History UsefulNotes / Feminism

22nd Aug '16 3:36:51 PM KeithM
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Some female feminists claim that, just as it's possible for straight people to be in favor of same-sex marriage, or for non-Jews to be against anti-Semitism, it is very much possible for men to identify as feminist. Some well-known men who identify as feminists or have expressed feminist ideals include [[Series/{{Mash}} Alan]] [[Series/TheWestWing Alda]], Creator/JossWhedon, [[Music/{{Nirvana}} Kurt Cobain]], Creator/HayaoMiyazaki, Creator/HenrikIbsen, JohnStuartMill, [[WebVideo/AtopTheFourthWall Linkara]] and [[Website/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses most of his male colleagues]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass Frederick Douglass]], and Creator/LFrankBaum. Even [[Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog Dr. Eggman]] has been described as a feminist in the ''VideoGame/SonicHeroes'' [[AllThereInTheManual instruction manual]].

to:

Some female feminists claim that, just as it's possible for straight people to be in favor of same-sex marriage, or for non-Jews to be against anti-Semitism, it is very much possible for men to identify as feminist. Some well-known men who identify as feminists or have expressed feminist ideals include [[Series/{{Mash}} Alan]] [[Series/TheWestWing Alda]], Creator/JossWhedon, [[Music/{{Nirvana}} Kurt Cobain]], Creator/HayaoMiyazaki, Creator/HenrikIbsen, JohnStuartMill, [[WebVideo/AtopTheFourthWall Linkara]] and [[Website/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses most of his male colleagues]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass Frederick Douglass]], Douglass]], Creator/LFrankBaum, [[http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/16/trudeau-feminist-united-nations-women-forum_n_9480134.html Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau]], and Creator/LFrankBaum.[[http://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like US President Barack Obama]]. Even [[Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog Dr. Eggman]] has been described as a feminist in the ''VideoGame/SonicHeroes'' [[AllThereInTheManual instruction manual]].
22nd Aug '16 2:47:52 PM KronosKid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to argue that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and hold 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. Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations and/or society).

to:

One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to argue that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and hold 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.

Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations and/or society).



* '''Agency:''' The ability to act for oneself. If someone is trying to control you, or speaking for you, or not letting you make your own decisions, they're denying you agency.
* '''Gender Binary:''' The dichotomy that splits everything (even things that have no basis in sex or gender) into "male" and "female", as opposed existing on a continuum with many people grouped ''toward'' the ends.

to:

* '''Agency:''' The ability to act for oneself. If someone is trying to control you, or speaking for you, or not letting you make your own decisions, they're denying you agency.
agency. Closely related to the concept of autonomy (self-directedness).
* '''Gender Binary:''' The dichotomy that splits everything (even things that have no basis in sex or gender) into "male" and "female", masculine and feminine, as opposed existing on a continuum with many people grouped ''toward'' the ends.ends. One of the biggest problems feminist see with the gender binary is that it almost always tends to make genders into a hierarchy, where masculinity is given higher status.



* '''Objectification:''' 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.
* '''Privilege:''' All the things about you that might make your life a little easier than the lives of other people in your (usually majority) group. When somebody tells you to "check your privilege", they're reminding you to recognize where you're coming from. For example, if you're straight and white, your experience differs from that of queer women of color.

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.
men; which is not the same thing a simply portraying women as sexy, as it's possible to do this without denying them agency.
* '''Power:''' Roughly, "decision-making ability". That is, the ability one has to shape their own circumstances. Feminists divide power into "power-to" (control over one's own life) and power-over (control over other's lives). They consider power-to an essential part of women's empowerment – it's in the word after all – and consider the power-over men wield in relation to women one of the main obstacles to women's liberation and equality. The feminist project in general could be seen as a quest to maximise power-to and minimise power-over, so that women, and people in general, can control their own lives without controlling others.
* '''Privilege:''' The advantages (relative to disadvantages) one has when navigating through life. All the things about you that might make your life a little easier than the lives of other people in your (usually majority) social group. When somebody tells you to "check your privilege", they're reminding you to recognize where you're coming from. For example, if you're straight and white, your experience differs from that of queer women of color. It's important to keep in mind that privilege is context-sensitive, and that just because you enjoy certain advantages in one context, that doesn't mean you're not disadvantaged in others.
19th Jul '16 10:35:34 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Yes... but at the same time, no. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's something you have, but ''shouldn't'' for a number of reasons. Thus, the process of losing one's privilege won't include things you ''do'' deserve to have, like rights and freedom. Related to that, "Patriarchy", what Feminism wants to dismantle, is defined as the entire system of privileges that no one deserves. The thing is, though, this includes the ''entire'' MarsAndVenusGenderContrast; under said contrast, all facets of life are either AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale, and if it's ambiguous, it's scary and needs to be controlled or destroyed. But what if we did away with the categorization entirely? Because that's what feminism is going for. No facet of life will be off-limits to anyone. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff, and no gender will resent the other. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever those talents are, to best effect.

to:

Yes... but at the same time, no. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's something an opportunity you have, but ''shouldn't'' for a number of reasons. Thus, the process of losing one's privilege won't include things you ''do'' deserve to have, like rights and freedom. To think of it in trope form, if a man and a woman are both up for an inheritance, and both are equally qualified for it, they both have a 50-50 chance to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 100% opportunity while she has '''zero'''. Giving the woman equal opportunity will mean taking 50% of the man's away, but since it was sexist in the first place, that was double the opportunity he deserved.

Related to that, "Patriarchy", what Feminism wants to dismantle, is defined as the entire system of privileges that no one deserves. The thing is, though, this includes the ''entire'' MarsAndVenusGenderContrast; under said contrast, all facets of life are either AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale, and if it's ambiguous, it's scary and needs to be controlled or destroyed. But what if we did away with the categorization entirely? Because that's what feminism is going for. No facet of life will be off-limits to anyone. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff, and no gender will resent the other. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever those talents are, to best effect.
19th Jul '16 10:25:32 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Yes... but at the same time, no. First off, the thing that people need to recognize about privilege (especially those that have it) is that ''they don't deserve it'', and never have. Thus, the process of losing one's privilege has to be something you have to accept on grounds of TheNeedsOfTheMany, even though you might feel (understandably) nervous about it. Second, feminism ''isn't'' about dismantling male privilege; it's about dismantling ''patriarchy'', the thing that "male privilege" is a side effect of. Patriarchy holds very strongly to the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast; under it, all tropes are AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale, and there is basically ''nothing'' that fits on both (excepting trivial things like PeopleSitOnChairs). This mindset is a big part of why men are scared of losing male privilege: the list of AlwaysMale tropes is already dwindling, as feminism continually steals tropes from it and sticks them in the "AlwaysFemale" category. But what if we did away with the categorization entirely? What if we created a world where all tropes are both AlwaysFemale ''and'' AlwaysMale? Because that's what feminism is going for. The categories won't exist anymore. They won't need to. Their contents will be identical. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or StayInTheKitchen or any of that. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever those talents are, to best effect.

to:

Yes... but at the same time, no. First off, the thing that people need to recognize about one way of looking at privilege (especially those that have it) is that ''they don't deserve it'', and never have. it's something you have, but ''shouldn't'' for a number of reasons. Thus, the process of losing one's privilege has to be something won't include things you have ''do'' deserve to accept on grounds of TheNeedsOfTheMany, even though you might feel (understandably) nervous about it. Second, feminism ''isn't'' about dismantling male privilege; it's about dismantling ''patriarchy'', have, like rights and freedom. Related to that, "Patriarchy", what Feminism wants to dismantle, is defined as the entire system of privileges that no one deserves. The thing that "male privilege" is a side effect of. Patriarchy holds very strongly to is, though, this includes the ''entire'' MarsAndVenusGenderContrast; under it, said contrast, all tropes facets of life are either AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale, and there is basically ''nothing'' that fits on both (excepting trivial things like PeopleSitOnChairs). This mindset is a big part of why men are scared of losing male privilege: the list of AlwaysMale tropes is already dwindling, as feminism continually steals tropes from it if it's ambiguous, it's scary and sticks them in the "AlwaysFemale" category. needs to be controlled or destroyed. But what if we did away with the categorization entirely? What if we created a world where all tropes are both AlwaysFemale ''and'' AlwaysMale? entirely? Because that's what feminism is going for. The categories won't exist anymore. They won't need to. Their contents for. No facet of life will be identical. off-limits to anyone. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or StayInTheKitchen or any of that.stuff, and no gender will resent the other. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever those talents are, to best effect.
effect.

But to get there, yes--the opportunities some people have (that, again, aren't ''deserved''), will have to be taken away.
18th Jul '16 9:14:55 PM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Yes... but at the same time, no. The idea is that as a side effect of dismantling MarsAndVenusGenderContrast, MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial, MotherNatureFatherScience, etc, male privilege will be greatly reduced. In its place-- in theory, at least-- will emerge a landscape where the list of "Things Women Are Allowed To Do" includes everything, and so does the list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do. They'll be identical lists. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or any of that. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever they are, to best effect.

to:

Yes... but at the same time, no. The idea First off, the thing that people need to recognize about privilege (especially those that have it) is that as ''they don't deserve it'', and never have. Thus, the process of losing one's privilege has to be something you have to accept on grounds of TheNeedsOfTheMany, even though you might feel (understandably) nervous about it. Second, feminism ''isn't'' about dismantling male privilege; it's about dismantling ''patriarchy'', the thing that "male privilege" is a side effect of. Patriarchy holds very strongly to the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast; under it, all tropes are AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale, and there is basically ''nothing'' that fits on both (excepting trivial things like PeopleSitOnChairs). This mindset is a big part of dismantling MarsAndVenusGenderContrast, MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial, MotherNatureFatherScience, etc, why men are scared of losing male privilege will be greatly reduced. In its place-- in theory, at least-- will emerge a landscape where privilege: the list of "Things Women Are Allowed To Do" includes everything, AlwaysMale tropes is already dwindling, as feminism continually steals tropes from it and so does sticks them in the list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do. They'll "AlwaysFemale" category. But what if we did away with the categorization entirely? What if we created a world where all tropes are both AlwaysFemale ''and'' AlwaysMale? Because that's what feminism is going for. The categories won't exist anymore. They won't need to. Their contents will be identical lists. identical. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or StayInTheKitchen or any of that. Instead of ''privilege'', both men and women will have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where everyone can use their talents, whatever they those talents are, to best effect.
10th Jul '16 3:26:06 PM HighCrate
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Finally, the idea that most men have lives as difficult as most women can be argued. Men who are confronted with their privilege tend to point out that they are oppressed too; men and women both face challenges ''in general'', and therefore the challenges must be equal. This is, sadly, a gross oversimplification at best. It's true that both men and women might have trouble getting jobs in today's post-recession workforce... but even if both a woman and a man are hired, it's a known fact that [[http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/equal-pay-day-2015/ women make less than men do, even when they're working the same job]].



!!! If feminism is about dismantling male privilege, doesn't that mean men will have less opportunities than before?

[[BluntYes Yes]]. So?

To people who are privileged, the removal of their privilege feels like oppression. What those people need to keep in mind is that ''they never deserved their privilege in the first place''. There are a lot of ways and places in which men get special treatment ''because'' they are men, and most of the time that special treatment is pretty much bullshit. The same is true for women getting that special treatment in the ways and places ''they'' do it. When the American Congress proposed a law that would subject women to military draft, many feminists approved in practice, and more in theory, because it strikes a blow against the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard. Most who approved only in theory had a separate concern: that the American military has a major trouble curbing, or even acknowledging, the sexual abuse that already runs in its ranks. If "ImAManICantHelpIt" is an acceptable defense with the relatively small number of women already serving in uniform, what might happen if there are more? A few women ''did'' embrace the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard, pointing out that women are still oppressed in a lot of ways and that they might as well take advantage of the few that are still in their favor... because, when you're privileged, the removal of that privilege feels like oppression. (Those women were in the minority opinion anyhow.)

Besides, the term "privilege" carries a certain incorrect connotation. When men hear that they have privilege, they cling to it, because they believe that if those privileges are taken away, they will have ''nothing''. Because of the way patriarchy works, this is not an incorrect conclusion. One of the assumptions inside patriarchy is the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast: if an activity or trait is ascribed to men, it ''cannot'' be ascribed by women, and vice versa. The list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do and Things Women Are Allowed To Do are mutually exclusive, with no overlap. But, because of feminism, the list of Things Women Are Allowed To Do is constantly growing... and, concurrently, the list for men is shrinking. These days it feels like the only things a ManlyMan can be interested in are belching and American football. If feminism keeps eroding male privilege, won't men become obsolete and useless?

Yes... but at the same time, no. The assumption that "feminism is about dismantling male privilege" is false. Feminism is about dismantling ''patriarchy''. It's about dismantling the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast, MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial, MotherNatureFatherScience, etc. As a side effect, male privilege will disappear. In its place--in theory, at least--will emerge a landscape where the list of "Things Women Are Allowed To Do" includes... everything, and so does the list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do. They'll be identical lists. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or any of that. Instead of privilege, men will have... opportunity, a meritocracy where they can use their talents, whatever they are, to best effect.

(And yes, there are men who would rather have privilege than opportunity, because they're lazy. But guess what: that's true of women too; MRSDegree anyone? So let's not go there.)

Feminism is about giving men ''more'' opportunities than before--as a side effect, sure, of giving ''women'' more opportunities than before, but nonetheless. And the way it plans to do that is by destroying the system that says men should get special treatment, because it is ''that'' system which creates, defines and limits privilege.

to:

!!! If feminism is about dismantling male privilege, doesn't that mean men will have less opportunities opportunity than before?

[[BluntYes Yes]]. So?

To people who are privileged, the removal of their privilege feels like oppression. What those people need to keep in mind is that ''they never deserved their privilege in the first place''. There are a lot of ways and places in which men get special treatment ''because'' they are men, and most of the time that special treatment is pretty much bullshit. The same is true for women getting that special treatment in the ways and places ''they'' do it. When the American Congress proposed a law that would subject women to military draft, many feminists approved in practice, and more in theory, because it strikes a blow against the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard. Most who approved only in theory had a separate concern: that the American military has a major trouble curbing, or even acknowledging, the sexual abuse that already runs in its ranks. If "ImAManICantHelpIt" is an acceptable defense with the relatively small number of women already serving in uniform, what might happen if there are more? A few women ''did'' embrace the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard, pointing out that women are still oppressed in a lot of ways and that they might as well take advantage of the few that are still in their favor... because, when you're privileged, the removal of that privilege feels like oppression. (Those women were in the minority opinion anyhow.)

Besides, the term "privilege" carries a certain incorrect connotation. When men hear that they have privilege, they cling to it, because they believe that if those privileges are taken away, they will have ''nothing''. Because of the way patriarchy works, this is not an incorrect conclusion. One of the assumptions inside patriarchy is the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast: if an activity or trait is ascribed to men, it ''cannot'' be ascribed by women, and vice versa. The list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do and Things Women Are Allowed To Do are mutually exclusive, with no overlap. But, because of feminism, the list of Things Women Are Allowed To Do is constantly growing... and, concurrently, the list for men is shrinking. These days it feels like the only things a ManlyMan can be interested in are belching and American football. If feminism keeps eroding male privilege, won't men become obsolete and useless?

Yes... but at the same time, no. The assumption idea is that "feminism is about dismantling male privilege" is false. Feminism is about dismantling ''patriarchy''. It's about dismantling the as a side effect of dismantling MarsAndVenusGenderContrast, MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial, MotherNatureFatherScience, etc. As a side effect, etc, male privilege will disappear. be greatly reduced. In its place--in place-- in theory, at least--will least-- will emerge a landscape where the list of "Things Women Are Allowed To Do" includes... includes everything, and so does the list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do. They'll be identical lists. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or any of that. Instead of privilege, ''privilege'', both men and women will have... opportunity, have ''opportunity''. The ideal is a meritocracy where they everyone can use their talents, whatever they are, to best effect.

(And yes, there are men who would rather have privilege than opportunity, because they're lazy. But guess what: that's true of women too; MRSDegree anyone? So let's not go there.)

Feminism is about giving men ''more'' opportunities than before--as a side effect, sure, of giving ''women'' more opportunities than before, but nonetheless. And the way it plans to do that is by destroying the system that says men should get special treatment, because it is ''that'' system which creates, defines and limits privilege.
effect.
10th Jul '16 11:44:16 AM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to argue that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and hold the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations and/or society).

to:

One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to argue that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and hold the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary]] 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. Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations and/or society).


Added DiffLines:

Finally, the idea that most men have lives as difficult as most women can be argued. Men who are confronted with their privilege tend to point out that they are oppressed too; men and women both face challenges ''in general'', and therefore the challenges must be equal. This is, sadly, a gross oversimplification at best. It's true that both men and women might have trouble getting jobs in today's post-recession workforce... but even if both a woman and a man are hired, it's a known fact that [[http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/equal-pay-day-2015/ women make less than men do, even when they're working the same job]].


Added DiffLines:

!!! If feminism is about dismantling male privilege, doesn't that mean men will have less opportunities than before?

[[BluntYes Yes]]. So?

To people who are privileged, the removal of their privilege feels like oppression. What those people need to keep in mind is that ''they never deserved their privilege in the first place''. There are a lot of ways and places in which men get special treatment ''because'' they are men, and most of the time that special treatment is pretty much bullshit. The same is true for women getting that special treatment in the ways and places ''they'' do it. When the American Congress proposed a law that would subject women to military draft, many feminists approved in practice, and more in theory, because it strikes a blow against the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard. Most who approved only in theory had a separate concern: that the American military has a major trouble curbing, or even acknowledging, the sexual abuse that already runs in its ranks. If "ImAManICantHelpIt" is an acceptable defense with the relatively small number of women already serving in uniform, what might happen if there are more? A few women ''did'' embrace the "MenAreTheExpendableGender" double standard, pointing out that women are still oppressed in a lot of ways and that they might as well take advantage of the few that are still in their favor... because, when you're privileged, the removal of that privilege feels like oppression. (Those women were in the minority opinion anyhow.)

Besides, the term "privilege" carries a certain incorrect connotation. When men hear that they have privilege, they cling to it, because they believe that if those privileges are taken away, they will have ''nothing''. Because of the way patriarchy works, this is not an incorrect conclusion. One of the assumptions inside patriarchy is the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast: if an activity or trait is ascribed to men, it ''cannot'' be ascribed by women, and vice versa. The list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do and Things Women Are Allowed To Do are mutually exclusive, with no overlap. But, because of feminism, the list of Things Women Are Allowed To Do is constantly growing... and, concurrently, the list for men is shrinking. These days it feels like the only things a ManlyMan can be interested in are belching and American football. If feminism keeps eroding male privilege, won't men become obsolete and useless?

Yes... but at the same time, no. The assumption that "feminism is about dismantling male privilege" is false. Feminism is about dismantling ''patriarchy''. It's about dismantling the MarsAndVenusGenderContrast, MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial, MotherNatureFatherScience, etc. As a side effect, male privilege will disappear. In its place--in theory, at least--will emerge a landscape where the list of "Things Women Are Allowed To Do" includes... everything, and so does the list of Things Men Are Allowed To Do. They'll be identical lists. No one will get in trouble for MasculineGirlFeminineBoy stuff or RealMenWearPink or any of that. Instead of privilege, men will have... opportunity, a meritocracy where they can use their talents, whatever they are, to best effect.

(And yes, there are men who would rather have privilege than opportunity, because they're lazy. But guess what: that's true of women too; MRSDegree anyone? So let's not go there.)

Feminism is about giving men ''more'' opportunities than before--as a side effect, sure, of giving ''women'' more opportunities than before, but nonetheless. And the way it plans to do that is by destroying the system that says men should get special treatment, because it is ''that'' system which creates, defines and limits privilege.
1st Jul '16 11:51:24 AM HighCrate
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism]] [[AManIsNotAVirgin does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]]. The controversy tends to actually lie in what exactly should be ''done'' about this. Will men's issues resulting from sexism will sort themselves out as the patriarchy fades? Or is a concerted pro-men effort called for? There are feminists who specifically focus on the ways men's oppression and women's oppression are linked; for instance, many argue that companies need to start granting paternity leave both so that fathers can have the chance to bond with their kids, ''and'' so that women aren't automatically assumed to be responsible for child care. On the other hand, there are also plenty of feminists who, focused on the fact that [[AppealToWorseProblems women are]] ''[[AppealToWorseProblems more]]'' [[AppealToWorseProblems harmed by sexism than men]], can be ambivalent, dismissive or even obstructionist toward efforts to address men's issues.

to:

It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism]] [[AManIsNotAVirgin does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]]. The controversy tends to actually lie in what exactly should be ''done'' about this. Will men's issues resulting from sexism will sort themselves out as the patriarchy fades? Or is a concerted pro-men effort called for? There are feminists who specifically focus on the ways men's oppression and women's oppression are linked; for instance, many argue that companies need to start granting paternity leave both so that fathers can have the chance to bond with their kids, ''and'' so that women aren't automatically assumed to be responsible for child care. On the other hand, there are also plenty of feminists who, focused on the fact believing that [[AppealToWorseProblems women are]] ''[[AppealToWorseProblems more]]'' [[AppealToWorseProblems harmed by sexism than men]], can be ambivalent, dismissive or even obstructionist toward efforts to address men's issues.



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 the views of its ''[[VocalMinority loudest]]'' contemporary tendencies, though not necessarily its most numerous, with the alleged misandry mainly coming from radical feminism and the alleged focus on superficial problems (only relevant to privileged women) coming from liberal feminism. In fact, many feminists from other schools of thought have criticized radical and liberal feminism for the exact same reasons.

Furthermore, there has been a trend among anti feminists to describe themselves as "second wave" feminists under the impression that older feminism was less hateful and more down to Earth, [[{{Irony}} despite the fact that hardcore anti male attitudes were dominant among second wavers rather than the intersectional third wavers]]. While one can still find anti male attitudes among third wavers, they're generally fringe and it doesn't help that people tend to make a habit out of browsing blogs with [[{{Troll}} questionable origins]] just to get offended.

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. 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 the views one of its ''[[VocalMinority loudest]]'' those contemporary tendencies, though tendencies and not necessarily its most numerous, with the alleged misandry mainly coming from radical feminism and the alleged focus on superficial problems (only relevant to privileged women) coming from liberal feminism.numerous. In fact, many feminists from other schools of thought have criticized radical and liberal feminism for the exact same reasons.

Furthermore, there has been a trend among anti feminists to describe themselves as "second wave" feminists under the impression that older feminism was less hateful and more down to Earth, [[{{Irony}} despite the fact that hardcore anti male attitudes were dominant among second wavers rather than the intersectional third wavers]]. While one can still find anti male attitudes among third wavers, they're generally fringe and it doesn't help that people tend to make a habit out of browsing blogs with [[{{Troll}} questionable origins]] just to get offended.
wavers]].



This is a somewhat understandable criticism given that the word ‘patriarchal’ is used colloquially to refer to male power, with the counter-claim generally arguing that if we take power to mean ‘control over one's own life,’ then men are just as deprived of power as women are. But the thing is we're not talking about that particular kind of power. What patriarchy really means is not that men have more power 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 ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even 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.” There is another kind of power which refers to the control some have over the lives of others, referred to as “power-over.” Feminists mean “power-over,” not “power-to,” when discussing patriarchy.

to:

This is a somewhat understandable criticism given that the word ‘patriarchal’ is used colloquially to refer to male power, with the counter-claim critics of feminism generally arguing that if we take power to mean ‘control over one's own life,’ then men are just as deprived of power as women are. But the thing The common counter-argument to ''that'' is we're not talking about that particular kind to draw distinctions between ''kinds'' of power. What power. When feminists talk of patriarchy really means is 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 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.” There is another kind of power which refers to the control some have over the lives of others, referred to as “power-over.” Feminists mean “power-over,” not “power-to,” when discussing patriarchy.



Actually, this is a valid concern, and it's part of why the Men's Liberation Movement sprung up in the 70s. But by and large, the answer is, "Yes, you can."

The key to understanding this conflict is the fact that feminists (typically) ''do not object'' to people who focus on male gender problems, as long as they view themselves as complementary to feminism rather than antagonistic to it. Indeed, many feminists also align themselves with masculism (although they may not don that label) and do actively discuss men's issues, both independently and in relation to women's issues. As the feminist writer Laurie Penny has said, "men and boys are discouraged from talking about their pain. Thinking in a new way about sex, gender and power - call it feminism or 'masculism' or whatever the hell you like as long as you do it - can help men to process that pain."

to:

Actually, this is a valid concern, and it's part of why the Men's Liberation Movement sprung up in the 70s. But by and large, the answer is, "Yes, you can."

70s.

The key to understanding this conflict is the fact that feminists (typically) ''do not object'' to people who focus on male gender problems, as long as they view themselves as complementary to feminism rather than antagonistic to it. Indeed, many some feminists also align themselves with masculism (although they may not don that label) and do actively discuss men's issues, both independently and in relation to women's issues. As the feminist writer Laurie Penny has said, "men and boys are discouraged from talking about their pain. Thinking in a new way about sex, gender and power - call it feminism or 'masculism' or whatever the hell you like as long as you do it - can help men to process that pain."
1st Jul '16 10:41:09 AM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!Okay, so classical feminism may have been about genuine equality, but modern feminism is full of misandrists who [[DoesNotLikeMen hate all men]] and privileged women who only care about [[FirstWorldProblems superficial problems]].

to:

!!Okay, !!!Okay, so classical feminism may have been about genuine equality, but modern feminism is full of misandrists who [[DoesNotLikeMen hate all men]] and privileged women who only care about [[FirstWorldProblems superficial problems]].



!!This thing feminists claim to oppose, “patriarchy,” doesn't exist. Surely most men have lives just as hard as most women.

to:

!!This !!!This thing feminists claim to oppose, “patriarchy,” doesn't exist. Surely most men have lives just as hard as most women.



!!Can I really trust that feminism, a movement which defines itself solely in relation to women, actually gives a (redacted) about men's problems?

to:

!!Can !!!Can I really trust that feminism, a movement which defines itself solely in relation to women, actually gives a (redacted) about men's problems?
1st Jul '16 10:40:18 AM slvstrChung
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism]] [[AManIsNotAVirgin does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]]. The controversy tends to actually lie in what exactly should be ''done'' about this; whether men's issues resulting from sexism will sort themselves out as the patriarchy fades, or whether a concerted pro-men effort is required. There are feminists who specifically focus on the ways men's oppression and women's oppression are linked; for instance, many argue that companies need to start granting paternity leave both so that fathers can have the chance to bond with their kids, ''and'' so that women aren't automatically assumed to be responsible for child care. On the other hand, there are also plenty of feminists who, on the assumption that [[AppealToWorseProblems women are]] ''[[AppealToWorseProblems more]]'' [[AppealToWorseProblems harmed by sexism than men]], can be ambivalent, obstructionist, or worse toward efforts to address men's issues.

One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, when feminism became a thing in the 70s, a pro-feminist counterpart movement sprung up called the "Men's liberation movement," which argued that sexism hurts men in plenty of ways. However, this movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group formed called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", arguing that feminism has gone too far and left women more privileged than men (''yes'' controversial; [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment please do not discuss it here]]). "Men's Rights Activists" tend to find plenty to disagree with in 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. Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations).

to:

It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism]] [[AManIsNotAVirgin does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]]. The controversy tends to actually lie in what exactly should be ''done'' about this; whether this. Will men's issues resulting from sexism will sort themselves out as the patriarchy fades, or whether fades? Or is a concerted pro-men effort is required. called for? There are feminists who specifically focus on the ways men's oppression and women's oppression are linked; for instance, many argue that companies need to start granting paternity leave both so that fathers can have the chance to bond with their kids, ''and'' so that women aren't automatically assumed to be responsible for child care. On the other hand, there are also plenty of feminists who, focused on the assumption fact that [[AppealToWorseProblems women are]] ''[[AppealToWorseProblems more]]'' [[AppealToWorseProblems harmed by sexism than men]], can be ambivalent, obstructionist, dismissive or worse even obstructionist toward efforts to address men's issues.

One area of particular controversy is when feminist blogs and websites have mocking rules against "what about teh menz?" discussions. See, when feminism became a thing in the 70s, a pro-feminist counterpart movement sprung up called the "Men's liberation movement," which argued made the (again, not controversial) claim that sexism hurts men in plenty of ways. However, this This movement eventually dissipated and became a mostly academic discourse, while a breakaway group formed group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", arguing began to argue that feminism has gone too far and left far, leaving women more privileged than men men, and hold the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 in 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. Some also like to distinguish between the terms ''masculist'' (pro-feminist men who focus on male issues) and ''masculinist'' (anti-feminist men who see the movement as dangerous to gender relations).
relations and/or society).



Finally, there is the notion that modern feminism is inclusive of non binary people, so saying that only women get oppressed because of patriarchy is a pretty shitty thing to say with non cisgendered people are also thrown under the bus.

to:

Finally, there is the notion that modern feminism is (or should be) inclusive of non binary non-binary people, so and that gender is a spectrum with extreme masculinity on one side, extreme femininity on the other, and a lot of room in between. To feminists who subscribe to this view, saying that only women get oppressed because of patriarchy is a pretty shitty thing to say with non cisgendered way of ignoring all the non-[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender cisgender]] people are who also get thrown under the bus.



* ‘If it’s about equality between the genders, why is it called ''femin''ism and only focuses on one gender?’

to:

* ‘If !!!If it’s about equality between the genders, why is it called ''femin''ism and only focuses on one gender?’
gender?



* ‘Okay, so classical feminism may have been about genuine equality, but modern feminism is full of misandrists who [[DoesNotLikeMen hate all men]] and privileged women who only care about [[FirstWorldProblems superficial problems]].’

to:

* ‘Okay, !!Okay, so classical feminism may have been about genuine equality, but modern feminism is full of misandrists who [[DoesNotLikeMen hate all men]] and privileged women who only care about [[FirstWorldProblems superficial problems]].



* ‘This thing feminists claim to oppose, “patriarchy,” doesn't exist. Surely most men have lives just as hard as most women.’

This is a somewhat understandable criticism given that the word ‘patriarchal’ is used colloquially to refer to male power, with the counter-claim generally arguing that if we take power to mean ‘control over one's own life,’ then men are just as deprived of power as women are. However, what patriarchy really means is not that men have more power 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 ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even 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 actually just one kind of power, which feminists refer to as “power-to.” There is another kind of power which refers to the control some have over the lives of others, referred to as “power-over.” Feminists mean “power-over,” not “power-to,” when discussing patriarchy. And not even all feminists agree about what causes patriarchy. Marxist and socialist feminists believe that its roots lie in the early division of labor between men and women that private property gave rise to, while anarcha-feminists argue that it coexists with several other intersecting hierarchies, and that there exist contexts where men may be disadvantaged relative to women.

* “If it’s about equality, shouldn’t it be called “equalism”?’

to:

* ‘This !!This thing feminists claim to oppose, “patriarchy,” doesn't exist. Surely most men have lives just as hard as most women.’

women.
This is a somewhat understandable criticism given that the word ‘patriarchal’ is used colloquially to refer to male power, with the counter-claim generally arguing that if we take power to mean ‘control over one's own life,’ then men are just as deprived of power as women are. However, what But the thing is we're not talking about that particular kind of power. What patriarchy really means is not that men have more power 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 ends up perpetuating this hierarchical division between male and female. (To use a buzzword that even 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 actually just one kind of power, which something feminists refer to as “power-to.” There is another kind of power which refers to the control some have over the lives of others, referred to as “power-over.” Feminists mean “power-over,” not “power-to,” when discussing patriarchy. And patriarchy.

Feminists also do
not even all feminists agree about what causes patriarchy. Marxist and socialist feminists believe that its roots lie in the early division of labor between men and women that private property gave rise to, while anarcha-feminists argue that it coexists with several other intersecting hierarchies, and that there exist contexts where men may be disadvantaged relative to women.

* “If !!!If it’s about equality, shouldn’t it be called “equalism”?’
“equalism”?



* ‘If it’s about equality and liberation for all people, shouldn’t it be called “humanism”?’

to:

* ‘If !!!If it’s about equality and liberation for all people, shouldn’t it be called “humanism”?’
“humanism”?



* One of the more legitimate complaints is that while there is an entire movement and theory dedicated to addressing the needs of women, men also have gender-specific problems that deserve attention but don't seem like they'll be addressed by a philosophy that defines itself in relation to women. Again, this is why the Men's Liberation Movement sprung up in the 70s.

to:

* One of the more legitimate complaints is !!Can I really trust that while there is an entire feminism, a movement and theory dedicated to addressing the needs of women, men also have gender-specific problems that deserve attention but don't seem like they'll be addressed by a philosophy that which defines itself solely in relation to women. Again, women, actually gives a (redacted) about men's problems?
Actually,
this is a valid concern, and it's part of why the Men's Liberation Movement sprung up in the 70s.
70s. But by and large, the answer is, "Yes, you can."



Feminists generally ''are'' opposed to men’s rights activists who believe that feminism has gone too far and disadvantaged men greatly.

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. 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.

Feminists generally ''are'' opposed to men’s rights activists who believe that feminism has gone too far and disadvantaged men greatly.
far.



This list shows the last 10 events of 173. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Feminism