[001]
69.172.221.4
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Originally, you are quite right, feminism did start as a political movement. However, it went the way of many political movements which are long-lived with ideas rely heavily on individual perspective: it also became a lifestyle choice. Nowadays, feminism - as best I understand it - has more followers as an lifestyle ideology than a political movement. To believe that all genders are equal, that gender prejudice and inequality is wrong, and to follow the tenants of that belief and uphold them. Despite people who live by this ideology meeting, and protesting against inequality - whether inequality against women and men, or just inequality against women - as they find it, there is very little left of feminism as a political movement.
to:
Originally, you are quite right, feminism did start as a political movement. However, it went the way of many political movements which are long-lived with ideas rely heavily on individual perspective: it also became a lifestyle choice. Nowadays, feminism - as best I understand it - has more followers as an lifestyle ideology than a political movement. To believe that all genders are equal, that gender prejudice and inequality is wrong, and to follow the tenants of that belief and uphold them. Despite people who live by this ideology meeting, and protesting against inequality - whether inequality against women and men, or just inequality against women - as they find it, there is little left of feminism as a widespread political movement.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
When I advised looking at google, I gave the Wikipedia article as an example of the consensus of mainstream feminism - that it does exist. However, if you did a search in google, you would find \'\'thousands\'\' of articles and people speaking up for mainstream feminism, and \'\'that\'\' was really the point I was trying to make. The entire internet is saturated with both mainstream feminism and radical feminism, and my point was that if you just take a look out there, you will find the evidence you want. Mainstream feminism \'\'does\'\' exist, even just in the minds of the women - and men - who still believe in its ideals. And that is what matters, that people still believe in the equality that mainstream feminism represents. However, if you type in \
to:
When I advised looking at google, I gave the Wikipedia article as an example of the consensus of mainstream feminism - that it does exist. However, if you did a search in google, you would find \\\'\\\'thousands\\\'\\\' of articles and people speaking up for mainstream feminism, and \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' was really the point I was trying to make. The entire internet is saturated with both mainstream feminism and radical feminism, and my point was that if you just take a look out there, you will find the evidence you want. Mainstream feminism \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' exist, even just in the minds of the women - and men - who still believe in its ideals. And that is what matters, that people still believe in the equality that mainstream feminism represents. However, if you type in \\\"radical feminism\\\" into google, you will find thousands of women who believe in radical feminism as well, damning misogyny in men while touting the supremacy of women over men, never seeing the sad irony of their beliefs. And trust me on this, the radical feminists - like any extremist group - will be far more vocal than their moderate counterparts. On youtube you will find women screaming their hate of men and their belief that men are inferior, and providing their \\\"examples\\\" of such behaviour. My advice is you don\\\'t try to talk reason to any of these people. You \\\'\\\'will\\\'\\\' get a headache.
And this was my point: that both mainstream feminism and radical feminism exist, and the two are wildly different.
Moderate feminism isn\\\'t very politically active. The miserable reality is that although you will find many people who call themselves feminists and who live by its ideals, and who join their groups and communities on facebook and livejournal etc. you will rarely find anyone who will stand up for it in a political setting. Feminism has had a feeble decline in politics, and it\\\'s rather shocking if anyone stands up for it. The very people who should be screaming at the top of their voices in protest against the radical feminist objective are, at best, talking quietly in the corner of the metaphorical room. Mostly, mainstream feminists don\\\'t even like to remind people about the misandry extremists, for fear of being accused of the same thing. Sometimes you will even find radical elements in mainstream feminist communities, all mixed up with in-fighting and arguing, just like any community or fandom.
And that\\\'s it really. The two perspectives exist, and they are basically the moderate and extremist divisions of the feminist movement. That\\\'s really all I\\\'m trying to say. As for evidence? Here\\\'s a couple of sites and articles that might help.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/armchair-commentators-feminism-australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/nyregion/camping-for-feminism.html?_r=0
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/may/1366950579/robyn-annear/hashtag-feminism
https://www.facebook.com/mfeminism
Now some on Radical Feminism in particular:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Radical_feminism.html
http://www.feministissues.com/radical_feminism.html
If you want more, all you have to do is google \\\"feminism\\\" or \\\"moderate feminism\\\" and \\\"radical feminism\\\" or any other keywords to get your evidence. It is very easily accessible.
As for fundemental christians... my point was actually to the contrary, that for fundemental christians their belief in their faith is so all-consuming that they will not even entertain the idea that a contrary agenda could exist. I see hard-line atheism as the same thing. If you believe so strongly in one point of view, it is very hard to entertain its opposite. That was what I was trying to say, although I may not have said it well.
And this was my point: that both mainstream feminism and radical feminism exist, and the two are wildly different.
Moderate feminism isn\\\'t very politically active. The miserable reality is that although you will find many people who call themselves feminists and who live by its ideals, and who join their groups and communities on facebook and livejournal etc. you will rarely find anyone who will stand up for it in a political setting. Feminism has had a feeble decline in politics, and it\\\'s rather shocking if anyone stands up for it. The very people who should be screaming at the top of their voices in protest against the radical feminist objective are, at best, talking quietly in the corner of the metaphorical room. Mostly, mainstream feminists don\\\'t even like to remind people about the misandry extremists, for fear of being accused of the same thing. Sometimes you will even find radical elements in mainstream feminist communities, all mixed up with in-fighting and arguing, just like any community or fandom.
And that\\\'s it really. The two perspectives exist, and they are basically the moderate and extremist divisions of the feminist movement. That\\\'s really all I\\\'m trying to say. As for evidence? Here\\\'s a couple of sites and articles that might help.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/armchair-commentators-feminism-australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/nyregion/camping-for-feminism.html?_r=0
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/may/1366950579/robyn-annear/hashtag-feminism
https://www.facebook.com/mfeminism
Now some on Radical Feminism in particular:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Radical_feminism.html
http://www.feministissues.com/radical_feminism.html
If you want more, all you have to do is google \\\"feminism\\\" or \\\"moderate feminism\\\" and \\\"radical feminism\\\" or any other keywords to get your evidence. It is very easily accessible.
As for fundemental christians... my point was actually to the contrary, that for fundemental christians their belief in their faith is so all-consuming that they will not even entertain the idea that a contrary agenda could exist. I see hard-line atheism as the same thing. If you believe so strongly in one point of view, it is very hard to entertain its opposite. That was what I was trying to say, although I may not have said it well.
