I think tracking the downvotes on this one might be illuminating
Years and years ago, when I was around 10-ish, I saw a clip from something on TV. It was a young woman and a mother figure talking, with the young woman saying
"I'm not a feminist."
"You don't think women should have equal rights?"
"That's not what I mean."
"Well then, I think you're confused about what feminism is."
Always stuck with me.
And yet here we are. Where many people associate feminism more with men hating and power grabing. So many in fact that feminism needs to remind people over and over again that "feminisim is actually about equality". Shouldn't people come to that conclusion by themselves based on the actions of the movement? We should hear from everywhere "Hell yeah, feminism! I love those people! They fight for equality!". Yet this basic principle needs to be repeated over and over again because people don't associate feminism with it
Feminist circles aren’t exactly looking at the unjust laws of:
Child guardianship and mandatory military issues are problems created by the patriarchy. Dismantling the patriarchy is part of feminism, and feminists work toward this in many ways.
I do see men's rights groups advocating for child guardianship issues, and that's great, they should fight for that and feminists should (and do) support them, but why should the responsibility to fight for this be solely placed on feminists?
Mandatory military service is just fucked up and I think everyone should be fighting this, including men's rights groups and feminists. But again, not an issue that primarily affects women or feminists, so why should they carry the brunt?
Female-focused education, by which I assume you mean educational opportunities created to provide equity for women, are no different than other equity-creating opportunities. If there are systematic issues that prevent a certain group from accessing the same level of education/jobs/whatever, then rules can and should be made to assist those people to have equal access to those things. That's equity, and it builds the path to equality. (Of course, the US just got rid of all of that, so nothing to worry about for US people who have an issue with equity)
Pretty much all of my friends who have kids got divorced before the first kid was out of diapers. They all have 50/50 custody and they love it. Is this not the norm now?
It's pushing to that direction, but many conservative(anti feminist imho) don't want to acknowledge the bias in the system against for men's rights to be full time fathers(many men also encourage this still)
And many family courts are still very old mindset where raising children are concerned.
It's a slow match to sanity, with Maga and conservatives holding us all back.
Edit: Crap didn't see what community this was, sorry If I'm not supposed to be posting here Can't see the rules for some places for reasons I don't know
This is an all genders community. Anyone can be witches and the patriarchy harms everyone.
Appreciate you letting me know. Thank you kindly
Uh, i can't think of any i know who think 1 and 3 arent problems, who don't, if you get them drunk, have a rant about them in the magazine if not the chamber.
There's a lot going on in fairness! What's the conclusion this statement is trying to suggest? Feminists aren't working hard enough/in full agreement on these specific things therefore feminism isn't worth pursuing?
On the first bulletpoint I’m suggesting that the mother is not necessarily the best option to place kids with during guardianship dispute.
Women can be just as toxic to their kin as men can.
Equality means equality 🟰 removal of gender when discussing guardianship.
Feminism is looking into the first two at least. Guardianship mostly falls to women because divorced men want to continue working as they usually earn more and don't want to impact their career. If women and men were paid equal and had equal career paths then that factor would not play a role and the parents could split guardianship either equally as well or in a way that is best for the child.
The second one as well, if women and men with equal education had equal opportunities then there would not be any need to make sure women are ahead education wise. But currently a woman has to be much more educated to be considered for a role so education has to be adjusted accordingly.
1st: if you removed the words women and men you’d still have a good argument, except now we’re allowing less earning fathers to care for thier sons and daughters and have that not be a larger hurdle to achieve, you know… equality
Allowing the judge to view the family without gender skewing their view.. equality
I don't follow. Most guardianship decisions are made without a judge involved. A judge is involved when the parents cannot come to an agreement between themselves. The way things are now many fathers are foregoing raising their children because from a financial standpoint it would be nonsense. If a father earns double that what the mother earns it is financially unwise to split guardianship 50/50 and finance plays an incredibly big role in raising children as money enables your child to pursue better education etc.
My bulletpoint is about guardianship laws, how when there is a guardianship dispute the default is always on the mother, even when it makes no sense financially or for the psychological health of the child
Yes but we both want the same thing I think, equal opportunity to raise ones children independent of ones gender. And feminism would help move that goal closer, so I don't understand what you are trying to argue. The default should be 50/50, that's equality.
I call that gender equality you call it feminism, but yeah we’re on the same page.
2nd: That’s indeed a problem in the job market, but to defend the failure of the education sector’s over focus on women, is the wrong hill to die on
I'm not defending anything, if things were going the way I'd like them to it wouldn't be necessary, but unless equality is achieved things will continue the way they are. And with the way some people are fighting equality even though it would benefit them just as well, it's gonna be a long time.
So you’d prefer widening the gender gap that prefers women, as long as there are other gender gaps that skew to the other side.
This type of thought process is exactly why people don’t refer to themselves as feminists
If women have so much more education than men, and this is injustice, why do we still get paid so fucking much less?
Fixing problems dometimes requires pressuring systems in weird ways.
Also; im sure more young men would get degrees if they didnt spend all their time jacking off to andrew tate and then performatively drop out after 6 months to get a billion dollars in start up funding. Was before andrew tate, and geography bias, but i knew like a dozen guys my age who did this. So I'm not sure tgese statistics mean what you think they do.
I don't know where you read that I want a gender gap because that's the opposite of what I want. I want equality for anyone, no matter their gender or anything else. That is also the goal of feminism. Things are the way they currently are exactly because people do not fight for equality. If they did there would not be a gender gap.
Idk isn't it just that the name is misleading?!
The second wave 'i should be able to wear daddys boot and step on all the necks i want!' And 'lean in' bullshit really polluted it rhetorically.
Also, if people associated good things with the people who did them, no kid who ever needed free breakfast and nobody who needed an ambulance would be racist.
Knowing what I do now about bot campaigns, and thinking back to my experiences online around 14-17, I am pretty sure there was (and is) a concerted effort to dilute the meaning of feminism and create the impression of an army of man-hating strawmen. Their purported existence is a crucial recruiting tool for andrew tate and other misogynist figureheads, drawing impressionable boys into the fold of patriarchal fascism. Only once in my life have I actually met, in person, a woman who believes that men are lesser, inferior, etc. I've met countless more men who espouse equivalent beliefs about women. It's not even close to any kind of balance. All I can do is try to spread this truth but it's getting harder these days. Speaking positively about feminism, as a man, in the wrong irl circles, can unfortunately get you badly injured or worse. But I have to keep trying because I refuse to accept the alternative. The bot problem just really scares me especially with the rise of AI.
After a lot of internal deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be fair and balanced is if you consider everyone as a human person first. That primary definition awards them all the rights and privileges of a human person.
Beyond that, "man", "woman", "non-binary", "trans" become me labels applied to the unique human person that you are interacting with. Not dissimilar to other labels, like their name.
There is no extra information applied from the label, it is merely a parameter that the specific human person prefers to have. Nothing more. It awards them no additional rights nor freedoms, and it removes no rights nor freedoms.
In the same way, race should be considered the same. A person's skin color and ethnic heritage is merely part of the definition of each specific human independently and awards no additional rights, nor freedoms, more does it take any away.
IMO, the only way to move forward is if the current generations of adults, mainly millennials and Gen Z, commit to the notion that every person is a human person first, and their rights and freedoms are assigned to them as a person. Nothing is added nor taken away by any sexual identity, or race information that any person may have, prefer, or identify as.
Then we just have to wait..... They'll die off eventually.
the categorization of people and formation of identity arpund those categories is vastly overvalued/emphasized/etc, fuck that shit
Yesplz. These categories, these boundaries if how we group people and the identities we form around them, are always made for reasons, and often stick around after those reasons-which may have been fucked up in the first place-have faded from being, from memory, from the god(s) damn fossil record. They should be regularly re-examined, and taking them too seriously is absurd.
they'll die off eventually
After brainwashing so fucking many kids. Time is not an ally; it's a terrain of struggle. Do not surrender it.
The feminist movement is a bit like dating apps. If it accomplishes the stated goals, the need for it to exist kind of goes away.
It always amused me that men who hated the feminism movement never decided to help it along.
You can also hate men separately though. If you want. As a side thing. You know; if you've ever had to talk to one.
Thanks for displaying toxic feminism, a great example for why “gender equality” is a better label to stand behind.
Case in point
I know, right? It was funny the first few hundred times.
