Political Debates discussion
political debates
>
feminism
YASSSSS. IT MEANS SUPPORTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL GENDERS. WHO COULD DISAGREE?
“feminists” who hate men are not feminists. “feminists” who don’t agree with non binary rights are not feminists.
“feminists” who only care about white women are not feminists.
“feminists” who don’t think trans women are women are not feminists. (i’m looking at you jk rowling)
Mod
sorry
I agree with Bumble. It's always annoyed me when I've seen "feminists", but they -hate men
-don’t care about LGBTQIA+ rights
-only care about white women and no one else of other races
-don’t think women that are a part of the LGBTQIA+ community are feminists
It always annoyed me, and I just wanted to ask them "What do you want from me?". There were so many women of color and women in the LGBTQIA+ community who have protested for equal rights for all women, so it just annoys me that they feel the need to ignore them.
Mod
tanara burke was a black woman who founded the me too movement so actually racist “feminists” are even more uneducated than you’d think because not only do they have no idea how skin colour works but they also don’t even know the backstory of the movements they “represent”
Bumble wrote: "“feminists” who hate men are not feminists. “feminists” who don’t agree with non binary rights are not feminists.
“feminists” who only care about white women are not feminists.
“feminists” who d..."
AGREED!
I am not a feminist, and I doubt I ever will be, respectfully.Now, do I believe that all men and women are equal? Yes, of course.
Historically, feminism was a term exclusively for white, cisgendered, upper/middle class women. It is inherently exclusive of women of color and members of LGBTQIA+.
The term "womanism," I believe, created in the late 1980s, is inclusive of women who fall outside the category of what I just mentioned before.
Additionally, there are certain differences between the two sexes that some feminists blatantly disregard and refuse to accept. An apt example at the most basic level is biology. If you raised a little girl and boy exactly the same way, with the same resources, genetics, exposure, and training, and asked them to play a basketball game, I think the male would perform better simply because of biological differences.
Beyond that, I don't think I will be a feminist because of the blatant man-hating of radical feminists today. The term has merited a bit of a bad rep among social conservatives today, and I can see why.
This is odd for me, because I'm typically uncomfortable sharing my political and social opinions online where misconceptions may occur about my persona- particularly in a predominantly left-leaning space like GR. I will clear this up by saying I am certainly not going to be judging any of you for your opinions, and I trust the same respect will be extended unto me. That being said, I am open to new ideas.
Also, I'm not really a traditionalist either, I'm just uncomfortable with (a)the natural exclusivity of feminism and (b)certain... feminists today.
I could go on and on and on about feminism, but I'll put a cap on it there.
Absolutely. All men and women, and everyone in between, were created equal. To suggest that a human being is inferior simply on that basis is outright absurd.
Spriya wrote: "I am not a feminist, and I doubt I ever will be, respectfully....Historically, feminism was a term exclusively for white, cisgende..."
Can you define what you think Feminism actually is by your calculation? can yo also explain what the difference between Feminism ans Womanism? I would say they are the same thing with very minor differences, more of degrees than actualities. Your thought has caught my attention.
As for history, you are actually off. there were plenty of lower class women and women of color involved from the very beginning. Please do not misunderstand about segregation and my thoughts. I am not saying they were all on the same page and believe it or not, they still are not on the same page.
Thank you for pointing that out, I should have specified my wording.What I meant about feminism being exclusive was that mainstream feminism wasn’t exactly accessible to pocs and low income workers, since these were the women who were working day in and out at factories and such. And this is understandable, since they obviously had bigger things to worry about, such as feeding their family for another day, lmao.
You’re right, womanism is essentially feminism, but the roots of womanism trace back to being more about women of color and various backgrounds rather than your typical white woman.
Feminism is about equality of the sexes, and it always has been, but it is a few modern day SJWs and feminists that have actually driven me off that course. Also, I just disagree with some fundamental beliefs that I don’t really want to get into right now.
Thank you for pointing out my wording, am glad to clarify.
Spriya wrote: "Feminism is about equality of the sexes, and it always has been, but it is a few modern day SJWs and feminists that have actually driven me off that course. ..."So you recognize that the mission is splintered and you do not want to be labeled along with the splinter you do not agree within the larger argument?
Is it fair to say that you see Womanism as the lens to focus on Feminism?
see, I don’t count radical feminists as feminists. feminism means wanting men, women and everyone in between being treated the same so.... why would transphobes, racists and man haters count as feminists?
Bumble wrote: "see, I don’t count radical feminists as feminists. feminism means wanting men, women and everyone in between being treated the same so.... why would transphobes, racists and man haters count as fem..."Mint wrote: "YES. I SUPPORT FEMINISM. The fact that some people think that a person is automatically inferior, just because they're born female, is absolutely disgusting. I can't believe misogyny is still a thi..."
Bumble wrote: "“feminists” who hate men are not feminists.
“feminists” who don’t agree with non binary rights are not feminists.
“feminists” who only care about white women are not feminists.
“feminists” who d..."
Adela wrote: "We should all be feminists. Feminism is about equal rights for all people regardless of their gender. I think a lot of people who disagree with feminism think that feminism means that women should ..."
Agreed!
Bumble wrote: "see, I don’t count radical feminists as feminists. feminism means wanting men, women and everyone in between being treated the same so.... why would transphobes, racists and man haters count as fem..."Feminism represents a wide range of beliefs. Not all factions are going to agree or even get along.
im a feminist in the belief i think that men and women should be treated as equals. if a woman works the same amount of time as a man, (and they've been working at the job the same amount of time) they should get paid the same. i think men and women should also be equal in terms of sexual assault. by that i mean if a woman says she was sexually assaulted, we should believe her until its proven otherwise (women who make false rape allegations are disgusting, and i say that as a woman). and we should also believe men when they say they've sexually assaulted too.
women are generally treated as lesser to men in america and i honestly have no fucking clue why. i think that women and men are, and should be treated as, equals.
@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who believe women are superior to men are not feminists, because they don’t believe in the equality of the sexes.
Subsets diverge from their sets on a regular basis without being excluded from their sets. The example that I find can best illustrate this is Islam. Consider Sunnis, Shiites, and the NOI. Sunnis and Shiites have been at odds for almost a millennium, and the NOI claims to follow the teachings of a prophet who came after Muhammad. Yet they are all muslims.
could you please explain your point? i’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion on feminism
yea i dont see how thats relevant
Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who believe women are superior to men are not feminists, because they don’t believe in the equality of the sexes."You're attempting to exclude a subset from its set, based a single definition. This is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Saying that a "radical" feminist is not a feminist is akin to saying that the NOI is not muslim.
Spriya wrote: "Thank you for pointing that out, I should have specified my wording.What I meant about feminism being exclusive was that mainstream feminism wasn’t exactly accessible to pocs and low income worke..."
Isn't what you call "womanism" just what us feminists have been calling intersectional feminism for quite some time now? If so than would you consider yourself a intersectional feminist?
Spriya wrote: "I am not a feminist, and I doubt I ever will be, respectfully.Now, do I believe that all men and women are equal? Yes, of course.
Historically, feminism was a term exclusively for white, cisgende..."
Would you consider your biological argument an appeal to nature fallacy and a form of biological determinism?
okay, I will find more definitions, from other sources. merriam-webster: Definition of feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
pretty much the same as brittanica.
cambridge dictionary: the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:
the SAME rights. not more rights.
oxford languages: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes
equality is the key word.
if these sources weren’t enough to convince you, then what will?
J. wrote: "Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who believe women are superior to m..."In order for it to be a no true scotsman fallacy the subset would actually have to have the characteristics that are found in it's definitions. Otherwise it isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy but rather a logical conclusion based on observation and the definition of the term. You're misunderstanding the no true scotsman fallacy completely if you believe saying something that violates its definition isn't what the definition prescribes to it.
Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who believe women are superior to men are not femi..."I am well aware of the definition. My only point is within a political movement, there are a wider range of opinions and they can run the extreme ends. Regardless of definitions, if one considers themselves feminists, then they are feminists. There is certainly a group that do not believe men can be feminists and yet there are plenty that accept men as feminists.
Bumble wrote: "okay, I will find more definitions, from other sources. merriam-webster: Definition of feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
pretty much the same as b..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
I apologize to all for posting a Wikipedia reference. Except, i this instance it does a pretty good job of both the history and politics.
Bumble,
I encourage you to read the waves section of the article. It does a pretty good job of loosely explaining the differing views of feminism. Some of them are pretty extreme.
Matthew wrote: "J. wrote: "Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who believe women are su..."Actually J is using a good example. So to give everyone a "no Scotsman Fallacy" argument: On this group thread, we have Republicans, Democrats, and Communists. I am only including Americans for this example. So we all go to vote as is our right and we vote for whom we choose. So the Democrat and Republican look at the Communist and say you cannot be a real American because you voted for a Communist, Real Americans do not vote for Communists. The fallacy is that yes Americans can and do vote for Communists. It is using faulty definitions to try and separate out a given subset by redefinition to exclude the subset from the larger group.
Feminism is a political movement and within the larger movement are smaller group that have a wide divergence of opinion, some are going to be considered radical.
Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J. wrote: "Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefore, people who beli..."Calling someone a "no true 'merican" for being a communist is a good example of a no true scotsman because it is a ploy of conveniently changing the definition or ignoring it entirely to avoid criticism. Saying someone isn't a feminist if they don't upholds the values of feminism is not that thus it does not logically follow or conclude that saying someone who does not follow the definitive characteristics of feminism is a a example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true...
"one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition"
When we say people who do not follow the definition of feminists are not feminists we are not changing the definition but utilizing it.
Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J. wrote: "Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. therefo..."You are making the very same argument as I am.
Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J. wrote: "Bumble wrote: "@papaphilly the definition of feminist, from britannica, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of th..."Nope we are using two totally different interpretations of what a no true scotsman fallacy is
You are using the no Scotsman fallacy to protect against splinter feminist groups and that is what exactly what I am saying.
Papaphilly wrote: "You are using the no Scotsman fallacy to protect against splinter feminist groups and that is what exactly what I am saying."You keep saying we are utilizing the no true scotsman fallacy. I believe you are either misinterpreting what a no true scotsman fallacy actually is or what is being said.
No, what I am saying is that the edges identify themselves as Feminists and others are saying they are not because Feminists do not believe what these Feminists believe.
Papaphilly wrote: "No, what I am saying is that the edges identify themselves as Feminists and others are saying they are not because Feminists do not believe what these Feminists believe."We don't say they aren't feminists because "feminists do not believe what these feminists believe" we are saying they are not feminists because of the fact that they do not suit the definition of the term. Thus making it in accurate observation and not a no true scotsman fallacy
Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "No, what I am saying is that the edges identify themselves as Feminists and others are saying they are not because Feminists do not believe what these Feminists believe."We don..."
Did you read what you just wrote?
Papaphilly wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "No, what I am saying is that the edges identify themselves as Feminists and others are saying they are not because Feminists do not believe what these Feminists b..."Yes. You do understand the difference between a no true scotsman fallacy and what is being stated here right?
When I was growing up, to be a feminist meant you hated men. If you chose to get married or have kids, you were scorned by feminists as a traitor. I love being a mom, therefore I can't be a feminist.If it actually means treating every person equally, then I'm for it.
And I love being a Dad, am a man. And am a feminist. Hating men has never been what feminism has been aboutFeminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics
Mod
but the thing is, “radical feminists” literally go against the definition of feminism. therefore they do not apply to the term feminists. for example:
the definition of a professional singer, is someone who sings in order to earn money. someone saying they’re a professional singer, but they don’t earn money from singing, means that they are not a professional singer. right? even if they apply to some of the definition (ie, they do sing) that doesn’t mean they are a professional singer.
it’s the same with radical feminists. they don’t support equality of the sexes. so even if they do support women, they are not feminists.
Audrey wrote: "When I was growing up, to be a feminist meant you hated men. If you chose to get married or have kids, you were scorned by feminists as a traitor. I love being a mom, therefore I can't be a feminis..."I think being a feminist means loving and supporting ALL women. Mothers, wives, single women, lesbians, sex workers, etc.
Mod
sofia wrote: "exactly. and it sickens me that people use feminism as an excuse to hate on other women, rather than bring them up."EXACTLY
Radical feminism is a joke. The Feminist (with a capital F) movement is also a joke. Someday they will have to learn that they cannot blame the patriarchy for everything.1. The Wage Gap
We can all agree that women earn less than men, but the causes the Feminist movement points to are screwed.
It is illegal in the US to pay a certain group less than others for the same job. A male and a female working the same job for the same number of hours get the same amount of money.
Therefore, the wage gap can really only be a cause of the jobs the genders hold. Men are far more likely to work in STEM jobs than women (1), and when you consider the fact that the highest-paying jobs are almost exclusively in STEM (2), it's no wonder men make more than women.
The thing is, no one is stopping women from entering STEM jobs. Again, that's illegal. If anything, schools are actively working to draw more women into STEM--think of the girl's only science clubs in school or the girl's only STEM scholarships.
If you as a women want to pursue a STEM career, you may have to work harder than men because there is this bias that women are caretakers. But why does this bias exist? Not because of men certainly, it's because women in STEM are rare. And why are women in STEM rare? Because women in STEM need to work harder to earn praise. And why do...
It's a circular argument!
So really, while it might have been "the patriarchy" that prevented female doctors in history, it's 2020. If you want women to hold higher-paying jobs, you must be the one to break the chain and say "fuck you" to gender norms. Men are not the ones holding you back, you are.
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with getting paid less than men. If you want your husband to be the breadwinner, that's okay. If you want to stay home with your kids all day, and your husband wants to work, that's fine. One gender being paid more than the other because of varying interests (3) is okay. We can't force women to try for higher-paying STEM jobs any more than we can force men to become teachers, nurses, etc.
Inherent differences between genders are okay. It's only when we force someone to become something they don't want on the basis of that difference is it not okay.
2. The Pink TaxYoutuber Shoe0nHead has a great video on this subject if you're interested.
This is probably one of my favorite topics that the Feminist movement whines about because they are the ones that created it.
The Pink Tax is essentially the idea that women pay more for their hygiene products than men do. And for the most part, that's true (4).
Let's examine this claim with shampoo.
Here's the real question: What even is the difference between male and female shampoo? If I am a female and buy male shampoo, will I die? If I am a male and buy female shampoo, will I contract a terminal illness?
No. No to both questions. Because there is no real difference between female and male shampoo other than the scent and some of the ingredients. (5).
It makes sense that shampoo with long-lasting fragrance costs more than a shampoo that's just shampoo.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that you can buy whatever goddamn shampoo you feel like. Seriously, there is no law saying men have to buy male shampoo or women have to buy female shampoo. If you're cheap and want to buy an unscented male shampoo, go for it. If you're extravagant and want to smell good, buy the female shampoo. No one is stopping you.
I mean...why are we even putting genders on different types of shampoo in the first place? Why can't we just call it scented and unscented shampoo?
I guess we should investigate something else, just to prove that this isn't a one-time thing.
Razors. Men pay less for razors (6).
The answer to why this is has nothing to do with sexism. It's merely that because women typically shave more sensitive parts of their body, like armpits and around the vagina, the razors must also be more comfortable and less blunt (7).
Once again, it's not a gender difference as much as a quality difference. If you as woman want a male razor, go ahead. It won't feel as good, but that's why it's cheaper.
Em J. wrote: "A lot more women are going into STEM. And the reason more men are in STEM is not just because "women don't want to," it's because a lot of girls were/are raised by parents, friends, family members,..."That still doesn't change the fact that no one is forcing men to go into STEM or vice versa. Is there societal pressure for a woman to hold a lower-paying job like you said? It depends on how and where you were raised.
And even if your teachers say you can't be a scientist, who the hell cares? If you wanted to be a scientist, you go get that degree.
You said that more women are going into STEM jobs. That's wonderful, and proof that times are changing :)
(By the way, I do consider myself a feminist, and I do support the sentiment of the Feminist movement. However, their reasoning is based on faulty logic at best.)
Discuss!!