics tend to think of as 'modern' feminism is actually just one of those contemporary tendencies and not necessarily its most numerous. In fact, many feminists from other schools of thought have criticized radical and liberal feminism for the exact same reasons.



When feminists talk of patriarchy they do not mean that all men have more power than all women as a whole, but that men tend to have more ''institutional'' power; i.e.: that decision-making ability with regard to the running of societies is chiefly held by men and that this ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even Wiki/TheOtherWiki has heard of, feminism contends that men have more "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) privilege]].") Power as defined as 'control over one's own life' is something feminists refer to as "power-to." But there is another kind of power, which is control over the lives of ''others'', referred to as "power-over." Feminists mean "power-over," not "power-to," when discussing patriarchy.

to:

When feminists talk of patriarchy they do not mean that all men have more power than all women as a whole, but that men tend to have more ''institutional'' power; i.e.: that decision-making ability with regard to the running of societies is chiefly held by men and that this ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To To use a buzzword that even Wiki/TheOtherWiki has heard of, feminism contends that men have more "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) privilege]].") " Power as defined as 'control over one's own life' is something feminists refer to as "power-to." But there is another kind of power, which is control over the lives of ''others'', referred to as "power-over." Feminists mean "power-over," not "power-to," when discussing patriarchy.



One problem with this is that, to many feminists, it is not just about equality. Many, like Germaine Greer, are also concerned with women’s liberation from the concept of fixed gender roles, not simply economic/social equality with men. The term equalism, if adopted, would leave out a crucial theoretical aspect for many feminists. As a case in point, second-wave feminism was originally called the women's ''liberation'' movement, not the women's equality movement. The reason that the word equality tends to be used more often is that equality of the genders is seen as an essential feature of the wider goal of gender liberation. Many feminists will also argue that the term "equalism" or "egalitarianism" trivializes individual forms of discrimination by covering all forms of discrimination (sexism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, religious bigotry etc.) under one umbrella. This means that specific attention won't be given to individual issues.

to:

One problem with this is that, to many feminists, it is not just about equality. Many, like Germaine Greer, are also concerned with women’s liberation from the concept of fixed gender roles, not simply economic/social equality with men. The term equalism, egalitarianism, if adopted, would leave out a crucial theoretical aspect for many feminists. As a case in point, second-wave feminism was originally called the women's ''liberation'' movement, not the women's equality movement. The reason that the word equality tends to be used more often is that equality of the genders is seen as an essential feature of the wider goal of gender liberation. Many feminists will also argue that the term "equalism" or "egalitarianism" or "equalism" trivializes individual forms of discrimination by covering all forms of discrimination (sexism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, religious bigotry etc.) under one umbrella. This means that specific attention won't be given to individual issues.
issues, even if those issues intersect of some from a single framework.



A core goal of feminism's is to push the Venn Diagram of "male tropes" and "female tropes" together until there is ''nothing'' in the AlwaysMale ''and'' the AlwaysFemale page. It has already made a lot of strides in that direction, particularly by adding things that are AlwaysMale to AlwaysFemale. But if you're the kind of person who insists that people and cultures ''must be'' AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale -- in other words, someone who agrees with the past/current system; in other words, someone who supports patriarchy -- then, yes, it ''looks like'' the "Always Male" category is shrinking and "being a man" is becoming villainized. If this concerns you, please remember that your original assumption -- "tropes must be AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale" -- bears re-evaluating. Feminism, as a whole, is not trying to destroy maleness, but rather ''redefine'' maleness, in a way that makes everyone, ''even you'', more comfortable in it.

to:

A core goal of feminism's is to push the Venn Diagram of "male tropes" and "female tropes" together until there is ''nothing'' in the AlwaysMale ''and'' the AlwaysFemale page. It has already made a lot of strides in that direction, particularly by adding things that are AlwaysMale to AlwaysFemale. But if you're the kind of person who insists that people and cultures ''must be'' AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale -- in other words, someone who agrees with the past/current system; in other words, someone who supports patriarchy -- then, yes, it ''looks like'' the "Always Male" category is shrinking and "being a man" is becoming villainized. If this concerns you, please remember that your original assumption -- "tropes must be AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale" -- bears re-evaluating. Feminism, as a whole, is not trying to destroy maleness, but rather ''redefine'' maleness, in a way that makes everyone, ''even you'', more comfortable in it.
it. Even so, this will mean that both maleness and femininity will be obsolete concepts.



* '''Objectification:''' Reducing people from "personhood" (a ''sub''ject) to "thinghood" (an ''ob''ject). Ignoring or taking away everything about a person that makes them a person, and seeing/portraying them as just an object. In feminism, this often involves discussions of sexual objectification, where women are denied agency and intention in order to make them into objects for the sexual desires of heterosexual men; which is not the same thing a simply portraying women as sexy, as it's possible to do this without denying them agency. Additionally, feminists contend that patriarchy is a ''lot'' more pervasive and subversive than folks generally give it credit for. This adds another layer to feminism: the fact that it's insulting ''to men'' for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of the StandardFiftiesFather or at least some form of TheStoic because MenDontCry. Patriarchy is harmful to men ''and'' women both. The extent to which a feminist is obliged to fight against Double Standards that hurt ''men'' is... well, it's still somewhat controversial, with some claiming that they might as well fight the good fight and others believing that women are still oppressed a lot more than men, and therefore that should be the priority. What's ''not'' controversial is ''acknowledging'' that patriarchy can and does hurt men; this is basically accepted canon within most branches of feminism.

to:

* '''Objectification:''' Reducing people from "personhood" (a ''sub''ject) to "thinghood" (an ''ob''ject). Ignoring or taking away everything about a person that makes them a person, and seeing/portraying them as just an object. In feminism, this often involves discussions of sexual objectification, where women are denied agency and intention in order to make them into objects for the sexual desires of heterosexual men; which is not the same thing a simply portraying women as sexy, as it's possible to do this without denying them agency. Additionally, feminists contend that patriarchy is a ''lot'' more pervasive and subversive than folks generally give it credit for. This adds another layer to feminism: the fact that it's insulting ''to men'' for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of the StandardFiftiesFather or at least some form of TheStoic because MenDontCry. Patriarchy is harmful to men ''and'' women both. The extent to which a feminist is obliged to fight against Double Standards that hurt ''men'' is... well, it's still somewhat controversial, with some claiming that they might as well fight the good fight and others believing that women are still oppressed a lot more than men, and therefore that should be the priority. What's ''not'' controversial is ''acknowledging'' that patriarchy can and does hurt men; this is basically accepted canon within most branches of feminism.
16th Nov '17 4:54:21 PM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But not all do. Women who seriously blame men for everything are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and to mainstream modern feminists as ''wrong''. Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women.

to:

There's a logic to this sentiment. Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, MenAreBetterThanWomen and that women should be oppressed, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But However, the fact is that the logic is flawed. The opposite of patriarchy is not all do. Women a LadyLand where men are oppressed. The opposite of ''both'' is a land of equality where ''nobody'' is oppressed, and it is this perfect balance which most feminists strive for.

There are certainly a few women
who seriously blame men for everything everything. They are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and to mainstream modern feminists as ''wrong''. Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women.
''wrong''.



Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women.



There are places and times in which feminists ''can'' come across as a sort of StopHavingFunGuy: you're going about your day, making a joke about some AcceptableTargets, and suddenly a feminist says, "Hey, that's not actually funny." Also, feminists can come across as angry at everything in general, constantly railing about the things that are wrong with it and acting as though we live in a CrapsackWorld. While some fit the bill of a WindmillCrusader, and some champion causes that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement may or may not]] have arisen due to [[ArtisticLicenseStatistics misreading information]] (such as the wage gap) there are several good points feminism has raised.

to:

There are places and times in which feminists ''can'' come across as a sort of StopHavingFunGuy: you're going about your day, making a joke about some AcceptableTargets, and suddenly a feminist says, "Hey, that's not actually funny." To a truly intersectional feminist, there ''are'' no AcceptableTargets, which says positive things about their "LoveYouAndEverybody" mentality but sure makes it hard to crack jokes.

Also, feminists can come across as angry at everything in general, constantly railing about the things that are wrong with it and acting as though we live in a CrapsackWorld. While some fit the bill of a WindmillCrusader, and some champion causes that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement may or may not]] have arisen due to [[ArtisticLicenseStatistics misreading information]] (such as the wage gap) there are several good points feminism has raised.
raised.



When feminists talk of patriarchy they do not mean that all men have more power than all women as a whole, but that men tend to have more ''institutional'' power; i.e.: that decision-making ability with regard to the running of societies is chiefly held by men and that this ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even Wiki/TheOtherWiki has heard of, feminism contends that men have more "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) privilege]].") Defining power as 'control over one's own life' is something feminists refer to as "power-to." But there is another kind of power, which is control over the lives of ''others'', referred to as "power-over." Feminists mean "power-over," not "power-to," when discussing patriarchy.

to:

When feminists talk of patriarchy they do not mean that all men have more power than all women as a whole, but that men tend to have more ''institutional'' power; i.e.: that decision-making ability with regard to the running of societies is chiefly held by men and that this ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even Wiki/TheOtherWiki has heard of, feminism contends that men have more "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) privilege]].") Defining power Power as defined as 'control over one's own life' is something feminists refer to as "power-to." But there is another kind of power, which is control over the lives of ''others'', referred to as "power-over." Feminists mean "power-over," not "power-to," when discussing patriarchy.



Again, already taken. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism Humanism]] had its origins in the Enlightenment era, emphasizes empiricism and human agency (freedom of action), and has never had anything specifically to do with gender issues, which is what feminism has always been concerned with (although most humanists today do support feminism).

to:

Again, already Already taken. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism Humanism]] had its origins in the Enlightenment era, emphasizes empiricism and human agency (freedom of action), and has never had anything specifically to do with gender issues, which is what feminism has always been concerned with (although most humanists today do support feminism).
28th Oct '17 8:56:17 PM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But not all do. Women who seriously blame men for everything are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and [[NoTrueScotsman to mainstream modern feminists, if there is such a thing, as "wrong".]] Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women.

to:

Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But not all do. Women who seriously blame men for everything are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and [[NoTrueScotsman to mainstream modern feminists, if there is such a thing, feminists as "wrong".]] ''wrong''. Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women.
9th Oct '17 3:18:27 PM Robotnik
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It should also be pointed out that gender relations are a closed circle. Consider the quote typically ascribed (though currently without trustworthy citation) to the author Creator/MargaretAtwood: "[[http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/margaret-atwood-3.html Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.]]" This is not an exaggeration; [[https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/report/2014/06/18/91998/women-under-the-gun/ a third of murdered women are killed by an "intimate partner"]], and that's even before we factor in rape-and-murder crimes inflicted on strangers (IE Brock Turner above). What men do affects women, and since feminism is concerned with the fates of women, it is concerned at least by association with the fates of men.

to:

It should also be pointed out that gender relations are a closed circle. Consider the quote typically ascribed (though currently without trustworthy citation) to the author Creator/MargaretAtwood: "[[http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/margaret-atwood-3.html Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.]]" This is not an exaggeration; [[https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/report/2014/06/18/91998/women-under-the-gun/ a third of murdered women are killed by an "intimate partner"]], and that's even before we factor in rape-and-murder crimes inflicted on strangers (IE Brock Turner above).strangers. What men do affects women, and since feminism is concerned with the fates of women, it is concerned at least by association with the fates of men.
9th Oct '17 11:33:15 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Feminists have a problem with porn tropes that promote a degrading or hateful view of women (NotIfTheyEnjoyedItRationalization, SexSlave, the "Rape Is Love" trope that ran afoul of Administrivia/FiveP, etc), and with the ways the porn industry exploits a lot of the women who work for it. Some (again, this was a more popular position in the 1970's than it is today) do think porn ''inherently'' objectifies women and is therefore always misogynistic[[note]]Yes, there is a PlotHole concerning gay-male pornography[[/note]]. Other feminists, though, think what the world actually needs is ''better'' porn -- porn that presents sex as something where both partners' desires are [[SexEqualsLove equally important]]; Gloria Steinem uses the terms "pornography" and "erotica" to differentiate between the two.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, with CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of MaleGaze. (Whether this actually holds up in practice varies from feminist to feminist.) In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

to:

Feminists have a problem with porn tropes that promote a degrading or hateful view of women (NotIfTheyEnjoyedItRationalization, SexSlave, the "Rape Is Love" trope that ran afoul of Administrivia/FiveP, etc), and with the ways the porn industry exploits a lot of the women who work for it. Some (again, this was a more popular position in the 1970's than it is today) do think porn ''inherently'' objectifies women and is therefore always misogynistic[[note]]Yes, there is a PlotHole concerning gay-male pornography[[/note]].misogynistic. Other feminists, though, think what the world actually needs is ''better'' porn -- porn that presents sex as something where both partners' desires are [[SexEqualsLove equally important]]; Gloria Steinem uses the terms "pornography" and "erotica" to differentiate between the two.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, with CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of MaleGaze. (Whether this actually holds up in practice varies from feminist to feminist.) In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.



Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But not all do. Women who seriously blame men for everything are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and [[NoTrueScotsman to mainstream modern feminists, if there is such a thing, as "wrong".]] Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women over [[MenAreTheExpendableGender issues facing men]].

to:

Since feminism sets itself up as the opposite of patriarchy, and since patriarchy holds as ''its'' central tenet the idea that MenAreBetterThanWomen, it is easy to assume, through transitive relation, that ''all'' feminism ''must'' espouse the gender-flipped opposite. But not all do. Women who seriously blame men for everything are known to academics as "misandrists", to readers of this wiki as {{Straw Feminist}}s, and [[NoTrueScotsman to mainstream modern feminists, if there is such a thing, as "wrong".]] Admittedly, while not all feminists hate men, they will certainly give priority to issues facing women over [[MenAreTheExpendableGender issues facing men]].
women.



* '''Objectification:''' Reducing people from "personhood" (a ''sub''ject) to "thinghood" (an ''ob''ject). Ignoring or taking away everything about a person that makes them a person, and seeing/portraying them as just an object. In feminism, this often involves discussions of sexual objectification, where women are denied agency and intention in order to make them into objects for the sexual desires of heterosexual men; which is not the same thing a simply portraying women as sexy, as it's possible to do this without denying them agency. This does carry the problem of discriminating against men, as it has the PlotHole of overlooking objectification of women that caters to lesbians and bisexual women.

to:

* '''Objectification:''' Reducing people from "personhood" (a ''sub''ject) to "thinghood" (an ''ob''ject). Ignoring or taking away everything about a person that makes them a person, and seeing/portraying them as just an object. In feminism, this often involves discussions of sexual objectification, where women are denied agency and intention in order to make them into objects for the sexual desires of heterosexual men; which is not the same thing a simply portraying women as sexy, as it's possible to do this without denying them agency. Additionally, feminists contend that patriarchy is a ''lot'' more pervasive and subversive than folks generally give it credit for. This does carry adds another layer to feminism: the problem fact that it's insulting ''to men'' for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of discriminating the StandardFiftiesFather or at least some form of TheStoic because MenDontCry. Patriarchy is harmful to men ''and'' women both. The extent to which a feminist is obliged to fight against men, Double Standards that hurt ''men'' is... well, it's still somewhat controversial, with some claiming that they might as it has well fight the PlotHole of overlooking objectification of good fight and others believing that women are still oppressed a lot more than men, and therefore that caters to lesbians should be the priority. What's ''not'' controversial is ''acknowledging'' that patriarchy can and bisexual women.does hurt men; this is basically accepted canon within most branches of feminism.
9th Oct '17 11:25:35 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Additionally, feminists contend that patriarchy is a ''lot'' more pervasive and subversive than folks generally give it credit for. This adds another layer to feminism: the fact that it's insulting ''to men'' for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of the StandardFiftiesFather or at least some form of TheStoic because MenDontCry. Patriarchy is harmful to men ''and'' women both.

The idea that this in turn creates [[DoubleStandard double standards]] that discriminate against and undermine men is controversial, especially since [[HumansAreFlawed women aren't perfect either]]. How feminists fight double standards orginating from the idea of the Patriarchy varies, even from feminist to feminist at times. What's ''not'' controversial is ''acknowledging'' that patriarchy can and does hurt men; this is basically accepted canon within most branches of feminism. Some view women as more oppressed as men, others think that women aren't that much more oppressed but still oppressed a lot, a few even think it's swung the other way with [[PositiveDiscrimination women being held to unreasonable standards]] and that men are now the more oppressed gender (as can be seen in the controversial idea of the Men's Rights Movement).


to:

Additionally, feminists contend that patriarchy is a ''lot'' more pervasive and subversive than folks generally give it credit for. This adds another layer to feminism: the fact that it's insulting ''to men'' for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of the StandardFiftiesFather or at least some form of TheStoic because MenDontCry. Patriarchy is harmful to men ''and'' women both. \n\n The idea that this in turn creates [[DoubleStandard double standards]] that discriminate extent to which a feminist is obliged to fight against and undermine men is Double Standards that hurt ''men'' is... well, it's still somewhat controversial, especially since [[HumansAreFlawed with some claiming that they might as well fight the good fight and others believing that women aren't perfect either]]. How feminists fight double standards orginating from are still oppressed a lot more than men, and therefore that should be the idea of the Patriarchy varies, even from feminist to feminist at times. priority. What's ''not'' controversial is ''acknowledging'' that patriarchy can and does hurt men; this is basically accepted canon within most branches of feminism. Some view women as more oppressed as men, others think that women aren't that much more oppressed but still oppressed a lot, a few even think it's swung the other way with [[PositiveDiscrimination women being held to unreasonable standards]] and that men are now the more oppressed gender (as can be seen in the controversial idea of the Men's Rights Movement).

feminism.

9th Oct '17 11:23:28 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Today--partially thanks to feminism--the "MenAreBetterThanWomen" trope is generally taken with a grain of salt when used, unless actively {{inverted}}. However this has sometimes gone the other way into a DoubleStandard against men, the StandardFiftiesFather has become a DeadHorseTrope [[TheUnfairSex in favor of]] the BumblingDad (often partnered with a [[WomenAreWiser caring, competent, intelligent mother]]), the idea of hunting as a foundation of one's economic power is long gone in most places and the idea that AllMenArePerverts is PlayedForLaughs. But to the extent that the notion survives, it can come with some UnfortunateImplications. After all, if men are better than women, then women are ''worse'' than men... and it's ''acceptable'' to tell them to StayInTheKitchen, engage in MandatoryMotherhood, or to be the StandardHeroReward. Indeed, in some cultures it's not just acceptable to say these things, it's considered ''virtuous''! Feminists contend, therefore, that patriarchy is the root of a ''lot'' of women's problems... and their primary cause to fight against patriarchy.
This list shows the last 10 events of 238. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Feminism