History UsefulNotes / Feminism

27th Mar '17 7:56:52 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 50% opportunity ''and'' a 50% privilege for a total of 100% chance, while she has a 0% chance. [[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan).

to:

First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 50% opportunity ''and'' a 50% privilege for a total of 100% chance, while she has a 0% chance. [[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact privilege. And ''only'' that he is and always was qualified for extra privilege--if the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according man is qualified, he deserves to plan).
have his 50% chance, as would an equally-qualified woman.
27th Mar '17 7:54:28 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan).

to:

First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity chance to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) opportunity ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, 100% chance, while she has a 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.chance. [[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan).
27th Mar '17 7:52:06 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


First off, we need to take a moment and define a little bit of terminology. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan).

to:

First off, we need to take a moment and define a little bit of terminology. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- will not be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan).
27th Mar '17 7:50:54 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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. Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.

to:

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. But, in a lot of ways, they have a point. Think about the furor when Brock Turner was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly wanted Turner to avoid harsh punishment. And ''then'' consider that this was already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because it's an entirely ''fixable'' CrapsackWorld, if people actually cared enough to do it. Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.
26th Mar '17 10:48:09 AM MagBas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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." Typically, the JerkassHasAPoint, because s/he is looking at things from a broader perspective than you are. But having to confront one's own prejudices is uncomfortable, even if they're unconscious -- ''especially'' if they're unconscious -- and it can be hard to do so gracefully.

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... but, once again, the JerkassHasAPoint. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly wanted Turner to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.

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." Typically, the JerkassHasAPoint, because s/he is looking at things from a broader perspective than you are. But having to confront one's own prejudices is uncomfortable, even if they're unconscious -- ''especially'' if they're unconscious -- and it can be hard to do so gracefully.

"

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... but, once again, the JerkassHasAPoint. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly wanted Turner to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). CrapsackWorld. Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.
8th Mar '17 9:30:49 PM HighCrate
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As for the accusation of being sexist for only focusing on one gender, a counterargument would be that this would make the [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement black civil rights movement]] bigoted because it only focused on black people, or the gay rights movement bigoted because it didn’t also focus on the problems of straight people. Some people [[TooDumbToLive do actually accuse this]], apparently forgetting that such people require civil rights movements on their behalf because their civil rights were oppressed in the first place.

to:

As for the accusation of being sexist for only focusing on one gender, a counterargument would be that this would make the [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement black civil rights movement]] bigoted because it only focused on black people, or the gay rights movement bigoted because it didn’t also focus on the problems of straight people. Some people [[TooDumbToLive do actually accuse this]], apparently forgetting that such people require civil rights movements on their behalf because their civil rights were oppressed in the first place.
people.



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 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. And it goes without saying that the vast majority of people who have been specifically placed in positions of power-over are men. What percentage of [=CEOs=] are women? Film directors? Surgeons? Presidents?

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 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. And it goes without saying that the vast majority of people who have been specifically placed in positions of power-over are men. What percentage of [=CEOs=] are women? Film directors? Surgeons? Presidents?
patriarchy.



First off, we need to take a moment and define a little bit of terminology. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. It's not much consolation to him, obviously, to remind him that they ''were'' undeserved, but the blunt fact is that he did not, and he's going to have to suck it up. Besides, the original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- has not been and (at least if everything goes according to plan) will not be impacted.

to:

First off, we need to take a moment and define a little bit of terminology. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To put 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has 0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking away that extra 50% from privilege. It's not much consolation to him, obviously, to remind him that they ''were'' undeserved, but the blunt fact is that he did not, and he's going to have to suck it up. Besides, the The original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- has will not been and be impacted (at least if everything goes according to plan) will not be impacted.
plan).



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. (Opposite progress is slower, partially due to the resistance of patriarchy.) 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.

But to get there, yes: people will have to give up their privileges and compete on an equal playing field. If you find your loss of privilege threatening, then to be perfectly honest you have [[KnowNothingKnowItAll larger problems]] than the fact that feminism wants to take it from you.

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. (Opposite progress is slower, partially due to the resistance of patriarchy.) 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.

But to get there, yes: people will have to give up their privileges and compete on an equal playing field. If you find your loss of privilege threatening, then to be perfectly honest you have [[KnowNothingKnowItAll larger problems]] than the fact that feminism wants to take it from you.
field.
8th Mar '17 4:07:34 PM slvstrChung
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]], 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 [[http://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like US President Barack Obama]]. A competing school of thought that says while men can (and should) ''support'' feminism, they shouldn't ''be'' feminists, because feminism is (or should be) fundamentally about women solving their own problems, without looking to men to do it for them. According to this school, being a feminist is a little like having NWordPrivileges: unless you have been oppressed the way women are, you don't have the background to ''be'' a feminist. Men in this school tend to describe themselves as "pro-feminist" instead, and are called "male allies" by the viewpoint's women. Like NWordPrivileges, this is acknowledged to be a DoubleStandard in and of itself, though people who keep this philosophy believe the hypocrisy is worth keeping the KnowNothingKnowItAll types out of their movement.

to:

\nSome female feminists claim * The most popular perspective is 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]], 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 [[http://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like US President Barack Obama]]. A Obama]].
* The
competing school of thought that is says while men can (and should) ''support'' feminism, they shouldn't ''be'' feminists, because feminism is (or should be) fundamentally about women solving their own problems, without looking to men to do it for them. According to this school, being a feminist is a little like having NWordPrivileges: unless you have been oppressed the way women are, you don't have the background to ''be'' a feminist. Men in this school tend to describe themselves as "pro-feminist" instead, and are called "male allies" by the viewpoint's women. Like NWordPrivileges, this is acknowledged to be a DoubleStandard in and of itself, though but people who keep this philosophy believe the hypocrisy is worth keeping the KnowNothingKnowItAll types out of their movement.



In a Venn diagram, the circle of angry, bitter harpies and the circle of feminists overlap but are not identical, and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

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." Being accused of having prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is uncomfortable, and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than consider the message.

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... but being angry doesn't mean they don't have a point. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.

to:

In a Venn diagram, the circle of angry, bitter harpies and the circle of feminists overlap but are not identical, and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

other. Correlation does not prove causation.

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." Being accused of Typically, the JerkassHasAPoint, because s/he is looking at things from a broader perspective than you are. But having prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is to confront one's own prejudices is uncomfortable, even if they're unconscious -- ''especially'' if they're unconscious -- and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than consider the message.

it can be hard to do so gracefully.

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... but being angry doesn't mean they don't have a point.but, once again, the JerkassHasAPoint. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed wanted Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated.



It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism 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, 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.

One area of particular controversy 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually became a mostly academic discourse and/or was partially absorbed by feminism itself, since their goals do not interfere. However, a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to campaign actively against feminists, believing that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and putting forth 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.

to:

The first part of this statement can be answered with an unqualified "No." It's pretty uncontroversial in feminist circles to point out that [[MenAreTheExpendableGender sexism does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]]. ways]].

The controversy tends to actually lie in what second part sparks more controversy. What exactly should be ''done'' about this. 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, 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.

One area of particular controversy 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 hurts men in plenty of ways. This movement eventually became a mostly academic discourse and/or was partially absorbed by feminism itself, since their goals do not interfere.conflict. However, a breakaway group, called the "Men's ''Rights'' Movement", began to campaign actively against feminists, believing that feminism has gone too far, leaving women more privileged than men, and putting forth 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.



Finally, there is the notion that modern feminism is (or should be) inclusive of non-binary people, 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 way of ignoring all the non-[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender cisgender]] people who already get thrown under the bus in other circumstances.

to:

Finally, there is the notion that modern feminism is (or should be) inclusive of non-binary people, 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 way of ignoring all the non-[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender cisgender]] people, people who already get thrown under the bus in other circumstances.
circumstances and could probably do with a bit more acknowledgement.



Because the movement originated at a time when women were clearly considered inferior to men socially and institutionally. It focused on the female sex because most men were already in positions of power in society relative to women of comparable socioeconomic class. It was women that needed to be brought up to the level of men, who were perceived to already have power. As for the accusation of being sexist for only focusing on one gender, a counterargument would be that this would make the [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement black civil rights movement]] racist because it only focused on black people, or the gay rights movement bigoted because it didn’t also focus on the problems of straight people.

to:

Because the movement originated at a time when women were clearly considered inferior to men socially and institutionally. It focused on the female sex because most men were already in positions of power in society relative to women of comparable socioeconomic class. It was women that needed to be brought up to the level of men, who were perceived to already have power. power.

As for the accusation of being sexist for only focusing on one gender, a counterargument would be that this would make the [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement black civil rights movement]] racist bigoted because it only focused on black people, or the gay rights movement bigoted because it didn’t also focus on the problems of straight people.
people. Some people [[TooDumbToLive do actually accuse this]], apparently forgetting that such people require civil rights movements on their behalf because their civil rights were oppressed in the first place.



This is a somewhat understandable criticism given that the word 'patriarchal' is used colloquially to refer to male power. If we take power to mean 'control over one's own life,' then men are just as deprived of power as women are. The common counter-argument to ''that'' is to draw distinctions between ''kinds'' of power. 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 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, 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. If we take power to mean 'control over one's own life,' then men are just as deprived of power as women are. The common counter-argument to ''that'' is to draw distinctions between ''kinds'' of power. power.

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 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, the which is control some have over the lives of ''others'', referred to as "power-over." Feminists mean "power-over," not "power-to," when discussing patriarchy. \n And it goes without saying that the vast majority of people who have been specifically placed in positions of power-over are men. What percentage of [=CEOs=] are women? Film directors? Surgeons? Presidents?



First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. 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''.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other MEN for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking 50% of the man's opportunity away. This won't take away the things he ''does'' deserve to have, like rights and freedom -- but he will lose his ''undeserved'' advantages. It's not much consolation to him, obviously, to remind him that they ''were'' undeserved, but the blunt fact is that he did not, and he's going to have to suck it up.

to:

First off, we need to take a moment and define a little bit of terminology. First off, one way of looking at privilege is that it's an opportunity you have even though you ''shouldn't''; it's life being unfair in your favor. To think of put it in trope form, 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 opportunity to get it. However, if the HeirClubForMen is in effect, then he has a 100% 50% opportunity (which he deserves) ''and'' a 50% privilege (which he does not), for a total of 100%, while she has ''zero''.0% privilege ''and'' 0% of the opportunity she deserves.[[note]]This is comparative ''to the woman''; yes, he may still need to compete with other MEN ''men'' for the title, but that would still mean that men comparatively have 100% while women have 0%.[[/note]] Giving the woman equal opportunity ''will'' mean taking 50% of the man's opportunity away. This won't take away the things he ''does'' deserve to have, like rights and freedom -- but he will lose his ''undeserved'' advantages.that extra 50% from privilege. It's not much consolation to him, obviously, to remind him that they ''were'' undeserved, but the blunt fact is that he did not, and he's going to have to suck it up. \n Besides, the original opportunity -- the fact that he is and always was qualified for the spot -- has not been and (at least if everything goes according to plan) will not be impacted.



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 -- that 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.

But to get there, yes: the opportunities some people have (that, again, ''aren't deserved''), will have to be taken away. Men will have to accept an equal playing field.

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. (Opposite progress is slower, partially due to the resistance of patriarchy.) 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 -- that tropes "tropes must be AlwaysMale or AlwaysFemale 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.

But to get there, yes: the opportunities some people have (that, again, ''aren't deserved''), will have to be taken away. Men will have to accept give up their privileges and compete on an equal playing field.
field. If you find your loss of privilege threatening, then to be perfectly honest you have [[KnowNothingKnowItAll larger problems]] than the fact that feminism wants to take it from you.
24th Jan '17 9:30:56 PM Steam_Lord
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Ecofeminism'': Emphasises the woman’s relationship to nature and champions the supposedly feminine values of ecology while attacking the androcentric worldview that allegedly treats the earth as something to be used and dominated in the same way patriarchal men treat women. Other environmental philosophies — especially Social Ecology — have criticised ecofeminism for claiming that women have an essentially deeper connection to nature than men, given that many of the ‘feminine’ traits of nature are merely coded as such rather than innately gendered. Plus the fact that many ecofeminists are close to New Age thinking with many even worshiping a Mother Earth Goddess.

to:

* ''Ecofeminism'': Emphasises the woman’s relationship to nature and champions the supposedly feminine values of ecology while attacking the androcentric worldview that allegedly treats the earth as something to be used and dominated in the same way patriarchal men treat women. Other environmental philosophies — especially Social Ecology — have criticised criticized ecofeminism for claiming that women have an essentially deeper connection to nature than men, given that many of the ‘feminine’ traits of nature are merely coded as such rather than innately gendered. Plus the fact that many ecofeminists are close to New Age thinking with many even worshiping a Mother Earth Goddess.



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]], 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 [[http://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like US President Barack Obama]].
A competing school of thought that says while men can (and should) ''support'' feminism, they shouldn't ''be'' feminists, because feminism is (or should be) fundamentally about women solving their own problems, without looking to men to do it for them. According to this school, being a feminist is a little like having NWordPrivileges: unless you have been oppressed the way women are, you don't have the background to ''be'' a feminist. Men in this school tend to describe themselves as "pro-feminist" instead, and are called "male allies" by the viewpoint's women. (Like NWordPrivileges, this is acknowledged to be a DoubleStandard in and of itself, though people who keep this philosophy believe the hypocrisy is worth keeping the KnowNothingKnowItAll types out of their movement.)

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]], 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 [[http://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like US President Barack Obama]]. \n A competing school of thought that says while men can (and should) ''support'' feminism, they shouldn't ''be'' feminists, because feminism is (or should be) fundamentally about women solving their own problems, without looking to men to do it for them. According to this school, being a feminist is a little like having NWordPrivileges: unless you have been oppressed the way women are, you don't have the background to ''be'' a feminist. Men in this school tend to describe themselves as "pro-feminist" instead, and are called "male allies" by the viewpoint's women. (Like Like NWordPrivileges, this is acknowledged to be a DoubleStandard in and of itself, though people who keep this philosophy believe the hypocrisy is worth keeping the KnowNothingKnowItAll types out of their movement.)
movement.



Feminists also have a problem with attributing to gender individual character traits that could have originated from other sources, like natural human reactions. For example, if Jenny is crying because her father died -- which surely warrants a good cry -- but people observing her assume that she's emotionally distraught because she's a ''giiiiirl''. (If you're about to protest that this sort of behavioral mis-assignment could happen to anyone, well, you're right: it's a known psychological bias called the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error fundamental attribution error]].)

to:

Feminists also have a problem with attributing to gender individual character traits that could have originated from other sources, like natural human reactions. For example, if Jenny is crying because her father died -- which surely warrants a good cry -- but people observing her assume that she's emotionally distraught because she's a ''giiiiirl''. (If If you're about to protest that this sort of behavioral mis-assignment could happen to anyone, well, you're right: it's a known psychological bias called the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error fundamental attribution error]].)
error]].



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... but being angry doesn't mean they don't have a point. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated..

to:

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... but being angry doesn't mean they don't have a point. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated..
irritated.
24th Jan '17 8:30:14 AM HighCrate
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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." Discovering that you have prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is uncomfortable, and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than confront how society has indoctrinated them.

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. To put it simply, the JerkassHasAPoint. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated..

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." Discovering that you have Being accused of having prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is uncomfortable, and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than confront how society has indoctrinated them.

consider the message.

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. To put it simply, the JerkassHasAPoint.CrapsackWorld... but being angry doesn't mean they don't have a point. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the many, many other things that feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that they come across as being pretty irritated..
24th Jan '17 7:34:07 AM NubianSatyress
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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." Being accused of holding prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is uncomfortable, and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than discussing how society may have shaped their viewpoint.

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. This usually boils down to JerkassHasAPoint where different individuals weigh the "Jerkass" and the "point" differently. Take, for example, the ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html argument that ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' do not face punishment for their crime; while [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]], closer examination of the statistics suggests that two-thirds of all accusations that are taken before a judge result in a conviction, but that only 15% of accusations make it to court, with an unknown number going completely unreported.

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." Being accused of holding Discovering that you have prejudices--conscious or otherwise--is uncomfortable, and some people would rather ShootTheMessenger than discussing confront how society may have shaped their viewpoint.

has indoctrinated them.

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. This usually boils down to JerkassHasAPoint where different individuals weigh To put it simply, the "Jerkass" JerkassHasAPoint. Think about the furor when [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner Brock Turner]] was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, punishable by up to six years in prison... and sentenced to only three months, because the "point" differently. Take, for example, the judge very explicitly believed Turner deserved to be a KarmaHoudini. And ''then'' consider that Turner, who served time, is already in an extreme minority; ''[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html argument that ninety-seven percent of sexual assaulters]]'' do not face punishment for their crime; while get away without conviction or punishment. Feminists get angry about this because [[ThisIsUnforgivable anyone would get angry about this]], closer examination of this]] (excepting perhaps Brock Turner). Add in the statistics suggests many, many other things that two-thirds feminists worry about (unequal wages, {{Double Standard}}s, gender & sex politics, the plight of all accusations women in countries where patriarchy is not balanced by feminism, etc) and it's honestly no wonder that are taken before a judge result in a conviction, but that only 15% of accusations make it to court, with an unknown number going completely unreported.
they come across as being pretty irritated..



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. At it's worse extremes there are feminists who flat-out reject the idea of men being affected by sexism, usually citing a "sexism requires prejudice plus power" argument, though they will usually clarify that they are referring to institutional sexism when challenged.

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]], would go squarely against the whole ''point'' of feminism. At it's worse extremes there are feminists who flat-out reject the idea of men being affected by sexism, usually citing a "sexism requires prejudice plus power" argument, though they will usually clarify that they are referring to institutional sexism when challenged.
feminism.
This list shows the last 10 events of 205. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Feminism