Might help also to describe what you think feminism is, since it’s one of those terms that is overloaded.
I once had a physical therapist tell me she wasn’t a feminist because she thought women couldn’t be as physically capable as men when serving as soldiers, and seemed to believe feminism requires treating women exactly like men.
I told her I was a feminist because I believe in equal rights for men and women, an idea she did not seem so opposed to.
I see feminism as a component of minimizing heirarchy and moving toward anarchy.
Instead of the liberal conception of rights, I would use equality of individual liberty and social solidarity regardless of gender or sex. Definitionally, I claim gender as performative and sex as related to procreative genitals. Maybe it’s all just worbs, that is, political words without meaning.
Those in favor of heirarchy use “equality of outcome” as a bludgeon. Humans do not need “equality of outcome”. We need autonomy to make choices about our lives. We need societies that take care of each other. Heirarchies such as patriarchy prevent making choices and taking care of each other.
As a bonus rant, the rube statement, “What is a woman?”, can be answered with, “Who is pink for?”. The provocateur wants to conflate gender and sex, but is too embarassed to come out and discuss genitals. A logical follow-up for the embarassed trap-setter could be, “Which genitals taste the best?”. The point being don’t entertain traps with anything but hostility.
I know posting is masturbatory, since I often fail to read replies. I’m sure your reply will be great and I will probably fail to read it. I’m still working on social solidarity.
Yes. Because we should strive to treat everyone equally
I’m a male vegan anarchist and reject every form of mistreatment based on immutable qualities like species, ethnicity, sex etc. At the same time women in my life have consistently broken my trust, which has left me with some generalized cynical views about them. I also believe that the west is at a point where women often receive preferential treatment in sectors like education and hiring, so advocating for them while men are left behind doesn’t make much sense to me. I do not consider myself a feminist.
I wish I could give you like an award for writing the most Lemmy comment of all or something, lol
I’ll write a more thoughtful response later, but in the meantime, thank you for sharing 🧡
EDIT:
more serious response time:
I was wondering why you believe women receive preferential treatment in hiring and education, what I have read is that empirically women are more likely to be turned down for jobs and they experience greater rates of unemployment and longer employment gaps than men (in the U.S.).
Do you mean you wouldn’t advocate for women in employment and hiring based on your views, or just generally? Because there are still many stark disparities between men and women in the West (including pay, cost of healthcare, sexual violence rates, and so on).
It’s surprising to me that you identify as an egalitarian and anarchist, but don’t consider yourself a feminist - what do you think feminism is, if not a movement for gender equality?
“Ecofeminists examine the effect of gender categories in order to demonstrate the ways in which social norms exert unjust dominance over women and nature. The philosophy also contends that those norms lead to an incomplete view of the world, and its practitioners advocate an alternative worldview that values the earth as sacred, recognizes humanity’s dependency on the natural world, and embraces all life as valuable.” —https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecofeminism
Yes. Because it goes hand in hand with Cynicism, my main guiding philosophy:
Cynic: “an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence” —Merriam-Webster
The Cynics (notably Diogenes of Sinope) also advocated for sexual relations between relatives (such as brothers and sisters), since incest norms were socially imposed and thus “arbitrary” in the view of the Cynics.
Diogenes also died after eating a live octopus, which is amusing.
Either way, love Cynicism (incest aside and all), cheers!
Yes, I am a feminist because I believe everyone has equal rights under the law regardless of their gender.
Yes, I am as for me it includes gender equality (same rights for boths as well as breaking away from traditional social norms).
I guess to some degree, not very actively though so I wouldn’t necessarily call myself one. To me feminism fights for a society where people have equal opportunities, safety, etc regardless of gender. I support that idea wholeheartedly. But I’m not actively fighting for it or anything, which is why I’m hesitant to call myself a feminist.
Lots of good comments here pointing out problems with feminism, but one that I think hasn’t been mentioned enough in this thread is the harmful idea that “if you believe in gender equality, then you’re a feminist by definition”.
While the term “feminist” does signify a person who, at least ostensibly, is in favor of equal rights among genders, using that term also, necessarily, implies belief in the core dogma that is inseparable from the term itself (patriarchy theory, etc.). This creates a false dichotomy in which people feel that in order to support equal rights they must also buy into feminist dogma, and that’s not at all the case.
Luckily, though, feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on gender equality, and it’s important to let people know that fact, both because of how incredibly misleading “feminism just means gender equality” is and because there are more useful, more egalitarian frameworks through which to view the push for equality.
No. This is the same argument as the “All Lives Matter” crowd using this as a cudgel against the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Women and gender non-conforming people are the ones most oppressed by the current system. Men also stand to gain from erasing it, but erasing the real unequal struggle does real harm.
No. This myopic, religious dogma of “feminism is the only way, truth, and life” is only going to continue to hold back movements for gender equality, and the sooner we grow beyond feminism, the better.
No, again, that’s like saying Black Lives Matter held back the anti-racist movement in the US, and that All Lives Matter is the way forward. If the goal is to eliminate sexism, the movement must acknowledge the real struggles facing the world at this moment, which means patriarchy.
No, again. Feminist dogma is holding back minority and women’s struggles just as much if not more than men’s struggles. If the goal is to eliminate sexism, the movement must acknowledge the harmful and outdated ideas are holding gender equality back, which means patriarchy.
No. There isn’t “feminist dogma.” Feminism is not holding women back, nor is feminism holding back men’s struggles. The concept of male-domination of society is not “outdated,” the overwhelming majority of government officials are men, wealth in society is overwhelmingly owned by men, and traditional gender roles still exist and put women as less than men. Both men and women stand to gain from eliminating patriarchy.
You’re fully cedeing the ground to the social reactionaries and MGTOW/Red Pill crowd by doing this.
There isn’t “feminist dogma”
I think we’re done here.
don’t back out now, if there is feminist dogma you should be able to point to it - what do you think is being missed here, why do you believe feminism is holding back women?
Feminist theory and struggle is not “dogma.” That’s like calling Black Lives Matter “dogma.”
FYI you can’t be a feminist if you pay for the SA and murder of other women.
women aren’t cows. cows aren’t women. and artificial insemination isn’t SA, it’s a veterinary procedure.
Well cows wouldn’t call themselves “women” no, but I’m sure they do have some gender expression that is apart from just their sex. I could have said females, but I don’t really like using that word.
These cows cannot consent to having someone shove a fist inside them, it is very much SA. I’m sure colonizers had the same mentality as you when they were SA Women of colour and indigenous women.
doors can’t consent to have your keys jammed in them either. the very concept of consent can’t be applied to cows or doors.
Cows are sentient, you comparing them to objects is exactly the kind of shit feminism fights against.
If a human had the same intelligence as a cow do you think it would be okay to SA them?
sentience has nothing to do with consent.
Sentience has to do with among many other things, the ability to suffer. These cows suffer because they are SA, have their kids stolen from them and have their lives cut short only to end in some place worse than hell.
So no sentience does have something to do with consent because only with sentience does consent matter. I don’t need to ask a tree consent to cut it down because it does not feel anything. I do need to ask other individuals for consent because they can suffer.
consent and sentience are totally unrelated concepts. your response only continues to muddy the waters.
If a human had the same intelligence as a cow
I haven’t said anything about intelligence, or suggested sa is ever ok.
comparing indigenous people to animals is gross
Thinking just because someone has a different shaped body than you and isn’t as intelligent gives someone the right to SA them is gross.
The problem is you being so brainwashed to think it’s okay to abuse others that you forget indigenous people are animals. We all are.
indigenous people are animals.
kindly, leave me alone
That you think other animals are below you is the problem here. Don’t blame me for your human supremacy.
I haven’t made any such statements. please leave me alone
What is this referring to?
How dairy cows need to be pregnant in order to produce milk, so they’re artificially inseminated and kept pregnant throughout most of their lives?
Yes. They can’t consent and they are used like objects, only seen as a means of making milk and more cows.
Yes, although I really do have to question the capability of concern silos to effect change through society.
Women’s rights are human rights. Lgbt rights are human rights. Worker rights are human rights.
The fight for human rights is a fight for us all. United we stand, divided we fall. And holeeeshit are we fucking falling right now.
Yes, my whole life. It’s how I was raised, but now that I’m an adult, it’s also what I choose for myself and how I’m raising my own children.
Feminism is the radical idea that a person’s worth, dignity, rights, and social status are not and ought not to be determined by their genitals.
Yes, as in “women deserve equal rights across the board”
No, as in “feminism is the synonym to and only valid kind of antisexism and every gendered issue should be seen exclusively through women’s struggle”
I’m here for the equality of men and women, and believe that only in cooperation, through consideration of issues on each side, we can efficiently combat sexism.
Feminism should not be “us vs them”. It should be one part of the larger circle that is looking at how we can improve things for everyone - women, men, and nonbinary people.
We should bridge the gap on all sides, so that whatever gender you are, you have equal possibilities in life, career, and everything else, you are safe and can build your life the way you want.
That means no one should be targeted by sexual harassment and exploitation. No one should be denied jobs or have lower salary based on arbitrary characteristics. No one should be forced to choose a binary gender if they’re neither. Kids should not be indoctrinated with traditional gender roles. Etc. etc.
And, honestly, I don’t think many will disagree here. Many of those who “do not support feminism” don’t mean they go against equality - they are rather concerned about a specific form of particularly loud online feminism pretending men are all evil and that there’s no related struggle on men’s end.
It should be one part of the larger circle that is looking at how we can improve things for everyone - women, men, and nonbinary people
Modern feminism does exactly that.
I get that people get hung up on the label, but other demographics’ issues are absolutely part of it. It’s called intersectionality.
The label is important, though, because as long as we call it all feminism, any conversation that does not explicitly target women audience may be maliciously hijacked. I’ve seen this happening in the wild a lot - people arguing that we steal feminism when talking about issues from another perspective.
Also, speaking of intersectionality, isn’t it weird for it to be a subsection of feminism again? Intersectionality commonly includes issues of race, disabilities, transgender individuals, and so on, and as such, men along with nonbinaries who struggle on each of the axis may not get adequate attention and representation under the umbrella of feminism, as again, it’s “about women” (it kinda is).
To me, antisexism should cover feminism, masculism (a term recently hijacked by bad actors, but initially coming from the same place as feminism - equality for all, focus on instances of male discrimination), a movement of nonbinary people.
Intersectionality should go above feminism, and above antisexism for that matter. It is about all struggles of all groups of people, and ultimately stands to cover it all - antisexism, anti-racism, trans inclusion, inclusion of people with disabilities, etc. etc.
I don’t think that’s necessarily malicious. Sounds like those people may have a thing to learn about feminism as well.
It’s not about being a “subsection”. It’s not a competition who’s on top. It’s about recognizing how these issues share a common core and many negative effects, and need to be addressed together rather than competing for attention. That’s exactly what intersectionality addresses.
As far as I’m aware, the inclusive movement that focuses on male issues in a way that regards itself in cooperation rather than competition with feminism (after men’s rights was successfully taken over by the right-wing) labels itself men’s liberation.
Fair enough - but malicious or not, it does cause issues and builds barriers to inclusion.
Talking about subsections is not about competition. It’s about unhealthy arrangement that, again, can easily be used to exclude people. It just doesn’t make sense to divide it this way.
Intersectionality talks about many issues, and one of them, part of it, is sexism. So, putting it under umbrella of feminism is like putting animals under the umbrella of bees.
My experience interacting with men’s liberation is mostly just men going 100% into misandric narrative that men are to blame for anything and everything. As one person underscored it under one such post, “if a woman struggles - it’s society’s fault. If a man struggles - it’s a man’s fault”. There’s no room there for not blaming men for the discrimination they receive.
I think people get too hung up on labels sometimes, but that said… If you’re a feminist, then so am I. I don’t think your PT’s understanding was correct.
There’s so many flavors of feminism, and some self described feminists have been pretty wack, I’m just gonna be an egalitarian.
Then according to commentators in this post you’re a “sexist pig”
The ratio says otherwise
Thinking about it, I believe in equal rights, but would prefer not to be called a feminist, because it implies preference to women. Men have some rights where they are worse off than women, like military service, or - at least here in Poland - differing retirement age.
Also, at a certain point, because there’s biological and cultural (for a long time, if not forever) ups and downs to each gender, doing equal rights would then be unfair to whichever gender has it worse, which will certainly be subjective. I’m mostly for it in obvious bullshittery like salaries for the same job done or abortion rights, but at some point like maternity and paternity leave, I’m not giving it much thought.
(Also, I’d totally punch a woman anytime I’d punch a man, which is never anyways, but I think most people would call that feminism anyway)
