It seems to me that people get bent out of shape over the term "feminist" or related labels because they don't explicitly etymologically make room for the perpetually disenfranchised white heterosexual male. Grow the fuck up. That's like saying that you believe slavery should be abolished, but don't consider yourself an abolitionist because the term only deals with a struggle faced by black folks. That you believe Jews should have their own homeland, but don't consider yourself a Zionist because the term isn't inclusive to gentiles. That you think gay people should have equal rights as straight people, but don't support "gay rights" because the movement isn't called "all rights".
Using this logic, no equal rights movement in history or today deserves its own label and they should be neatly boiled down to a single"humanist" entity (we'll ignore the ridiculous distortion of the term "humanist" here and save that for a future discussion). The fact of the matter is that equal rights movements throughout history have emphasized empowering the disenfranchised and often took on names that reflected the group they were seeking equality for. Feminism is about attaining genuine equality for women, hence the name. People who get caught up on the semantics are generally just looking for a reason to oppose gender equality in general and are far from the "humanist" egalitarians they purport to be.
News flash - if you call yourself an egalitarian yet believe that the social status quo among the genders is acceptable, then you're not an egalitarian.
>the perpetually disenfranchised white heterosexual male
This is why you're making enemies. You paint the heterosexual white male as the lord of all existence, failing utterly to identify that he is just yet another slave to the capitalist system, just as stifled in expression as most other groups, and faces problems unique to him self. You do this casually and without thought. Microaggressive bitch.
Feminists are the useful idiots of capitalism. They misidentify the enemy as regular white men rather than all of our shared feudal overlords.
Fuck you. If you say that white men cannot emphatize with the plight of women and PoC, how the fuck can you empathize with white men?
sorry, but by feminist i consider someone whos a social activist, reads feminist literature, goes to their feminist seminars, strikes, parades, whatever. someone engrossed into the whole phenomena.
and even though i support feminism, i wouldn't call myself one. in the same way i support gay rights, but it doesn't mean ill show up to a gay parade. i support them passively. why is that not enough for the likes of you who even have to go through the mental gymnastics to tell me what i am or am not or should call myself or whatever, i don't know. what's it to you?
i also don't call myself atheist but non-religious, cause i really don't identify with the atheist community and to me they're just baggage i want to avoid. they tell me the same shit you do, and again i ask them, what's it to you?
and i agree with >>7571207, that starting with
>the perpetually disenfranchised white heterosexual male
is not a start of a healthy discussion. but you won't listen to anyone but your echochamber so what the heck.
Feminism means a lot of things.
It's like the term "rock music".
I like rock music. But I fucking hate Cold Play.
So yes, I personally identify as a Feminist, because I understand what the term represents.
But if I'd ONLY heard Cold Play, then I would probably say that I hate rock music.
And unfortunately, the Cold Play of Feminists happen to speak a lot louder and more frequently than the sounder voices.
It's just that women have more rights and privileges in modern western society than men, and when they complain about having less it seriously makes me hate women, a sentiment I would harbor under absolutely no other circumstances.
>News flash - if you call yourself an egalitarian yet believe that the social status quo among the genders is acceptable, then you're not an egalitarian.
your whole post disintegrated here. you can't post about how we should consider ourselves feminists because we believe in "equal rights" (as in picture) and then say "if you think we now have equal rights, you are wrong"
please READ (THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD) and think about:
what are rights?
which "rights" are we working "towards"?
is this good? (the working towards)
is our conception of progress poisoned by what is currently "possible"?
what is equality?
do rights come with responsibilities?
and on and on
>mfw I just copy-pasted a pic and rant from facebook
>all these lengthy ass flubberbusted replies
>If you believe in a strong national government, and then someone asks you if you're a National Socialist, you have to say yes. Because that's how words work.
by aziz's argument here
(which i assume you agree with since you basically took it and elaborated on it unnecessarily)
if someone asks you or i if we are men's rights activists we have to say yes
are you a Men's Rights Activist
I believe in de jure legality between the sexes.
I also believe a women's place is in the home.
I think abortion is immoral in all circumstances.
I think that being a slut is horrible.
I think gay marriage shouldn't be legal.
I think that trannies are mentally unstable.
and I think divorce should only occur under very specific circumstances
And by your definition I'm a feminist along with literally 99% of the west, even on the far right. Yet I imagine if I told this to most self-proclaimed feminists we wouldn't really jive. Feminism is a whole fuck of a lot more than just legal equal rights. If it was then we would have stopped talking about it when women got the vote.
Feminism, like communism, like every ideology is not a "word", it is not just a concept. It is a settled cultural trend associated with specific people, specific ideas, specific discourses, styles, behaviors, looks. I am not a feminist.
>tfw a girl asks you if you're a feminist
>you're an antihumanist aesthete
Mostly in these debates people fight caricatures. Not actual ideas, if you call yourself a feminist, most people don't get the image in their head of someone who just thinks we should all be equal. That's why people dodge the term, to prevent being placed in uncomfy boxes. But you're right, or at least, your pic is right. We need to stop letting crazies hijack good ideas only to demonize the idea an sich afterwards. We need to take control of ideas so we can all see the crazies for what they are, and politely ostracize them.
The function of feminism and anti-discrimination in general is to promote the free circulation of labor power. E.g. laws prohibiting companies from not hiring someone based on gender, race or culture. These are blatantly discriminatory (the employer's desire for employees that he personally likes is declared invalid), dehumanizing (the employee is taken to be nothing more than a tool: the objective function he fulfills must be dissociated from all his other qualities, the latter being declared irrelevant -- supposedly in the name of equality on a humanitarian level, but actually in the name of the equality of all before the system of labor) and anti-freedom (the employer is FORCED to hire people he does not wish to employ -- there is one kind of freedom, however, that actually does increase: the free circulation of labor power on the market).
I know this is bait, but it's a good place for some related thoughts...
Why is it that 'sexism' is used to denote discrimination (usually against females), but 'feminism' is used to denote a belief in equality between the sexes? The gendered nature of this word/movement is very conspicuous. The same is true for 'racism', I feel. Inevitably, somewhere in the quest for equality there is a reference back to the very quality (race, gender) a movement in some sense aims to destroy. Because the idea of an identity is a necessary part of the existence of a movement, it is forced to simultaneously try to create and destroy that identity in such a way as to continue justifying its existence but also define a purpose (narratives, goals and activities) which makes sense and attracts attention.
In short... the language seems intentionally constructed and maintained to prevent unity and universal humanity. It also wards against the entry and dominance of excluded identities (eg. men) into defining and fighting for the cause - as there is no shortage of men who want to serve and quest on behalf of women.
I'm a white man. I am great.
Why should I apologise for who I am? It's pathetic. I get nothing out of it, and neither does anyone else by my self-flagellation.
I was not born to live a life feeling sorry for others. I have pride in my race, my gender, and my country, and no amount of pandering or faulty logic is going to change that.
To the point, feminism, by nature, suggests that women are at a disadvantage, and that we should work to "bring them up to equality", while apologising for who we are because we were born into different circumstances. If I become a sorry state of affairs who refuses to support themselves first and foremost, how in the name of a creator am I going to support other people--namely, disadvantaged women? You need strong foundations if you want to support others.
So, naturally, being a man wanting to help others, I must first become a better man. But then, this is no longer feminism.
We are sexually dimorphic. Feminism is based on false premises. We can never be "equal" because we have different tastes and capabilities. That doesn't mean that we should make room for masculine women and effeminate men, but to force everything to 50/50 is ridiculous.
The only real way to end racism is to stop talking about it, discredit it, and let it fade away.
SJWs are doing far, far, FAR more harm than good with identity politics. Tribalism and division just makes people double down and entrench rather than integrating into a unified culture.
Until we can agree on one culture and all play by the same rules without reference to race, distrust and tribalism will reign supreme.
I honestly think conservatives have a better solution to racism than liberals. If people stopped talking about it and ripping open old wounds, the old bigots would die and no one would give a shit.
We were already halfway there before left-wingers fucked everything up.
What book is this about?
I thought so, mods please delete all the pol and shitposting. /his/ was supposed to take care of this.
Sage and report guys.