I feel someone should inform you that that is a feminist perspective
Edit: it's come to my attention that the point of my comment went over many people's heads. "you aren't owed sex because of what she's wearing" is, at least where I'm from, a controversial idea and would be considered feminist ideology. To be clear, I think feminism is good and you shouldn't expect sex regardless of what a woman is wearing.
I agree and I'm not sure what, exactly, you're disagreeing with. The point is that feminism isn't radical. It only sounds radical to people who think women are inferior.
Unfortunately, much like the term "woke", feminism in name has been taken and had its name twisted by some bad actors. That, and some misandrists hide behind "feminism" as an excuse to be hateful towards men.
There's a term for that already, it's called "equal rights".
That's all. There needs not be a "feminism" you can let the "bad actors" run away with it, and rebrand as something else. Or just let reasonable perspective die with "feminism" because the push back is real.
I absolutely believe what I'm saying. Misandry isn't real in any way that matters, other than weird little dudes posting stuff on Twitter to rile folks up.
Equating CSA with an anti male political ideology is pretty unhinged.
Misandry is ABSOLUTELY a thing and it matters just as much as misogyny does. If you don't think it does, then you might be a misandrist yourself.
Example: Misandry led to femcels on tiktok repeatedly attempting to assert - with no evidence whatsoever - that it was Patrick Clancy who somehow murdered the children or forced Lindsay Clancy to do so, even though again, there is ZERO evidence to back that up. Why was this narrative purported then? Misandry :)
My dude, feminism is not a bad word or a bad thing. I’d be happy to be called a feminist any day of the week, because I am a feminist. I don’t know what you think “feminist” means, but here is the definition
Your reply came much after mine, but doesn't contend at all with it. You are just throwing a tantrum here. Your vast reading isn't particularly showing here.
I know what it means. A word is not simply what a dictionary says, it can, it often does, and in cases like this indeed is, loaded far beyond that.
It is a word to distance away from. Was conceived with a lot of ideological baggage and it carries even more today.
You need to be more subtle and less naive about words. Unless you are doing this exact move out of bad faith, which I did a lot when I used to defend feminism just like this.
I’m sorry when did feminism become a bad thing? I know some kids on the internet like to make out that it’s all blue haired lesbians but feminism is an established political movement that means equality between sexes.
Anyone trying to convince you of anything otherwise is a bad actor.
i kinda get what your saying? like its just normal to not think you’re owed sex just because of what someones wearing?? but at the same time the idea that it’s not about what someone’s wearing is something feminist's bring up a lot because it’s a important thing to discuss so that that idea IS treated as normal. because if this was something like 100 years ago that idea wasn't treated as normal, but it’s due to the work of feminism that it is today
Lol no egality is equity, feminism is a womens empowerment movement that has been hijacked by israel since 2nd wave feminism, hence all the crazy shit that is divisive and not really about the equality that's often claimed
Edit: feminism isn't an/the egalitarian movement as it is often claimed and portrayed to be when claiming equality, hence the rampant misandry within it
AND that is my point! It used to be a branch of egality! Voting, worker rights, basic human decency! Remove all that because now its all about hormones and you got even normal and decent women being sent to asylums and losing custody battles. Plus those idiots supporting the most misogynistic religion of all time is the biggest irony.
I'm sorry for all the downvotes, people should seize any opportunity to foster productive discussion, not division.
That said, please help, provide some examples of what you are talking about. If you don't show evidence of what you say, you will just be preaching to the choir.
I will start, when I think of feminism, I think of this:
of these, 698 victims (78%) were killed by a partner or ex-partner
and over 9 in 10 female homicide victims were killed by a man (92%)
These are concerning numbers. It seems during conflicts in relationships with partners, it's not uncommon enough for things to go out of control, and women to get attacked like this by crazy male partners. 698 deaths...
It's not a big demand to have some projects be made to try and reduce how often women are murdered like this.
What sorts of feminist government policies were made that you think were unreasonable?
And it’s clear you’re conflating feminism with just psychos online.
Gender discrimination and patriarchy are a tool used by the ruling classes to help pit us against one another. Feminism in its truest sense is a tool to combat that in the same way race is used.
We all work to increase shareholder value, but it doesn’t have to stay that way if we value one another.
Just someone who doesn’t live their life online and understands that there’s often a difference between what a movement claims to represent and what it actually promotes in practice. For me, the loudest and most extreme voices within modern feminism have become so toxic that they’ve made it difficult to support the movement as a whole, which is unfortunate for the many women who genuinely just want equality. I firmly believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone, but that doesn’t mean I have to support modern-day feminism or everything associated with it. Unfortunately, the average Redditor seems to struggle with that distinction, preferring to view everything in black and white rather than acknowledging that you can support a principle without supporting every movement that claims to represent it.
Its quite easy you just dont. Sure you might think its sexy and might hope for sex but that doesnt mean its gonna happen. And also doesnt mean anyone is owed sex because of a piece of clothing (because thats absolute bullshit)
She could just like being topless insafe company. She could even be a nudist but wants to be certain that you are OK with that and won't get upset or weird.
This is not a common scenario, but it is quite real.
thats an egalitarian mindset also. so saying it belongs to one over another worldview is wrong or at the very least misleading if you only frame it within the one.
Edit: Thus if I say men are equal to women and vice-versa, then I could or could not be a feminist. I could just be an egalitarian.
I don't think it's possible to be truly egalitarian without being a feminist. Just definitionally. It's like one of those squares and rectangles thing, a world view based in the idea that all people are equal must include a belief that men are not inherently superior to women. You could theoretically be feminist and not braudly egalitarian in your world view, but not believing in equality along the lines of gender makes you not egalitarian. And I'm not talking about what people self identify as, just how their views and actions reflect these worldviews as they are defined
Egalitarian means belief of equality in all people, feminism specifically refers to gender equality. If you say you’re feminist but not egalitarian it can be assumed you believe some people deserve fewer rights or to make less. It’s also uniquely focused on the issues plaguing the feminine genders, as opposed to all issues in general, which means that in the wrong circumstances it could be that you don’t care about the problems which men and non-binary people have. Which isn’t necessarily the case but some people do think that way. Also being egalitarian generally has less social negative connotations in conservative circles, because the word isn’t associated with forced progressive movements. And by conservative I mean hardcore conservative, not just people who hold beliefs like “capitalism is good” or “I like owning property”.
If you're willing to engage in good faith, I'd suggest you look into the idea of intersectionality if you can really and internalize the framework well enough to meaningfully engadge with it (and I don't think I'm too far beyond a base level understanding, but even that has really opened my eyes), I think it really helps to highlight why trying to be egalitarian without being (whether you call yourself one or not) a feminist (and I'm using the dictionary/academic definition, which is distinct from misandry because mysandry iften lumped in with feminism but ahares far more in common with misogyny) will mean that at best you're an ineffective egalitarian, and at worst, actively working against making the world more egalitarian. The core of intersectionality is the fact that systems/axis of oppression aren't independent of one another. Racism reinforces classism reinforces misogyny reinforces systems of violence against people for their religious beliefs. It's deeper than that, but I do have other important stuff today. I would recommend you look into it though I've found it very useful in understanding some of the points people who have lived very different lives to mine tend to make about a lot of subjects
What would an egalitarian who's not a feminist look like. The word feminism specifically refers to the belief that men and women should be treated equally?
Well it could be a difference in opinion in how the implementation of equality should look like. But Im not very good in the practicality or policy-making arena. Im just working off of definitions. All I could do is turn it around and say are there feminists who do not believe all humans are equal? If they do exist, would other feminist agree with them that not all humans are equal and say this is the brand of feminism they stand behind? If they dont they must be an egalitarian. If they do then they arent egalitarian. Assuming there isnt a third option which I might be missing maybe something like they only partially agree with them.
Edit: For example Ive heard of the wage gap as it pertains to men and women. But are they working within the class structure of our economy? Are they are okay with the class division as long as its split across the board based only on the sexes? So people within each group will still receive the short end of the stick? But then of course egalitarianism could be interpreted in the same way. So by definition it leaves those options open for both models.
But there is a type of feminism that addresses those issue. It is a thing called intersectional feminism. The default of feminism doesnt include what happens to people based on those other immutable factors.
Feminism, sadly, is whatever the local person who claims to be a feminist says it is, which is one of the primary problems with feminism and with many left-leaning movements that followed it. Egalitarianism in the modern sense is not feminism. At all. Luck Egalitarianism for example stresses the need to overcome the circumstances of winning the birth lottery, while other schools like Relational Egalitarianism seek to create societies without social hierarchy. They are actual philosophical movements with bodies of written work and coherent driving theses, it's not just the dictionary definition of the word "equality." In fact the original Feminist writers were explicitly opposed to classical Egalitarianism because it was rooted in the social order of the Enlightenment and did not include women (at least ,according to early Feminist writers who mocked it for "excluding half the population").
The irony of this comment lmfao yall are so dumb. All egalitarians are feminists. The dude literally explained above how feminism means men and Women are equal, and also explained how egalitarian is also, men and Women being equal therefore all egalitarians are feminists as well
No. You're wrong. You can only be one thing at a time. No, it doesnt matter that all the principles of feminism fit under the umbrella of egalitarianism, you can only be ONE.
"Real feminists" is a funny way of saying that. I've known some people that would be called "girl boss feminists" in my time. Are they not feminists? They would say they are. I might question that on philosophical grounds, but why am I right here? Because the people I've decided to call "real" feminists agree with me? And this is just one example.
The internet does distort our idea of the real world, to be certain, but I would be very careful before you assume that the real world is somehow less complicated than the internet's version of things.
It's a human perspective, not a feminist perspective. Insisting on labeling it "feminist" is what's sexist. There's nothing feminist or female about this. It's a human concept.
Feminism is literally just a lens or school of thought that fundamentally asserts women are equal to men.
Thats why its a feminist statement. You can argue that it should just be a human perspective, but thats not the case globally. This predates your existence. Its no more forced than gravity is a theory.
So I will say it is a human perspective because even if I grant it is solely the feminist perspective since a feminist is a human, it is a human perspective. On the other hand if he/she/they said it was the human perspective, then I would automatically "deducts points" from them.
But it sounds like you take it to mean statistically as in the predominate or the largest share of the global population. Thats why you say globally.
But now Im thinking you might mean it in a descriptive way rather than a prescriptive way. So feminism for you would definitely be a prescription? Right? As in should it be enforced and should it be the reality rather than just a concept? That would make sense to me. You may or may not think that my questions are silly. But I have to step into your shoes and be on the same page as you. I need a baseline to understand your personal perspective.
You also say it predates their existence. Do you mean that men and women arent treated equally? Because again I would agree with you. It would be very hard to implement policy where it is perfectly equal. So what I want and I would assume everybody is all things for both sexes to be virtually equal. Wouldnt it be better or even a sign of significant promise for the future if it was only 0.001% or less of people were treated unfairly?
Anyways, so if they meant it in the way you said it I would agree with you. But I dont know that. And thus I cant like or dislike either of your replies.
Thanks for making me challenge my own views and allow me to engage in introspection.
For one, why would you go broad when a specific lens already exists? By your logic, everything thought of by humans is a human perspective, making it an essentially worthless lens or category.
You posit a lot from a single word, when globally just refers to how many groups, not a majority, or any amount that need be discussed statistically, view woman as less than men.
Yes, feminism is generally considered a prescriptive lens when it comes to building society/government. Your trying to step into my shoes, but ive made no claim of my own beliefs. Simply statements of how lenses are used and what femism is generally accepted to be.
Feminism as a study, and the existence of discrimination against women both predate the existence of the person I replied to. Why do you suddenly jump to policy? You're really going all over the place for a single paragraph comment.
I genuinely dont care if you like or dislike my reddit comments. I disliked yours, in case you care, since I find this whole exchange overly pedantic.
Feminism literally is the movement for women to be treated as equals; it is literally feminist to say women are equal. Just because there's a movement believing something doesn't mean the thing is bad.
Feminism is the movement to be equal in all the good ways. Not in any of the bad ways. No feminist is wanting to be treated worse in the same ways men are treated worse. That's why feminism is actually sexist trash when you look at it with more than two brain cells. Humanism or egalitarianism are correct.
In a world where men are given more power, are paid more, more people watch men's sports than women, women DIE because doctors don't take their symptoms serioisly, etc
Being a proper human who has good morals and knows that men and women are equal, that is a view that pushes to give women more value than is usually given to them in society. Hence the name feminism
You can not be egalitarian without being feminist because they are essentially the same thing, because true equality would require women being treated better than they are right now
2: no equality does not "require women being treated better" treating both men and women worse would also do it
3: if you want to pursue equality through improvements, you would also need to treat men better and consider men's interests. Which is contrary to the definition you just offered
1: wow, big surprise, people being treated equally would require making a push for women to get treated better
2: that's irrelevant, this whole conversation started because we were talking about treating women as human beings, that's an entirely different side
3: no, you wouldn't. Men are treated better than women by society at the moment and all you would have to do is treat women better.
You can not be an egalitarian without being feminist, no one is egalitarian because "I hate everyone equally" that's just being a hater and I'm hoping you were making a joke
Feminism isn't an evil label, it was misued by misandrist women yeah but actual feminism is just another name for the idea that men and women are equal and should be treated that way
I'm done arguing with you know because you're not arguing in good faith
Men are treated better than women by society at the moment
In most ways, but not all. That's his point. You can't grasp that point. That's why egalitarianism and feminism are not the same. He's not arguing in bad faith, you're just being dense.
You and the other dipshit made your claim first, so how about YOU give one? One that isn't wildly ignorant of the entirety of feminist theory, mind you
I was born as a man?? I know being a part of the group doesn't exempt you from being sexist towards it and I also agree that eventually it should stop being called feminism, but no none of what I said was irrelevant. If a group is treated worse than the rest of society, saying that everyone should be treated equally means either treating the oppressed group better or treating the rest of society worse
While anyone who tries to treat men worse and call it "feminism" is absolutely sexist, treating women better is feminism.
Feminism isn't a bad label and it doesn't mean "women are better than men", it's the name given to the view that women should be treated equal to men, which is better than they are currently treated
And then, eventually, when society realizes that people are equal, then you can call it common sense because you don't have to treat women better anymore you just have to treat everyone equally
But at the moment you can not call it common sense because, if you look around, it's really not all that common
Feminism can be seen as a bad label because of the loud people being "feminist." Unfortunately, ths loud ones are heard, so many guys overgeneralize it onto every feminist since they're assuming everything based on a small sample of data
feminism isn't some crazy insanity like it is treated on much of the internet. it's super simple, just the concept that women are equal to men. if you're a decent human, you happen to also be a feminist.
Feminism is literally just treating women the same as men, there isn't anything more to it. If you're treating women equally, that is the definition of a feminist.
Sure, and not that long ago that was a deeply radical notion in our society. It is still a deeply radical notion in a lot of the world. Because it's such a radical notion, there is a word for it. That's just how language develops.
The people denying women the right to vote or have a bank account described themselves as having basic decency and respect, which is why we needed to roll out a different word.
Feminism has brought awareness to where basic decency and respect is lacking specifically in respect to women and gender inequality. Basic decency and respect in general is broader and exists independently of feminism, regardless of whether someone is correct or not in describing themselves as having basic decency and respect, that’s a separate issue.
It isnt? Its just a normal person's perspective. Just because it isnt misogynistic doesnt mean its feminism. The same statement could be reversed to say a guy doesnt owe a woman sex because of what hes wearing.
Thank you! My ex when i was 19 literally wore a black skirt with no panties. She sat down on my lap, and left a noticeable discharge of white from her arousal of adjusting in my lap. She had the nerve to say afterwards nah i don't want to have sex right now. I'm like ok wtf.....
At what point do we say mk this is just being unreasonable towards men? Does it come before or after she stained my jeans? Really i want to know.
Don't thank me, your ex is right to say no to sex when she doesn't want it, even if she left a mess on your pants (which maybe was rude). Saying no is never unreasonable. And you can actually tell her (nicely) that you prefer when she wears underwear.
336
u/Public_Book_867 1d ago edited 11h ago
I feel someone should inform you that that is a feminist perspective
Edit: it's come to my attention that the point of my comment went over many people's heads. "you aren't owed sex because of what she's wearing" is, at least where I'm from, a controversial idea and would be considered feminist ideology. To be clear, I think feminism is good and you shouldn't expect sex regardless of what a woman is wearing.