Feminism - going too far?

We live in an ando-centric world. When you finally open your eyes and see just how skewed our world is it is a bit easier to understand the desperation and frustration of some over the top feminist. Their war is just but the battles they fight are not always chosen wisely.

 

Umm...

Men are far superior in the only respect that truly matters: playing guitar. Seriously. Deal with it.

 

I've said it before but it bears repeating: Insofar as feminism seeks to achieve parity and fair treatment for both genders, I am a supporter. Insofar as feminism seeks to merely degrade, dominate, belittle, humble or punish men, it is a hate filled ideology no more deserving of respect than racism. It is sexism with the roles reversed.

I've had several clashes with radical feminists whose agenda is merely one of closing honest discussion and punishing anyone with an honestly held different viewpoint. IMHO, they are just as dangerous as radical Islam, radical Christians, or Nazi skinheads. They may not use overt violence, but the innocent lives they have destroyed are just as important and just as thoroughly decimated by the feminists brand of political correctness. Their effect on society is caustic in the extreme.

 

As a woman who comes from the generation that started the modern movement for women's' rights and as a staunch supporter of women's' rights I must comment on this subject.

I agree with Beren. (Ha! fooled you.)

Women have been and in many parts of the world still are oppressed. I could go back and pull out from personal memory many incidents which led to the fight for women's' rights but I won't.

Equal rights should mean just that. As much as I support women's rights I even more strongly support respect for one another.

On comments that someone (male or female) might find offensive I think the person making the comments should try to curtail them.

As far as terms such as herstory, womyn, wymyn, whatever goes or even needing to insert (s)he into things or Chairperson, Foreperson I find that silly but if it makes someone happy fine go ahead and do it.

 

Feminism can suffer from what any equality movement that lasts too long tends to suffer from (I'm looking at you collectivism). Both Feminism and Collectivism started out as equality movements as as they either become more frustrated or detached from the social environment around them fell into the old "Us v. Them" trap.

Collectivism became a labor rights movement instead of a egalitarian movement. Feminism became a women's rights movement and suddenly a "Us" was born that didn't exist in an egalitarian movement. It only becomes natural from here that the "Us" seeks out that social category that harms it and labels it the "Them".

That "Us v. Them" Feminism however takes on a very bizarre position. Collectivism becoming a Communist movement is really just a human rights issue becoming a political issue and reorganization of social hierarchy through political issues is clearly nothing unusual. Radical feminism can place itself in the position in which it actively attacks humanity (the attempt of some sort of weird expulsion of a certain aspect of humanity from humanity) under the guise of human rights. While formal politics only can operate within the social construct and therefore is with any value outside the assignment human beings give politics, gender relations is not quite the same deal. Neuropsychology and neurobiology posits the position that complex social emotions where adaptive to the survival of the human species and the working of a social society. In other words we haven't been designed simply just to randomly breed (I.e. the breeder put forth by some radical feminists is non-biological). It would be bizarre to admire the concept of the mother while maintaining emotional distance from the component needed make a woman into a mother.

I can't say, however, that I've every encountered the fringe feminist outside of feminist literature. I consider myself a classical feminist, save when I'm anti upper middle-class, white, American males (like myself). I have a good number of people I'm at least relatively close to who are feminists and a couple of pretty hardcore feminist professors and none of them are reverse-misogynistic. I feel most of the time too much is made of the fringe feminist. Sure, she's noisy, but she has almost no political clout and even in most American academic institutions, the deans and presidents are older white men. It's socially acceptable for her to be noisy, especially since other feminists tolerate her and there are young college women who admire her, just like it was allowed for the socialist parties to make some noise in the 1920s because unions supported them. Both cases however, the mainstream society distrusts or dislikes them and keeps their sphere of political influence roughly limited to what they can control through their own personal power.

 

Ah, but the socialist parties led to Stalin, and many males (and even a number of females) have fallen victim to the modern feminist movement, having their careers destroyed by unsubstantiated accusaitons, gross exagerations, and out-and-out lies. This is dangerous and, in any other circumstance, illegal, but here it seems to be guarded by the idea that anyone opposed to anything a feminist says must automatically be a violent, illogical anti-feminist.

In the end, however, any group that opposes another group based not on characteristics of action or interaction (rapists, murderers, KKK members, etc), but rather on characteristics of being (men, blacks, whites, Jews, etc.) is illogical and dangerous. Personally, those are the groups I would like to see criminalized, or at least have such speach non-protected.

 

Sorry, I should have clarified that I was taking about the American socialist parties of the 1920s. Nations that are classified as Western Democracies are suppose to be rather ideologically stable and therefore extremists typically have issue garnering support from a significant portion of the political populous.

Right now the U.S.'s environmental movement has allowed for the existence of technically non-violent groups like E.L.F. E.L.F. maybe able to make noise and gain sympathy for their cause, but the majority of those the United States (even those who are pro-environment) aren't a fan of them, E.L.F. just has high visibility much like fringe feminists. Make a big enough stink and people will notice you.

As for fringe feminists in non-"western" democracies, they need to first get something that even resembles equality for women before they can go about oppressing women.

 

Ah, but my point that the threat is largely not from the political arena, but the social and legal ones, is the big issue I see, and that was brought up in the article referenced.

 

I believe that Feminism is sending a message to women just as oppressive as that which they fight. By militantly telling them what they should do and who they should be, they are no better than what they oppose...

 

Erm. Do it my way. Smile at those evil feminazis, hold the door for them, pick up the pen if they drop it and if they complain, charm the female judge or boss.

Seriously, though, they're well over the top, as has been said. Some of those behaviours betray an inferiority complex; they're clearly compensational.

Another face of the "heterophobia" that I've encountered is the sad reality that you're not the perv if you want to hump the girl; you're the perv if you fall in love with her or at least harbour some affections. Then you want to oppress her, take the freedom from her, demean her, subject her to patriarchy etc etc as opposed to the good old humping and leaving that has been around since nearly the beginning of the world. Ah the joys of "progress" that doesn't see how far it's regressing.

(from the article)

IMHO that stuff will increase along with rampant feminism. It's not a product of the good old mores. It's a product of a declining morality.

(also therefrom)

The manifestation of a feminist obsession with fear of male sexuality upsets me, actually. Not like I care, but it's just something I could live without, especially in business.

*Hostile comment* There. Shall we go to court now?

Hello, libel laws. Hello false testimony penalties. Anyone there? Mr Prosecutor, wake up! *kick in the chair leg*

If you run into such a case within the area I'm allowed to practice, you get 10% discount.

If they want war, bring it on... I've seen worse.

All right. Now here is my number...

As for real abuse, however, jail them. Establishing a double standard of pay for the same work and same non-monetary benefits, might well become a jailable offence if you ask me. You can put youngsters to jail for grabbing a girl's butt at a disco too, if I'm concerned, and I'd gladly sentence that idiot to community service if I were a judge. In fact, you can jail people for merely verbal sexual advances (I say sexual, not romantic or affectionate) if they're extreme or repeated against a pronounced contrary wish. Just put an end to those psychotic restrictions and false accusations.

As for "herstory" or "wymyn", where's my red pen?

 

There needs to be a line drawn between radical feminism and feminism in general. The fact that women have been oppressed by men for years and often been treated as second class citizen if not downright like children can't be ignored, neither can the fact that full equality between the genders exists nowhere. How to achieve full equal status between the genders and what measures should be taken is of course another matter. But these are the main points that feminists try to achieve and I would atleast hope that most don't see anything wrong with those.

Then there is the radical feminism which basically brings up all this "wymyn" nonsense and thoughts about "mass divorce" from heterosexual relationships. Radical feminism in my opinion is pure nonsense but labeling all feminists under it is just plain wrong.

 

Have you realised the irony in this thread? Out of the 13 people who replied (myself included) only one woman said something? Isn't this about feminism?

I can support equality between gender, in fact I do. I find no logical reason why one gender should be superior to the other. I recall one incident that happened last week in college. Just before the class began I saw this girl (who's in my class) with this huge pile of book on her arms. She was having trouble opening the door so I politely said " Let me help you " and opened the door for her. Suddenly she yelled at me " Why did you do it? Do you think that since I'm a woman I can't open a door? " or something like that. I was shocked, so I'm a bad misogen (spelling?) ? It would've have been more proper of me to let her struggle with the door? Seriously...

 

From Ofelix:

I am a bit disappointed other women haven't posted.

Misogynist. The girl is obviously a rude, silly, nincompoop.

However if I am on an elevator especially in the back and the door opens and the men juggle around trying to let the women off first I get annoyed. "For heavens sake gtf off the bloody elevator and let us all get out." (I don't actual say that) I talking about going to a floor where everyone will get off.

 

You've mentioned before that you've qualified for the AARP for quite some time. Are you sure that, when this kind of thing happens, it's because you're a woman? That type of deferential treatment is often afforded to the Senior Citizens, too.

 

have you noticed most of the worst treatment towards women around the world is based on religon?

 

Have you noticed that Christianity has been a mitigating force for many years against the oppression of those previously having it worse? Slaves, peasants, women, children, other people depending on those who had the arms and the power?