02:10:20 AM Jun 29th 2017
Funny how this article doesn't really touch on the realities of institutional feminist power, which is typically used to demonise men and deprive them of their rights. For example, the idea that men are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of domestic violence is a feminist idea... and is all but enshrined into law. The reason men's domestic violence shelters keep getting shut down is lack of funding, because feminists demand it not be funded on the grounds of women needing that money more. The reason Men's Rights Activists are universally portrayed as misogynistic? Feminism. The reason divorce courts default custody to the mother in all but the most serious of cases, regardless of which parent is best suited to raise the child, or the desires of the child themselves? Feminism. Where is the criticism of feminism's abuse of power? Or does that simply come under "Patriarchy" because these women are treating men the way the Patriarchy tells all men to treat women?
09:36:43 PM Apr 22nd 2017
Hey, just wanted to compliment the contributors to these notes. This page was far more informative to me than anything else on the net, including Wikipedia. I've often described myself as a feminist, but someone recently stated that my beliefs are in conflict with the movement. This article helped me clarify my position on things, so thank you for that! Can anyone recommend any feminist forums that discuss issues and answer questions? Or at least one with a feminist population that discuss issues described in this article. Oh, and there's a sentence that could use some cleaning up. I didn't fix it because it seems like it could be edited in more than one (conflicting) way to make sense: "This adds another layer to feminism: the fact that it's insulting to men for men to insist that they are required to be certain outwardly superior but still limiting things, like a strict gender role that still has remnants of the Standard '50s Father or at least some form of The Stoic because Men Don't Cry. "
09:45:48 PM Apr 22nd 2017
I'm glad it helped. I'd actually love to find forums like that myself, so I tell you what...I'll take a look around and if I see something or some of my friends recommend something, I'll pass it along. I'll also see if I can rewrite that section later. Right now, it's too late for my brain to work properly.
10:17:29 AM Mar 26th 2017
07:46:16 AM Mar 27th 2017
I half agree. Troping Brock Turner is flat out against the rules, but the article is about feminism as explained by feminists. The use of "Jerkass Has a Point" here is relevant to that, because it explains that while feminists typically come across as angry harpies, they come across that way because many of them focus on the message and not the delivery. At most, though, we could maybe remove the pot holes but keep the rest of the wording relatively unchanged.
08:41:18 AM Mar 27th 2017
Point that they "has a point" really sounds closer to advocating than explaining. Out of note, the paragraph also includes a link to Crapsack World, other NRLEP trope.
09:40:58 AM Mar 27th 2017
edited by KingZeal
edited by KingZeal
Then we get rid of that pothole. And really, if we're going to argue over whether or not the page is "advocating" instead of "explaining", then we should argue if the entire page needs rewriting. My understanding was that this was a page about feminism because in current political climate, it's one of the most misunderstood topics. I can see where you're coming from with "has a point" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I'm also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I'm really concerned here. EDIT: Oh. I see most of those edits were already made, with Nubian keeping the "has a point" wording. Like I said, I think we can get rid of that, too, but I'm fine with most of the current writing.
06:37:26 PM Mar 27th 2017
I think the "has a point" or "have a point" wording could stand to go (although it's not too big a deal for me). The Brock Turner case probably shouldn't be mentioned at all; if it absolutely has to be, accusing the judge of "explicitly wanting to avoid a harsh punishment" (implying he ruled the way he did for no reason other than For the Evulz) can't stay. I think it would be best if we simply say that feminists argue too many rapists get away with their crimes and sexual assault isn't taken seriously enough.
12:17:29 AM Mar 28th 2017
Uh, no...For the Evulz has nothing to do with it. The judge in the Brock Turner case specifically said that he gave him a short term because "a prison term would have a severe impact on him". Stating that the judge wanted to avoid giving him a harsh punishment is the kindness, most neutral terms I could think of. My position is that the Brock Turner case should stay because it gives a concrete example of what feminists argue rather than "some feminists believe X".
08:26:58 AM Mar 28th 2017
If the rest if the article doesn't need specific examples, I don't see why this one section does. I also think the article will look dated a few years from now once Brock Turner no longer has the name recognition he used to, but that's not really a big deal. Anyway, do what you think you should.
10:53:46 AM Mar 28th 2017
I'd tend to agree with Robotnik that citing a specific example is a bad idea; it invites niggling debates over the details of the example, and it doesn't fit stylistically with a page that otherwise sticks to broad generalities and a "less is more" philosophy.
11:31:20 PM Jan 23rd 2016
edited by jate88
edited by jate88
So in order to be an intersectional feminist you have to be an anarchist and socialist?
09:40:24 PM Jan 24th 2016
I don't think so. Why? Who says that? Also, those are two different things.
02:02:16 PM Feb 2nd 2016
That is what it says on the page. Intersectional feminism is made synonymous with anarchafeminism.
01:22:59 AM Jun 10th 2015
edited by vifetoile
edited by vifetoile
HighCrate removed my closing paragraph, saying "Useful Notes pages are to inform, not to advocate". It read thus:
Now that you've read the Useful Note on feminism, feel free to go out and seek further reading. When you see the word "feminist" in the media treated immediately as a negative word, think about it and examine the usage. And when exploring This Very Wiki keep in mind that there's thousands of tropers editing pages, influenced by their own particular biases, and some heavy biases reveal themselves when talking about women's issues. It can be very contradictory and tricky to sort out, but like many struggles, that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting.I don't think that it's advocacy to point out that the usage of the word "feminism" tends to be complicated and contradictory, so be thoughtful when you see it. Ffs, every other usage of the word "feminist" on This Very Wiki is describing a female villain. It seems to me like TV Tropes collectively distances itself from feminism, rather than advocates it. Also, I wanted to provide a proper closing paragraph, just because that's better than letting a page end on a whimper.
04:13:56 PM Jun 10th 2015
Agreed, a better ending for the article and doesn't seem to be overtly pushing for one side of the issue.
09:16:35 PM Jun 10th 2015
So covertly pushing for one side is better? The article as a whole is already quite booster-ish toward feminism. Some amount of bias is probably unavoidable, since those who are the most knowledgeable are also likely those who have some sort of strong personal opinion on the matter, but closing with (paraphrased) "To learn more about feminism and how you too can fight the good fight, check your local library!" is a bit beyond the pale. I don't see why it needs to end with a call to action at all. It's "useful notes," not "persuasive essay."
03:18:18 PM Jun 11th 2015
The term "fight" seemed to refer to understanding the issue more thoroughly. And I don't see how heading to a library in order to do so is a bad thing (in fact, this and many other pages on the wiki could do with a "further reading" section at the end)
01:25:52 PM Jun 19th 2015
I admit that using the term "fight" to mean "understanding the word 'feminism'" is a weird usage and not a good idea. That should be rephrased. This wiki is made of words with occasional pictures, so the words that we use, and the connotations they acquire, matter a great deal. In my time on this wiki (which is a lot of time) it seems to me that a lot of confusion and negativity lingers around areas of feminist discourse. For instance, somehow the trope Real Women Never Wear Dresses is both the idea that "an appealing woman is strong in a stereotypically masculine way," and a spirited reaction against that same idea. Reading through the entries is the intellectual equivalent of a ping-pong match. And for the readers of this page, I thought that a little note clarifying that feminism and gender roles are divisive topics, and hard to sort through, would be a good call — it would be "useful," so to speak. Also, I really like the idea of a fleshed out "further reading" section, for this page and for others.
04:04:42 PM Jun 22nd 2015
I understand the impulse to want to do that, and in a Useful Notes page about a more neutral topic it would probably be perfectly harmless and at least somewhat useful. In such a politically-charged and divisive topic as feminism, though, I think you'd have a helluva rough time compiling a list of texts— or indeed, finding any single text— so universally accepted as both authoritative and unbiased that you could advocate it as recommended reading without pissing somebody off. And even if you could, compiling such a list is far beyond the scope of a pop culture wiki. I really think this is one of those situations where less is more.
12:21:43 AM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by Laevatein
edited by Laevatein
[Post deleted - I can't see this getting anywhere]
09:11:18 AM Oct 7th 2014
Is this article meant to be read from a purely 'English-speaking' (American/British) perspective, is the feminist movement largely homogeneous throughout different cultures, or is this page lacking a global perspective? Most of the names that I saw mentioned when I skimmed the article looked European, and I figure that Middle Eastern, central African, or Japanese feminism couldn't all follow the exact same template.
11:46:12 AM Feb 13th 2014
To elaborate on the whole "better than men" thing, we turn once again to The Nostalgia Chick, who posted a scathing rant on the movie Frozen—or, more specifically, a scathing response to Dani Coleman's critique of same. Coleman claimed that the movie was anti-feminist because its two leads are such flawed people:Removed, at least for the moment. There's still (one would say not very feminist) drama going on about this, and Dani posted a rebuttal to Lindsay's rebuttal. Also she didn't say Frozen was anti-feminist because Anna and Elsa were flawed, she said it was because they were under-developed.
- "When it comes to women I’d look up to or consider role models, especially for young girls, Anna ranks somewhere around Mean Girls’ Karen Smith, and certainly well below bookish Belle, feisty Merida, determined Tiana or even kindly Cinderella. I certainly didn’t spend the movie thinking how approachable Anna was, as so many other young women breathlessly profess to; I spent it wanting to grab her by the pigtails, give her a good shake, and tell her to wake up and smell the snowflakes."
- "Feminist theory within media isn’t about seeing more characters strapping on boots and fighting the Patriarchy©, it’s about seeing more and greater variety of character types on the same level as men. It shouldn’t be unusual to see a female character like Loki. It shouldn’t be weird to see one like Thor."
09:09:49 PM Dec 27th 2013
"There's more of a consensus on fanservice: feminists are generally not against seeing sexy ladies in media, but don't like how often this leads to objectification, with Character Development deferred in favor of Male Gaze." As much as I would wish for this to be true, the more I look at the stuff across the web and in real life on the subject, the more that this seems likely untrue. It seems that feminists are against any kind of fanservice. Even when a fictional woman is sexy and yet has a lot of character development, people just refuse to accept it and condemn the character as "nothing but fanservice"; the whole thing just reeks of Unfortunate Implications.
08:12:46 AM Jul 23rd 2014
edited by 18.104.22.168
edited by 22.214.171.124
There may be cases where whether it's objectifying may be ambiguous. In those cases it likely depends on personal interpretation whether it is or isn't. In an example such as the one you've mentioned, it depends on the context. Is there a reason for the character to be sexy? Can you elaborate or provide an example? There's a big difference between a character being sexy because there's a justification for it and a character being sexy in a way that makes no sense beyond appealing to audiences. Compare a character who may wear a sexy outfit because she's going clubbing and it's the sort of outfit she'd like based on the personality that has been previously established for her, and a character who is an action hero but is wearing an outfit that is sexy without making any sense in a combat setting. Compare, too, something like a character being established as attractive and a character who is supposed to be average-looking or ugly bing played by a conventionally attractive actress. Overall, fanservice that ends up emphasising a character's sexuality to appeal to audiences, instead of the character being sexy due to a reason that makes sense within the plot, can lead to objectification and be very obviously intended to cater to the Male Gaze. By the way, if you're genuinely interested in feminism, a good way to start would be by not making broad generalizations about feminism or treating it like a monolith and try to look at the reasoning behind something instead of taking it at face value.
03:19:08 PM Jul 24th 2014
A woman in lingerie during a sexy evening with her partner? Not a problem. A lingering cleavage shot in a Carl's Jr. commercial? Problem. It's like the difference between Watsonian and Doylian explanation. However, you're somewhat correct, Rahkshi, in that some branches of feminism, notably radical feminism and separatist feminism, object wholly to sexy ladies, arguing that they are necessarily in support oppression and patriarchy. However, radical and separatist feminism began in the second wave, more than thirty years ago. Since then, feminism has moved on to the third wave and sex-positive feminism, although the other branches still exist, of course. So some feminists are utterly opposed to fanservice, while others recognize that it is sometimes appropriate and acceptable.
03:26:47 PM Jul 24th 2014
Ahem, that post is several months old. Anyhow, discussions on feminism have this forum topic - the discussion tab isn't really the place.
05:28:36 PM Aug 1st 2014
edited by 126.96.36.199
edited by 188.8.131.52
@ Bored And Bored and Surgoshan I've seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don't agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that's used above, many would like to argue that it's "putting sexuality where it doesn't belong" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn't normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn't appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I'm not arguing that it's fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don't agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal. The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don't see why it can't be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it's turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don't agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again. @ Bored And Bored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn't stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It's even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I'm interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don't know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I'm trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn't mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn't mean that I can't still find things problematic in what they say too. @Septimus Heap My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I thought that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I've said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don't have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won't bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.
12:07:10 PM Apr 17th 2013
There's some things that need fixing. I'm changing it. No matter what men should NEVER be accepted into feminism. NEVER. It's FEMINISM, NOT MALE PATRIARCHY TAKING OVER.
01:36:14 AM Apr 18th 2013
Okay, thanks for coming, but real feminists disagree with you so enjoy your ban for your vandalism.
01:43:38 PM Nov 5th 2013
"Real feminists" do not necessarily disagree with Misandristextreme. Indeed, radical feminism argues precisely that men should not identify as feminists for the reasons now listed on the main feminism page. Hell, I'm one of those radical feminists. That said, I don't know how Misandristextreme supposedly "vandalized" the page, so it's entirely possible that what she wrote was completely disconnected from radical feminist theory and may have just been angry ranting. My point in leaving this comment is just to make clear that some feminists do believe that men should not identify as feminists.
09:34:25 PM May 28th 2014
not only "some feminists believe men should not identify as feminists" but also this is a fact, regardless of whether we're talking about liberal or radical feminists. feminism is a WOMEN'S movement and struggle, WE are its protagonists and cis men have nothing to do with it; men are not allowed to identify themselves as feminists because they will never live the reality of being a woman in a patriarchal society. and there is no such thing as "real feminist", especially coming from a male mouth/fingers. I'll be fixing this page, by the way.
12:30:32 AM May 29th 2014
That'll get you in trouble, mate. We don't like people going on crusades on this wiki and not every feminist thinks that men should be excluded. Feminism is not a monolithic opinion.
03:43:35 PM May 29th 2014
edited by 184.108.40.206
edited by 220.127.116.11
it's not a matter of "being excluded". men may identify themselves as PRO-feminists, should support our struggle and must combat sexism inside male-dominated spaces. what they can't is be regarded as feminists: feminism is about women and only women. it's a matter of knowing their place — ALLIES, not protagonists. we'd be happy to accept cis men into the movement under these terms. (and this isn't a crusade, I'm explaining to you how feminism works.)
04:58:07 PM May 29th 2014
No, you're explaining how your particular brand of feminism works. Which is fine, but not all self-identified feminists agree with you about these things. Therefore it's fine to ensure that the article is clear that many feminists feel the way that you do, but it's wrong to reword it so as to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real" feminist.
03:47:31 AM Sep 26th 2015
I don't tend to see very much proof that Feminists aren't like those crazy man haters. The only schools I've seen that make any sense and aren't like that are Choice Feminists and Freedom Feminists. And I know a very SMALL handful. In my personal experience there seems to be far more radical Feminists in almost all the schools in their own right, than the so called real Feminists going around and bitching out the Feminists screaming about MRA's who call themselves MRA's because of what they fight for. So until I see a rally of "real Feminists" going crazy and demanding reproductive rights, the right to justice and payment for when a woman ruins his career and social image with a 7 day later false rape claim, for men and women in the same speech, and condemning all the Feminists who go and complain about men like this, I'm in no place to believe that there is such a thing as real Feminists, or that the good are the majority and will make any difference in societies treatment of men and women. And women in the first world are actually being lied to about the so called oppression. 77 cents to every mans dollar is a lie. Only in high paying jobs requiring mostly skill does that happen, and it happens to all genders. And in regular minimum wage jobs, HOURS matter. So it's no one elses fault or patriarchy that you aren't making as much as a man who worked two times as many hours as you did. Patriarchy is seeming to be nothing more than a myth day in and day out. Why can't it just be that people shut up and stop trying to decide who's oppressed? It's because of that mentality that accusations of oppression even happen today when we are far from oppressing women. Only specific individuals do. And it's not patriarchy. Speaking of it like some movement by a collective of men is not only worthless, but just disgusting. It's these kinds of societal treatment of men, and expectations towards men and women (Like making men feel ashamed for having standards or women for not having standards). Much of men's treatment can be boiled down to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork and any double standard involving men and women. Much involving one where men are being berated without warning or action being taken for such beratement, and being berated regardless of how they act. It's like we, even the majority of American men, expect men to be two opposites at the same time. Like asking a the negative on a magnet to suddenly become a positive and vice versa constantly going back and forth making them change on and off again. To be a worker, and some person who can never be too tired to deal with drama. You can't bake a cake in an oven unless it has electric juice flowing through it. And regardless of how women are not "allowed" to be in wars like men, even though they more than likely are in the West, just not demanded like men, or expected and held accountable when they don't take the same jobs men do for money like coal mining, what matters is what the people making these laws are looking out for. They are not looking out for men. They are looking out for the feelings of women by not holding them responsible for these kinds of things. Women are not held accountable like men are for the same offenses, if you can even call some of it an offense. I also quite remember there being a choice Feminism tab in the school section. So there seems to be a bias towards specific schools of Feminism. Censorship much? Why would anyone remove that unless they were attempting to remove something they felt a bias against plain and simple? That alone should be bannable to remove a school of Feminism from a page about Feminism.
02:10:24 PM Mar 22nd 2013
This seems more like Useful Notes: Straw Feminism than Useful Notes: Feminism. The bulk of the article is about what feminism is *not*. And there's a problem with that: Poe's Law. (No, it doesn't just apply to Christian fundamentalists, even though that's what Poe himself thought of it.) No matter how extreme a caricature of feminism is presented, it is possible to find actual feminist who really is like that. The SCUM Manifesto really does call for killing all men except the ones to be kept as sex slaves; Andrea Dworkin really did say all heterosexual sex is by definition rape. And these works are *not* universally condemned by all feminists. One last problem: feminists are not all angry, bitter harpies—but this is an angry, bitter page about feminism.
12:23:02 AM Jul 19th 2013
edited by 18.104.22.168
edited by 22.214.171.124
01:57:31 PM Nov 5th 2013
It's also important to analyze what Dworkin meant when she said that "penetrative sex is by definition violent." Dworkin and many radical feminists believe that so long as sexism and misogyny exist, intimate relationships between men and women can never truly be equal. In calling penetrative sex violent, Dworkin means to highlight the misogyny and sexism inherent in the very way that we talk about heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex is commonly defined as the penis penetrating the vagina. The concept of penetration is incredibly phallocentric and erases women's agency. This becomes obvious when you deconstruct the sentence "the penis penetrates the vagina," as penis is the subject acting upon the vagina, the object. If we imagine in any given heterosexual encounter that it is the man who makes the initial move towards penetration, then indeed we can accurately describe the act as penetration. But what if the woman makes the first move towards what we traditionally think of as penetration? If she is the forward actor, is it not more accurate to say that the vagina envelops the penis? This turns the vagina from object to subject. Thus acknowledging that heterosexual sex can also be described as "the vagina enveloping the penis" puts both participants on a more level playing field and can lead to alleviate some of the sexism inherent in all heterosexual relationships in a patriarchal society.
08:54:13 AM Jan 28th 2011
edited by MoG2
edited by MoG2
I'd like to know how the author(s) of "most [feminists] agree that it's fun to dress up and look fancy sometimes" came to this conclusion. Did he/she/they ask all the women in the world a) whether they're feminists and b) what they think about this topic?