Replied to the quote you selected here, in page 2.
[QUOTE=KarlGrenze]
Most of the ones I could read were not talking about roles per se. Once more, they’re starting with incorrect assumptions of what feminism is. Interesting you mention qualities instead of roles, as I don’t consider what some of them wrote as “qualities”, and having someone telling me they are raises :dubious: from me.
They seem to be attacking straw men, they’re not attacking the principles of it. In fact, some start with “I’m not a feminist because…”, and then write something that is totally aligned with feminism. It is slightly pointed out in one of the more recent one, which admits that there is a difference between US and other parts of the world. The reason feminism in the US may be different from other places is because some places are still fighting for rights and outcomes that women in the US got decades ago. This does not make all feminism outdated, it just means that in different places the focus of what is important will shift.
[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t answer the question, though. Do you still do it? Do your friends still do it?
And if not, why assume that the distribution of feminists-behaving-badly is evenly distributed in your social circle, when catcallers-behaving-badly isn’t?
I think people are complicated enough that once you get to a movement of hundreds, much less millions, original root cause matters much less than the mindset of the people actually engaging with the movement. Heck, there was a very strong anti-alcohol strain in the roots of feminism back in the suffrage era; how relevant is that particular part of feminism’s roots today?
I don’t think I am, though I’m not sure what you mean. And I’m not just talking about my social circle – I’m talking about all the feminists I hear from on TV and radio, and read from and about.
Fair enough. I’ll go further, then, and say that I don’t believe that misandry motivates most feminists today. It certainly doesn’t motivate my feminism, nor the feminism of the feminists I know and read about.
While I agree that genital mutilation and the other things you mentioned are more serious than online death threats or harassment, it would be a very strange issue for the United Nation Broadband Commission to focus on.
On the other hand they have ten other departments working on that. So it would seem that the UN agrees with you, that FGM is a very serious issue, it’s just not something the Broadband Commission is working on.
I also don’t think that 73% of women using the internet fall into the category of “professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.”
Each described in their own right as radical feminists. That is to say, not the mainstream of feminism by any reasonable definition.
I assume you are capable in making a clear distiction between a radical and someone who advocates for equal rights for all, yes?; You simply choose not to (due , I can only guess, to some sort of unresolved mommy issues). Which is painfully obvious in every post you make on the subject. Which makes you look like an MRA radical and thus fertile ground for the rounds of mockery that ensue. Not because people don’t understand what you’re saying, or even because they fundamentally disagree with it (which they do). But because your arguments are wholy without merrit.
If it makes you feel any better, Mary, Andrea and Robin would be roundly mocked for their radical views as well if they showed up here spouting their b.s. Alas, 2/3 are dead. So perhaps you’ll get the last word after all, once the last one passes. But given the position you’re defending, only the radicals are likely to notice or care. The rest of us will likely remain amused at best and slightly annoyed at worst by the willful ignorance on display.
Yes, few dare talk about it. If only we had other anti-feminism threads by the exact same person who started this thread, where questions like whether women support prison reform were answered! Certainly something like NOW signing on to prison reform would never happen since nobody dares talk about how men are locked up for so long!
What exact discrimination are you talking about in divorce? Hard to address such a generic complaint, but I think you’d find that most feminists are also for fairness in divorce cases.
It’s no wonder I see so many people arguing against feminism in this thread with few feminists arguing back. It’s quite tiring to go over the same topics over and over, particularly when it’s the same person starting the almost identical threads bashing feminism repeatedly while ignoring honest attempts to answer and discuss.
For some people, staying home with their children is exactly what they want to do. You’re right, of course, that most people don’t have that luxury.
And it is a luxury. But being with your chid also requires sacrifices. It may be sacrifices that you’re happy to make - I certainly was.
But “having it all” is a myth. It is simply a fact of life that no one person is capable of being two places at once.
If the child has two parents, that certainly makes things easier. In some cases, it may even mean there’s little or no real sacrifice at all. Perhaps one parent prefers to be with his or her children, rather than making money the family may not even really need. In other cases - where nobody’s making six figures - at least they can split up the sacrifices, in whatever way makes sense to them.
I know MDs who are stay at home moms. Which I understand - if I had an MD, and a spouse who was willing to support me - I’d rather stay home with my child, than spend 60 hours a week poking around in people’s orifices.
One other thing: your parents didn’t “deny” you an education. My parents didn’t pay a dime toward my education - or my siblings. Out of the six of us, all have at least a college degree, and three have advanced degrees as well.
Jezebel is a terrible website written by and for the very people the “anti-feminists” in this thread are arguing against. Gotta love the beginning of that second article:
So only 7 percent of the prison population is women, and they’re the ones disproportionately affected??
I don’t know what to call people that are against this type of absurdity. “Anti-feminist” isn’t a good name, because I consider myself a feminist, as do many others who disagree with this sort of silliness.
“Feminism” is like “Republican” or “Christian” in that there’s not one thing that everyone who claims that label can all agree on. Basically, you are a feminist if you say you are, and unfortunately a lot of whackos claim that label. You can be anti-whacko without being anti-feminist though.
The ones who are in prison would be a small minority within a system primarily designed by and for men. Those women–the 7%–would be disproportionately affected by such a system.
Or so is the argument, with which you’re welcome to disagree. But it’s *not *saying that women are disproportionately represented in prisons.
So prison is only for men, not women? What happened to gender equality?
And I have to echo the question: Just what is society supposed to do about female murderers, then?
If you read the article, it proposes community-based treatment for non-violent offenders, and small detention center where prisoners can be near their families for violent offenders. The article advocates this approach for both men and women, and cites research backing up the effectiveness of these programs.
Basically, it’s not saying “don’t punish women”. It’s saying “warehousing people in prisons doesn’t lead to good outcomes”, which I don’t think many people can disagree with.
No, they shouldn’t be grateful but they should stop accusing feminists of holding positions that most of them don’t actually hold.
She seems to be advocating a social experiment, starting with women but clearly says the arguments also apply to imprisoned men. Until we know if she believes the same should apply to men, color me unimpressed with your worry. Most prison reformers agree with her, except instead of saying “women” they don’t say anything about gender, which means they’re talking about 93% men and 7% women, or simply talking about men since that is often the default when it comes to prison and society at large.
I’d be perfectly happy to criticize her position as being wrong and not in line with most feminists.
Finally, I’m unconvinced by you pointing out single people with certain positions when compared to a group like NOW’s official position since NOW has 550 chapters of various sizes across the USA. It’s pretty clear which is the more mainstream feminist position about issues like domestic violence and incarceration.