This is an unpopular opinion by all feminists, I'm sure, but the goals of feminism have already been accomplished. Susan B. Anthony and the like accomplished the woman's suffrage and organizing more female roles in the workplace, which by the way, began largely unopposed during WW1 as many men in the workforce were drafted and positions needed to be filled. Many studies have concluded that women do not get paid less for the same job as a man does overall despite this being a pushbutton talking point for feminists. Looking at the military, preparations are in place for women to be sent to the front lines that request it. Women are also joining the submarine force in greater numbers as officers and soon as enlisted women for the first time next year and soon as Navy Seals as well.
I don't see what feminists are trying to accomplish these days. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them just plain hate men and are deluded by their fellow feminists into thinking such gender discrimination still runs rampant. What modern feminists are too intellectually dishonest to admit are the benefit females have in society; while it may be true that some male employers hire men for the job, others hire women because they want to see them strut around the workplace on a daily basis. It's also MUCH more socially acceptable for a married woman to decide she doesn't wish to work while the husband does. Similarly, women can expect to be catered to especially while in the dating phase. Women also nearly always maintain custody of children, are not suspected as often for crimes and/or get off more easily, and women can wear men's clothes but not so much vice-versa. Just kidding about that last one... sort of.
Feminism of the 1900's was beautiful. Loudmouth modern feminists of today are obnoxious.
But there's my rant for the day.
Please, share links or information on the studies that conclude that women are paid the same as men. It isn’t true, and I would like to see where you got your information.
You don’t seem to actually know your history. The goals of feminism have in no way been fully accomplished, and your explanation on the benefits women have in today’s society demonstrates how poorly you understand sexism.
“…others hire women because they want to see them strut around the workplace on a daily basis.”
Hiring women based on their looks is not a privilege. It is a sexist practice that devalues intelligence in women, and is objectifying. Also, how is it more socially acceptable for “a married woman to decide she doesn’t wish to work?” Like, in what ways is that actually a thing? Seriously, share your resources. I’m concerned you’ve been relying of factually incorrect / biased research.
“Women also nearly always maintain custody of children…”
You probably mean women are more likely to be identified as a child’s primary caregiver in divorce cases. This means a mother is more likely to be evaluated by a court to be able to meet a young child’s needs. Due to gendered roles in our society, women are
expected to be a child’s primary caregiver (as in expected to be the one to prepare meals, take the child to school, etc), so of course they are more likely to be identified as such in court. Sure, in many modern families parenting roles are starting to unravel, with women as bread winners, and the “stay at home father,” but it remains a fact that these roles still exist. Feminism seeks to deconstruct traditional gender roles, so if women being more likely to be primary caregiver is a problem for you, feminism is actually a solution.
“…and women can wear men’s clothes but not so much vice-versa.”
This more has to do with heteronormativity, and if that’s a conversation you want to have, let me know. I will gladly talk about it with you. I understand that you’re (sort of) kidding. Still, it does relate to how androgyny has and does lean toward the masculine, rather than the feminine, and that does have to do with the devaluing of femininity in today’s world.
CannotGrasp speaks the truth. Which makes me wonder why (s)he has that name, lol.
Regular feminists are fighting for equality among genders, even when it comes to simple things like making toys non-gender specific and let little girls play with toy cars and little boys play with dolls if they would like. They also fight for equal pay in the workplace as well as treatment of women at their jobs or school.
Unfortunately, the name feminists get bundled with those that are more militant in nature. Those people complain about the lack of tampon commercials seen during football season and other preposterous stuff that doesn't matter.
Great points. Still, do you know what straw feminism is? It's what you and many others here are describing, and it really doesn't exist. At least, not to a point in which it's effective to use it to undermine certain ways feminists express themselves. Here (
http://niftynotcool.com/2014/12/11/please-stop-fighting-straw-feminists-theyre-not-real/) is a strong opinion-piece on how citing "militant" feminists isn't a strong argument, because they simply don't exist, or at least, are far and few between, and are in no way indicative of modern feminism as a movement in the way that a lot of critics seem to believe.
Says the guy who felt the need to post their empty emotional backlash.
It means that men are far more vulnerable to manipulation while aroused, not that they turn into horny chimpanzees with no impulse control. You know, exactly like the
cartoon stereotype.
Consider how your argument about vulnerability here is indicative of how men aren't held accountable for their sexuality. Women are taught again and again ways to avoid getting *****, which while important for safety in a culture where men aren't taught self-control when it comes to sex and sexual urges, is also unfortunate as it shouldn't be a woman's responsibility and burden.
Certainly there are lingering racial problems related to attitudes and well-being. Blacks still generally have less prestige, wealth, and self-actualization than whites in the USA; but I think this is mainly due to cycles of poverty, under-education, and crime. Racism since the 70's is, I think, more an effect of this situation rather than a cause. (Campaigning for social justice by insisting that #BlackLivesMatter merely distracts from the real, mainly economic, causes of black suffering, but that's beside the point).
Women don't generally suffer from the same kind of poverty as blacks. Consequently, they're doing at least as well as men are; and sexism today is about as likely to be misandry as misogyny. The racial metaphor just seems too different to be helpful. Poverty is evidently harder than patriarchy.
We MRA's tend to go for evolutionary-psychological answers here, but I'll set the nature/nurture issue aside. Women have, for most of our evolutionary and cultural history, needed help while they were pregnant and nursing. Women then were pregnant more often, of course, than they are now that we have reliable birth control. Kids almost certainly did better in societies that gave these women adequate resources and protection, resulting in selective pressure for sympathy towards women (moreso than towards men). Whether this pressure operated on our genes or our ideas (or both), its vestiges explain the "women are wonderful" effect.
A similar story explains our expectations of men. How would you answer the "why" question?
I don't see any contradiction. Men are expected to sacrifice well-being in order to get status and money, and would be better off if their worth weren't so reducible to purchasing power. Equalization of power, responsibility, and well-being between the sexes is a noble goal, although feminist efforts to achieve this goal have been a mixed bag. A rational approach involves egalitarian parenting, equal opportunity, and freedom from gender roles, not quotas, affirmative action, women-only programs/entitlements, or overblown rhetoric about oppression, patriarchy, etc.
Who is "explicitly advocating for the abject subservience of women to men", other than politically negligible minorities such as Muslims? Conservative religious groups in the USA have no such goals, explicit or implicit.
There are many incorrect things that you’ve said on this forum, but I want to get this out of the way first.
Who is "explicitly advocating for the abject subservience of women to men", other than politically negligible minorities such as Muslims? Conservative religious groups in the USA have no such goals, explicit or implicit.
This is an
awful statement. First, you describe those of Muslim faith as “politically negligible.” Why do you describe them as so? They are a very important ethnic minority here in the US, and have dealt with terrible racism due to post-9/11 anti-Islam sentiment. Muslim-Americans are very important in political discourse today, and have been for the past decade.
Second, I encourage to read up pieces written by Muslim women. Here is one:
http://www.onislam.net/english/read...h/447376-why-i-wear-the-muslim-headscarf.html). Describing Muslim faith as “explicitly advocating for the abject subservience of women to men” is a very western, very white understanding of Islam. You are not Muslim. Neither am I. Let actual Muslim women speak on and explain their gender and faith.
In this article, Hernandez, the author, addresses your view that Muslim women are oppressed, using the hijab as an example. She explains that covering up is done so that men have to engage with women intellectually. Some see it as a way to demand men’s respect. Please, educate yourself on the intricacies of being Muslim and female before making uneducated remarks like this.
