Feminism Thread

[Plow]

ok seriously fuck that lady, I watched 10 minutes of it and I really wish I'd had kohan's reaction

[Kohan]

ok seriously fuck that lady, I watched 10 minutes of it and I really wish I'd had kohan's reaction

You should have, though it's not too late for the follow-up. A lot of the other videos on that website are amazing, as are the articles. Some of my friends, co-workers and I have been enjoying them throughout the day. Much crying from laughter has been had, and quotes are flying aplenty.

[Charismatic]

Is this because feminism is being misrepresented to these people by the Adria Richards and Sheryl Sandbergs of the world?

Probably more to do with the fact that feminism isn't just equality for all. If it were that without the social theory attached (muh patriarchy) I think more people would be receptive.
Many who attach themselves to the movement probably don't even know that this is at the core of feminist theory.
Many that do are not keen on the idea of being called feminist and outright reject the movement.

[Charismatic]

Not to mention that most feminists outright ignore men's issues.
Why should any man want to follow a movement that, generally speaking, doesn't care about his rights/issues/suffering and focuses more on a certain interpretation of equality rather than fairness?

[Kohan]

Probably more to do with the fact that feminism isn't just equality for all. If it were that without the social theory attached (muh patriarchy) I think more people would be receptive.
Many who attach themselves to the movement probably don't even know that this is at the core of feminist theory.
Many that do are not keen on the idea of being called feminist and outright reject the movement.

If you want to begin discussing the various types of feminism, you would find—as is the case with many other movements—that a lot of them are pants-on-head nuts. I believe you're already aware of this, as you've alluded to how people dislike feminism because of the loons it's oft associated with, especially the man-haters, who are worthless and irritating. (I liken them to gay men who hate straight men and any type of woman, or Tea Partiers compared to more middle-ground conservatives—you know, the extremists that everyone else is embarrassed by.)

However, the core feminism movement has always aspired for equal rights for all, and not just women. This wasn't a recent evolution, either; a lot of the "classic" feminists were around in the late 1700s and throughout the 1800s. They were concerned with "personhood" and equal treatment rather than the stereotypical abolishing of all male privilege. Despite what some people may say, it wasn't just for white women, either; in the 1800s specifically, "founding feminists," if you will, wanted equal treatment for men and women, white and black. It was not a trendy mindset to have at the time, as you would understand.

Considering, what I believe you're saying is the "core" isn't, and hasn't been for ages. In fact, the Al Jazeera article above doesn't simply reflect a push for a change—it's more of a distillation and neutering of the concept, a la neo-conservatives who believe that the 1950s were the Ideal America, and want their women in the kitchen and their minorities in the ghettos. It's "I'm a White Woman, Cry Me a River" bullshit, which is especially insulting in the face of liberal feminism.

It was realized that simply championing for women's rights would not work, as you could not improve the life of one side while ignoring the other. Accordingly, the movement modified itself to abolish all forms of gender-related prejudices, which includes things like accepting feminine men while having no problem with the macho ones as well (basically, equal judgment). This is something I alluded to a while ago in this thread while talking about how there's nothing wrong with jocks, there's just something wrong with assholes—and a neo-feminist would not make that distinction, as they think "all men are evil," "I'm a stupid bitch," et cetera, et cetera.

In summary: the crazy, man-despising, gay- and minority-hating "feminists" aren't feminists at all—they're just bitches that make everyone else look bad. They don't know anything about the history of the movement, and their image has strengthened an incredibly negative stereotype that has permanently tarnished the word.

(Congratulations! You actually made me type up a serious response to the subject. I normally don't do that.)

EDIT: Ah, dicks. I actually didn't allude to jocks being perfectly acceptable individuals in this thread; it was the gay thread. I appear to have mixed up my activism discussions.

SECOND EDIT: As for the video I was incredibly entertained by, I didn't bother to seriously comment on it due to how glaringly bone-headed it was. Since I'm already responding, I'll touch on it a little, though.

The majority of the things mentioned within it (e.g., "women and children first") are carry-over, chivalrous implementations, which were not originally instated by women. In fact, historically, these concepts have been used to prevent women from securing other rights and privileges, due to the concept of "men are the protectors and the decision makers"—they decide that "women and children go first," just as they decide when and what their women and children do, what rights they do or don't have, and so on, so forth. It's making a terrible example, basically, that neglects to elaborate upon the core reasoning. Trying to justify it by saying that people benefit from it, without addressing why and who instated it in the first place, smacks of sad and laughable desperation—much like the rest of the video.

It's also offensive on many other levels (and I don't mean in a female-perspective manner), as in the case of both the Titanic and the airplane crash, the individuals who made the orders remained behind—and had no reason to make those orders besides simply wanting to. It's not a requirement in any industry nor military, and historically, women don't survive more disasters than men.

As for the quotes shared about female superiority later on, they were cherry-picked from obviously extremist sources—I mean, who would take a book, "Why Women Should Rule the World," seriously? The guy who made the video, obviously, who likely walked into a bookstore, saw that title, and shat his pants in response—but no one else would, unless they're a bimbo, or an equally stupid asshole. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't.

That, and the video of the chick talking about women being superior was taken from a comedy skit. So, stupid and desperate all around.

That's why everyone else I've shown the video to has been incredibly entertained—they're aware of the historical and modern context surrounding every example given, and they find the grossly irresponsible misuse of all of it completely hilarious. That, and the MS Paint animations. That will never get old.

[Abandon]

Hell yeah! Drinking bro > Whiny racist bitch
She gets das boom every time.

fucking lol

[Churchill]

It's a shame feminisms impact on society was none of the things you mentioned.

[Plow]

My favorite part was when he was scrolling a list of super offensive female groups you could never have a male equivalent of super fast so you couldn't read it but it stalled at the end to make it super nice and clear that he listed the fucking YWCA.

[Charismatic]

If your definition of feminism was the common one, Kohan, talks like this wouldn't be necessary.

Spoiler: show

[Kuya]

What is the common form of feminisn?

[Kohan]

What is the common form of feminisn?

The common social definition is "crazy bitch who hates all men." Perhaps forever, the word is doomed to be associated with that definition, in no small part due to women themselves hating it, and agreeing that it stands for that established stereotype. (Add in the ones who are starting to call being a homemaker "feminism," and you have yet another reason to consider the term negative.)

The literally common form—in terms of those who identify and practice—is something that probably cannot be quantified.

[archibaldcrane]

The common social definition is "crazy bitch who hates all men."

Jesus christ lol

[AidenCarby]

Seize the hooters!

[Charismatic]

I was talking about the less crazy ones who don't necessarily hate men but believe that societal problems are caused necessarily by men (by proxy of the patriarchy) and systemic injustice.

[archibaldcrane]

I was talking about the less crazy ones who don't necessarily hate men but believe that societal problems are caused necessarily by men (by proxy of the patriarchy) and systemic injustice.

Jesus Christ lol

[Tarage]

The common social definition is "crazy bitch who hates all men." Perhaps forever, the word is doomed to be associated with that definition, in no small part due to women themselves hating it, and agreeing that it stands for that established stereotype. (Add in the ones who are starting to call being a homemaker "feminism," and you have yet another reason to consider the term negative.)

The literally common form—in terms of those who identify and practice—is something that probably cannot be quantified.

So it's either an insulting label that is used to put down those who identify with it or... a label that doesn't mean anything because those who apply the label to themselves are as varied as the rainbow.

Why is anyone using it anymore?

[quannum]

Why is anyone using it anymore?

chick logic bro

[Mazmaz]

Do I post this here?
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admi...lling-prophecy

[archibaldcrane]

What the fuck is an MRA?

[archibaldcrane]

oh god

men's rights activist

lol