That's true. But Christians and men have had to deal with the a-holes messing it up for the good ones for a long time now. Feminism/feminist get a taste of its own medicine as well now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most women are not feminists
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
That's true. But Christians and men have had to deal with the a-holes messing it up for the good ones for a long time now. Feminism/feminist get a taste of its own medicine as well now.
There's no sad or support react -- in case you wondered why I chose "optimistic" with a rainbow. <3
My definition of feminism: study the cultural customs and attitudes (assumed truths) that normal operate just below the surface of consciousness (which is why they are assumed, not really though about,) known sociologically as the nomos {but dubbed "The Patriarchy" by the feminist movement} and bring them into consciousness for critical examination, with an eye towards fixing engrained nomos that are not optimal to ones that are more optimal for the disadvantaged. Ideally, if done correctly, there will be no need to enforce these transformational changes with affirmative action legislation and the like, because basic human rights would be extended to all.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
So you would say women like this are actually feminists they just don't realize it or acknowledge it:
You might not want to base your worldview off some chick's Facebook page.
Just saying'
Tom
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I do admire that chick... But I admire you as well... I learned from older and wiser people offering correction on RF... My mistakes are many, but I'm learning from them
Last edited by a moderator:
Two wrongs don't make a right. Third wave feminism being strawmanned isn't suddenly okay because some people strawmanned Christianity.
Tuesday when I'm back to work and have a lot more time I'll talk to you about these issues.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think maybe when this girl grows up, she will better understand that feminism is a sub-category of egalitarianism. This girl is not an "anti-feminist", she's just confused about what it means to be a feminist, and what it means to be egalitarian: that feminism is egalitarianism as it relates to females.
PureX
Veteran Member
I had to look it up, and I don't see that the term, "third wave feminist" means anything in particular, but that action is still needed to secure and protect equity between men and women in our society. And that's just good old 'feminism', to me. No 'new waves' about it. As to lesbians and ethnic women being newly included in this 'new wave' of feminism, they have always been women, and therefor always included. So once again, no 'new wave' is needed.
What seems to be going on with the 'new wave' idea of feminism is that they are allowing the term "feminist" to be divided by the variations of prejudice that some women are facing, but not all. And think that's foolish, because the division only serves to weaken them, and to confuse the issue for everyone else.
In AA they have a saying: "Keep it simple, Stupid!". And I have learned over the years that it's bit of folksy wisdom that works when applied, a lot of the time. Not ALL the time. But a lot of the time.
I believe the waves are useful delineation of philosophies feminist movement leaders had through time. Because there were a huge amount of differences in what different people thought 'feminist' meant throughout time. First wave feminists had a lot of prejudice against black women, and black women didn't feel like the educated, affluent and primarily white bored housewives who wanted to work represented their struggles as 'we have to work to keep our families alive, we're treated horribly, and we'd love to have the option to be a bored housewife.' Meanwhile third wave feminists often see second wave philosophies as prudish, trying to get women to cover up and only display ones brain. It also had little care for lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.
It'd be nice if we could just keep it simple, but when talking about the history of an evolving movement, there's a lot of detail that I don't think should be lost because it sometimes gets complicated.
Edit: Also as a point of information as an aside, people keep thinking that, compared to third wave feminism, first and second wave were less 'extreme' and that is emphatically not the case. Some first wave feminists were essentially anarchists who were even involved in bombing.
Jane Alpert - Wikipedia
PureX
Veteran Member
It's all "feminism", to me. And I think women should have understood this all long. Though I know that as women are also humans, this is unrealistic. To the degree that they allow themselves to be divided by their own prejudice and neglect, they are weakened, I think. And anyway, it's all about fighting inequality: race, gender, sexual preference, religion, social mores, etc.,. That's the primary objective.
The thing that kind of freaks me out about feminism is whenever some woman says they are anti feminist or egalitarian or is highly critical of feminism or even unsure that they identify as feminist, feminists seem to hit back with things like "you don't know what feminism is." Or "you're actually a feminist you don't know it." Or "well that's just cause you don't know any better." Or something to that affect. It's so......cult like. Almost as if a woman is not allowed to even take issue with feminism or feminist theory or even just an aspect of the movement. I mean it's so dismissive and kind of creepy.
I, for one, am highly suspicious of any movement that even indirectly punishes criticism. I expect that from religions and even then I prefer to be flippant about them.
But as for identifying as a feminist? I suppose so. I'm not a real big fan of labels though.
I, for one, am highly suspicious of any movement that even indirectly punishes criticism. I expect that from religions and even then I prefer to be flippant about them.
But as for identifying as a feminist? I suppose so. I'm not a real big fan of labels though.
Your right, but it is what it is. I'm not making excuses or justifying it mind you. Just saying thats the way the world works currently.
Okay, even if I accepted thats how the world works (beyond accepting that people do it, and then get on saying it shouldn't be done and why), I'm not talking to the world. I'm talking to you. Do you recognize that the criticism against 3rd wave that we have been discussing is based on generalization and hyperbole? Or are you going to continue to say things like 'Feminism is bad/negative because of people like Sarkeesian' knowing that's not right and not justified?
Because I have legitimate criticisms of various feminist movements, including stuff in the first and second wave that people should know about because it's interesting history, and because feminism is way cooler and more complex than 'first wave good, second wave good, third wave bad.'
Last edited:
*wave* Hi, I'm a self-described third wave feminist who actually reads feminist literature, attends gender studies lectures, and occasionally volunteers with women's crisis centers.
I do not label people feminist if they don't want to be labeled it, or tell them they must be feminist and not know it. I think thats skeezy and there's more to feminism as a set of movements than a one sentence slogan.
And to me it's just like the rest of culture. I call myself a gamer but I wouldn't call anyone who plays games a gamer, unless they wanted to be
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I am surprised you overlooked my initial post but anyway, I have a big problem with the following:
The Violence Stops Here
We of course had fliers at my university especially the fanatical young first year female students who take one women's studies course and yet they champion feminism.
That campaign of "don't be that guy" is damaging as it does what feminists complain: placing stereotypical labels based on gender. Regardless of the statistics, men also face sexual harassment and sexual assault. I believe where feminism fails is there is no middle ground in its message.
Sure we need to address the issues concerning rape and sexual assault against women but I think people forget how one word within a message can change the state of affairs of a campaign. There are a lot of materialistic women on this planet. So, what if I made fliers for the sake of information of "don't be that girl that dates for money." Feminists would be upset because they would feel the placement of a negative label based on gender.
What does this have to do with my post though?
I should expand, unlike the gendered stereotype that women are materialist, sexual assault statistics isn't. Women are by orders of magnitude more likely to be sexually assaulted by men, even if you were to compare anonymous statistics of those who feel like they can't report due to ridicule.
With that said, is it more complicated than 'just men'? Hell yes. Is that site abrasive and alienating? Yep, I don't support it and I would do it differently. Do I think expectation on masculinity at least contributes to the prevalence of what some call rape culture? Also, yes. And flyers like those won't help much addressing it.
Last edited:
It's not in my experience. Maybe your just the first level headed one I have come across. /shrug
Reasonable feminists abound...there are even several on RF.
(Just kidding about "several"!)
But the biggest enemies of feminism are indeed the feminists who are lightning rods because of
their hostility towards those they imagine to be enemies, & their obsession with divisive jargon.
Tis bad form to alienate those would otherwise be allies.