History UsefulNotes / Feminism

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

* Second Wave Feminism: Beginning in the 60s, the second wave developed in the midst of the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. Believing that women had achieved political equality but nothing else, feminism became more "radical", and indeed called themselves "radical feminists", although that term has a ''very'' different meaning today. As part of a culture bursting with ideas about social, political, and economic structures, feminism too began to look into different issues, often through a Marxist lens. This wave gave us such things as "patriarchy", "oppression", and "normative heterosexuality". Women's role in the home, in the workplace, in sexual relationships were all put under the microscope, as was the culture that took these things for granted. Second wave feminists focused on the more subtle forms of discrimination, such as the wage-gap, discriminatory hiring and promotion practices, spousal abuse, barriers to the access of contraception and abortion, and demonization of divorce and single-parenthood (especially for women). These were the feminists who allegedly burned their bras and stopped shaving, the feminists who aggressively moved into male-dominated professions, the feminists that Fox News can't seem to forget. The first wave was dominated by white women of means (albeit with significant black voices here and there), but the second wave drew increasingly from the other movements that were also powerful at the time, drawing not just ideas, but actual voices from the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement.

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

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

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

But. This issue is not exclusive to, nor even rooted in feminism and goes back to a general attitude that has also negatively impacted WOMEN throughout history, even today (IE: The flip-side of Cancel Culture. Where the accuser is likely to receive death threats, ostracization and a life-long reputation as a liar, even if they are 100% telling the truth).

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This has been [[BrokenBase a source of contention]] concerning MsFanservice characters in fiction, particularly over whether such characters are necessarily anti-feminist regardless of how the work portrays them, and whether blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins them wholesale.

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

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

As for sex in general, most feminists enjoy sex like anyone else in any case, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] typically don't care what other people like. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality. Likewise, feminists who work in the sex industry consider their work to be empowering and advocate for feminism (and the world at large) to be more open-minded about sex work.

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]].

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]] [[AManIsNotAVirgin does]] [[BumblingDad hurt]] [[MenCantKeepHouse men]] [[DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale in]] [[MenDontCry plenty]] [[RealMenHateAffection of]] [[DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale ways]].

The second part sparks more controversy. 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.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This has been [[BrokenBase a source of contention]] concerning MsFanservice characters in fiction, particularly over whether such characters are necessarily anti-feminist regardless of how the work treats them, and whether blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins them wholesale.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This has been [[BrokenBase a source of many debates]] concerning MsFanservice characters in fiction, particularly over whether such characters are necessarily anti-feminist regardless of how the work treats them, and whether blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins them wholesale.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very contentious]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, while others argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with titillation regardless of who provides it, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]] In short, most people agree that objectification is bad, but there still is disagreement on what actually ''counts'' as such.

Additionally, feminists challenge the justification of fictional women being sexualized under the logic of being "her choice", particularly as a HandWave that [[MakesJustAsMuchSenseInContext makes little sense within context]] (such as a {{Stripperific}} outfit being worn in combat, while male characters boast more practical ones). [[note]] Even if the context and characterization justifies it (for example, a HeroicSeductress[=/=]FemmeFatale or ShamelessFanserviceGirl being sexy ''outside'' of combat), feminists try to note how many times the MaleGaze comes into play.[[/note]] Obviously, fictional characters cannot "choose" -- the creator does. Some creators respond that they are [[IJustWriteTheThing simply telling their characters' stories while the characters themselves act on their own]]; however, the counter-argument is that no story is made in a vacuum and that everything in a work is formed by a creator's base assumptions, and the creator likewise chooses [[MaleGaze exactly how and when the audience sees it]].

* ''Radical feminism'': A term encompassing the more militant forms of feminism and also the most misunderstood. Conflating the more activist forms of radical feminism with fanatical "abolish men" and quasi-religious '[[SexIsEvil anti-sex]]' movements has resulted in this being the source of many of the [[StrawFeminist negative stereotypes]] surrounding feminism as a whole. Radical feminist movements see the problems women face as resulting from patriarchy (social power relations being slanted to favor males over females) and most of them see all other social struggles as a facet of or as a subordinate of it (where as most other feminists tend to see the patriarchy as a component of a larger system of inequality); and thus, equality can only be achieved via the complete dismantling of the patriarchy and its attendant gender-constructs. Most radical feminists oppose pornography, which they see as inherently oppressive towards women, and other forms of sex work such as prostitution, with most radical feminists today supporting the ‘Scandinavian model’ of criminalizing the buyer of sex but not the seller. While once very popular, the anti-pornography movement has gotten a lot of flak in recent years for being [[TheHorseshoeEffect not so different to the opposite side of the political spectrum]] in their view towards porn and sex, while that is not the point of many of its campaigners. Other radical feminists have been caught seemingly ignoring issues of class, race, and sexual orientation. Other still have expressed opinions viewed as transphobic (anti-{{transgender}}), viewing MTF (male to female) trans people as appropriating their oppression (or simply using their transition as an excuse to invade women-only spaces) and FTM (female to male) trans people as 'switching sides' to become the oppressors. Another anti-transgender argument commonly used by radical feminists is that, according to them, all transgender practices stem from gender stereotypes, and, since radical feminism aims to eradicate those stereotypes, transgender practices are inherently harmful to their goals. The terms TERF or TWERF[[note]]Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminist/Trans Woman Exclusive Radical Feminist[[/note]] are often used to distinguish the latter from other radical feminists.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, while others argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with titillation regardless of who provides it, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]] In short, most people agree that objectification is bad, but there still is disagreement on what actually ''counts'' as such.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, [[note]]Nevermind that this mentality, by denying that MsFanservice can deliver eye candy ''and'' still be treated as a genuine character with agency, is also guilty of objectification due to focusing solely on her appearance.[[/note]] while others argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with titillation regardless of who provides it, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]] In short, most people agree that objectification is bad, but there still is disagreement on what actually ''counts'' as such.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, [[note]]Never mind that this mentality, by denying that MsFanservice can deliver eye candy ''and'' still be treated as a genuine character with agency, is also guilty of objectification due to focusing solely on her appearance.[[/note]] while others argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with titillation regardless of who provides it, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]] In short, most people agree that objectification is bad, but there still is disagreement on what actually ''counts'' as such.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, while others see this form of titillation as far less problematic than the former make it out to be, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]].

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, while others see this form of titillation as less problematic than the former make it out to be, and often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians even if their criticism [[MoffsLaw is valid]].

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, in the sense of CharacterDevelopment being deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. That said, while objectification and sexualization do not ''necessarily'' go hand-in-hand, there is a tendency to conflate the two terms with one-another, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynistic and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]; some may indeed view the mere inclusion of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale, while others who defend their inclusion will often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians, [[MoffsLaw even if their criticism is valid]].

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification. [[note]] In the sense of CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of the MaleGaze.[[/note]] However, objectification and sexualization too often tend to be conflated with one-another despite not necessarily going hand-in-hand, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynist and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." [[note]]This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]]. Some may indeed view the mere presence of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, and thus claim that blatant sex appeal is a flaw that ruins said character wholesale; meanwhile, others who defend their inclusion will often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians, [[MoffsLaw even if their criticism is valid]].[[/note]] In any case, most feminists enjoy sex like anyone else, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] typically don't care what other people like. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality. Likewise, feminists who work in the sex industry consider their work to be empowering and advocate for feminism (and the world at large) to be more open-minded about sex work.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification. [[note]] In the sense of CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. However, objectification and sexualization too often tend to be conflated with one another despite not necessarily going hand-in-hand, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynist and degrading towards women in and of itself, by default." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to female characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]], especially in TheNewTens. Some may indeed view the mere presence of a MsFanservice in a work as a sexist PetPeeveTrope, while sometimes claiming that her sex appeal is a flaw that doesn't just overshadow her merits as a character, but outright ''invalidates them''; meanwhile, others who defend her inclusion within the work will often accuse detractors of being overly prudish MoralGuardians who forget that Administrivia/TropesAreTools, [[MoffsLaw even if there is validity in their criticism of the character's portrayal]].[[/note]] In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

Additionally, feminists challenge the justification of fictional women being sexualized under the logic of it being "her choice", particularly as a HandWave that [[MakesJustAsMuchSenseInContext makes little sense within context]] (such as a {{Stripperific}} outfit being worn in combat, while male characters boast more practical ones). [[note]] Even if the context and characterization justifies it (for example, a HeroicSeductress[=/=]FemmeFatale or ShamelessFanserviceGirl being sexy ''outside'' of combat), feminists try to note how many times the MaleGaze comes into play.[[/note]] Obviously, fictional characters cannot "choose" -- the creator does. Some creators respond that they are [[IJustWriteTheThing simply telling their characters' stories while the characters themselves act on their own]]; however, the counter-argument is that no story is made in a vacuum and that everything in a work is formed by a creator's base assumptions, and the creator likewise chooses [[MaleGaze exactly how and when the audience sees it]].

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification. [[note]] In the sense of CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. However, objectification and sexualization too often tend to be conflated with one another despite not necessarily going hand-in-hand, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynist and degrading towards women in and of itself, regardless of presentation." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to MsFanservice characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]], especially in TheNewTens; some may see the mere inclusion of such a character as sexist by default while dismissing any redeeming characterization she has beyond simply being eye candy, while others who defend their inclusion within the work will often accuse detractors of being overly sex-negative, even if the criticism towards it is valid.[[/note]] In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

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

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification. [[note]] In the sense of CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. However, objectification and sexualization too often tend to be conflated with one another despite not necessarily going hand-in-hand, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynist and degrading towards women in and of itself, regardless of presentation." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to MsFanservice characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]], especially in TheNewTens; some will see the mere inclusion of such a character as sexist by default while dismissing any redeeming characterization she has beyond simply being eye candy, while others will defend their inclusion within the work even if the criticism towards them is valid.[[/note]] In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists generally claim not to be against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification. [[note]] In the sense of CharacterDevelopment deferred in favor of the MaleGaze. However, objectification and sexualization too often tend to be conflated with one another despite not necessarily going hand-in-hand, with objectification being interpreted in bad faith arguments as "Any fanservice aimed at heterosexual men is misogynist and degrading towards women in and of itself, regardless of presentation." This is why many attempts to make a series HotterAndSexier or TamerAndChaster in regards to MsFanservice characters tend to be [[BrokenBase very divisive]], especially in TheNewTens; some will see the mere inclusion of such a character as sexist by default while dismissing any characterization she has beyond simply being eye candy, while others will defend their inclusion within the work even if the criticism towards them is valid.[[/note]] In any case, most feminists enjoy sex just fine, and [[{{Asexuality}} those who don't]] are typically at least okay with the idea of it. There's even a whole faction of the movement, called Sex-Positive Feminism, that focuses on working to promote positive and empowering views of sexuality, and feminists who work in the sex industry who consider the work that they do to be empowering and advocate for feminism and the world at large to be more open-minded about sex work.

Commonly, they challenge the justification of fictional women being sexualized under the logic of it being "her choice", particularly as a HandWave that [[MakesJustAsMuchSenseInContext makes no sense within context]] (such as a {{Stripperific}} outfit worn in combat while male characters wear more practical ones). Even if the context justifies it (for example, a HeroicSeductress[=/=]FemmeFatale or ShamelessFanserviceGirl outside of combat), feminists try to note how many times the MaleGaze comes into play. Obviously, fictional characters cannot "choose" -- the creator does. Some creators respond that they are [[IJustWriteTheThing simply telling their characters' stories while the characters themselves act on their own]]; however, the counter-argument is that no story is made in a vacuum and that everything in a work is formed by a creator's base assumptions, and the creator likewise chooses [[MaleGaze exactly how and when the audience sees it]].

Commonly, they challenge the justification of fictional women being sexualized under the logic of it being "her choice", particularly as a {{Hand Wave}}s that [[MakesJustAsMuchSenseInContext makes no sense within context]] (such as a {{Stripperific}} outfit worn in combat while male characters wear more practical ones). Even if the context justifies it (for example, a HeroicSeductress[=/=]FemmeFatale or ShamelessFanserviceGirl outside of combat), feminists try to note how many times the MaleGaze comes into play. Obviously, fictional characters cannot "choose" -- the creator does. Some creators respond that they are [[IJustWriteTheThing simply telling their characters' stories while the characters themselves act on their own]]; however, the counter-argument is that no story is made in a vacuum and that everything in a work is formed by a creator's base assumptions, and the creator likewise chooses [[MaleGaze exactly how and when the audience sees it]].

Some feminists also challenge the justification of fictional women being sexualized under the logic of it being "her choice", particularly if it comes across as a HandWave that makes no sense within the context of the work in question (such as an ActionGirl wearing a {{Stripperific}} outfit without any valid justification, while the rest of TheTeam wear more practical ones), rather than show how their sexualization is truly in-character (such as the character being TheTease or a ShamelessFanserviceGirl). Obviously, fictional characters cannot "choose" -- the creator does. Some creators respond that they are [[IJustWriteTheThing simply telling their characters' stories while the characters themselves act on their own]]; however, the counter-argument is that no story is made in a vacuum and that everything in a work is formed by a creator's base assumptions.

There are certainly a few women who seriously blame men for everything. They are known to academics as "misandrists", and to most mainstream modern feminists as ''wrong''. Most feminists don't think sexism is primarily something all individual men do to all individual women. The problem as they see it is that ''patriarchy'' is nebulous, widespread and intangible. Just as men can, and do, fight patriarchy, women can, and do, act in ways that support it. (Notice how the page quote for the "SlutShaming" trope involves ''a woman'' doing the shaming.) The point of feminism (as much as such a vast and highly fragmented movement can be said to ''have'' a point) is to raise women to the level of rights/respect that men have had for centuries. The ideal goal is to render men and women equal by ''strengthening women'', not to drag men down lower than women as some cosmic act of revenge.