This is something that I've been thinking about for a while and I'd love to see what everyone else makes of it.
In some senses, feminism is like a religion, without the benefits of having an enshrined set of core tenets for people to follow (or criticize). The only definitive shape feminism is given is that it has womenâs rights at its core. Far too much is left murky and dark and ripe for predatory animals to snap up resources and the unsuspecting in a bid to fuel their own existence.
A self-identified feminist can certainly claim that the radicals in their movement do not speak for them and that their actions are not condoned, and I have no reason at all to doubt that many feminists are not represented by the radicals, but if thatâs the impression the outside world gets then of course the stereotypes about feminism are going to persist.
This means that radicals are free to put their own spin upon feminism and to imprint it with their own meaning and end goals - ones that may not necessarily be egalitarian in nature (and certainly not the best thought out in some cases).
To do away with such behaviours one must look to a cause that is more well-defined, if only by nature of simplicity, that or kick out the radical elements and make a public display of them being unwelcome in the movement.
I fear feminism is already too well ensnared within the probing tentacles of radical ideology and that leaves only one option:
Take the path of egalitarian thinking instead.
If someone believes in equality of opportunity for all, woman or man or anyone outside of those terms, then they would surely be better suited to the title of egalitarian.
Gender-based oppression has never truly been a force pushed only by men and only onto women, as the radicals who stole feminism seem more and more intent on claiming with each day, it is a systemic problem that hurts everyone in different ways and only through understanding the harm it causes both to men and women can we begin to address it.
Leave âfeminismâ behind, mourn for it if you wish, because make no mistakes when I say that feminism is dead and the puppetry of radicals is the only thing keeping the movement twitching.
Many feminists don't seem to agree on just what the feminist movement is supposed to be. Is it a movement about equality or a movement solely about women's rights? If it's about equality then, they argue, there's no need for things like the Men's Rights Movement as feminism will create the equality that everyone wants. However, if it's about Women's Rights then men should just go start their own movement to tackle their issues, the same movement that some other feminists just described as being unnecessary.
It would be perfectly fine if feminists and MRA's could go about their separate business without one trying to impede legitimate issues that the other has. The thing is that a number of feminist groups, advocates and researchers are guilty of actively trying to stop men looking into or talking about their own experiences. Not only that but any attempt to redress the balance of power in certain areas is met with open contempt
Am I denying that some elements of the MRM are intent on doing those same things? No, not at all, but the difference is that the MRM isn't well funded and is a movement in its infancy - not to mention that the MRM is much better at policing and weeding out the radicals for the most part. The thing is though, the banners of 'feminism' and 'mens rights movement' automatically create divides where working in the best interests of one group can sometimes end up working against the best interests of another, by instead joining under the banner of egalitarianism it becomes possible to understand what provides the best outcome for both males and females.
The job opportunities for females and males is equal, but the desire to go out there and get those jobs isn't. Males are more likely to go out and look for jobs, regardless of the potential meniality of the job position, while females are more likely to stay home or find job positions that are stereotypically female, therefore creating the illusion of a gap in job opps for a lot of industries. I'm not saying there is no gap, but I think the gap is exaggerated by situation.
More males get promoted than females because simply put, more men are workaholics at the workplace than females. More hours put into the job = more commitment = more likely to be promoted, which goes hand-in-hand with the average salaries for both genders.
Same as what Avorne posted. But, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cites women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn. It gets worse as women work longer hours " women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn.
However, if it's about Women's Rights then men should just go start their own movement to tackle their issues, the same movement that some other feminists just described as being unnecessary.
No it isn't. They don't have to be linked. Feminists often argue that such movements are unnecessary, because they might be cloistered radicals. So? Too bad for such fringe movement ladies.
It would be perfectly fine if feminists and MRA's could go about their separate business without one trying to impede legitimate issues that the other has. The thing is that a number of feminist groups, advocates and researchers are guilty of actively trying to stop men looking into or talking about their own experiences. Not only that but any attempt to redress the balance of power in certain areas is met with open contempt
And yet, as you yourself have said, these groups are in the minority. The vast majority of feminist movements do good work, and I have no desire to see them stop. The women of the world are still largely oppressed in the most subtle of ways.
Feminists have been accused of suppressing male victims of partner violence. which not only shows a dedication to unnecessarily creating an image of female victimhood but a downright harmful bias against men. Not only have feminists skewed the image of partner violence but that same skewed image has gone on to influence how the police deal with violence which again leaves men at a disadvantage.
Just because feminists have distorted partially the research field does not one bit alter the reality that women are still treated unfairly, in the workplace, and at home. Women in Asia and Africa in particular suffer heinously, and the Dehli **** victim incident is a case in point. Feminists movements fight for such issues that are pertinent in so many nations that are incredibly backward in their treatment of women, and I don't see why they need to stop doing so.
Am I denying that some elements of the MRM are intent on doing those same things? No, not at all, but the difference is that the MRM isn't well funded and is a movement in its infancy - not to mention that the MRM is much better at policing and weeding out the radicals for the most part. The thing is though, the banners of 'feminism' and 'mens rights movement' automatically create divides where working in the best interests of one group can sometimes end up working against the best interests of another, by instead joining under the banner of egalitarianism it becomes possible to understand what provides the best outcome for both males and females.
No it doesn't. It never is that easy, because they both have separate interests over separate issues.
No it isn't. They don't have to be linked. Feminists often argue that such movements are unnecessary, because they might be cloistered radicals. So? Too bad for such fringe movement ladies.
That's true but, as I've already stated, radicals have control over much of the 'voice' of feminism and if they advocate that Men's Rights Movements are stupid or unnecessary then that's the impression that people are going to get.
And yet, as you yourself have said, these groups are in the minority. The vast majority of feminist movements do good work, and I have no desire to see them stop. The women of the world are still largely oppressed in the most subtle of ways.
The vast majority of feminists tend to be good people - that doesn't mean that the work they do is always in everyone's best interests. By taking up issues for women and from the standpoint of women, no matter the quality of the intent behind it, there are times when doing the absolute best thing for women will work to the detriment of men and it's important to find that balance where what's best for everyone and for equality's sake is done.
Take a situation where there's a limited number of resources - would the best possible outcome for women be receiving the majority of such resources? Yes. However that would work to the detriment of men when equally sharing the resources would be the better approach for all concerned. Feminism by it's very nature is not egalitarian and so cannot work towards parity of the sexes without the risk of radicals or extraneous factors causing a change of course. That's without mentioning how society has come to view criticism of feminism as growingly unacceptable, or at least nowhere near as well funded as the oftentimes biased research and campaigning that supports radical researchers views, leading to something of an echo chamber where only views that agree with feminists are heard.
I would be interested in seeing the ways in which which women, in Western countries, are still oppressed according to you.
Just because feminists have distorted partially the research field does not one bit alter the reality that women are still treated unfairly, in the workplace, and at home. Women in Asia and Africa in particular suffer heinously, and the Dehli **** victim incident is a case in point. Feminists movements fight for such issues that are pertinent in so many nations that are incredibly backward in their treatment of women, and I don't see why they need to stop doing so.
You seem to be under the impression that an egalitarian movement couldn't fight such oppression in the same way that the feminist movement can, why would that be? There would obviously be a strong women's voice in the movement, tempered with more reasoned thinking and approaches than one gets in the feminist movement at the moment (Warren Farrell protest, anyone?), that directs the flow of resources and campaigning towards helping those women. The egalitarian movement would also be undeniably more intersectional than the white feminism we find in America, Canada and the UK at the moment and be better suited to understanding what happens in nations like India and how best to change it without going down the 'white feminism is right feminism' route.
No it doesn't. It never is that easy, because they both have separate interests over separate issues.
What about areas where feminism and the MRM meet? Family courts, reproductive rights, gender roles, politics, etc... There are a whole range of issues that need a middle ground to be the catalyst for equality not one movement advocating what equality looks like from their standpoint.
That's true but, as I've already stated, radicals have control over much of the 'voice' of feminism and if they advocate that Men's Rights Movements are stupid or unnecessary then that's the impression that people are going to get.
By taking up issues for women and from the standpoint of women, no matter the quality of the intent behind it, there are times when doing the absolute best thing for women will work to the detriment of men and it's important to find that balance where what's best for everyone and for equality's sake is done.
As Xzeno has pointed out, egalitarianism and achieving it has always been a cornerstone of feminist movements. Too bad if people misinterpret it. The onus is on people who misunderstand to understand, and not for feminists movements to disband themselves. Furthermore, a confusion over substance doesn't mean that they are any less effective and needed.
If any time a feminist movement goes overboard, it is no longer a feminist movement. It betrays the intentions of what early feminists attempt to achieve. These black sheep deserve to be rooted out, but they do not provide a valid reason to accuse the entire movement in itself.
Take a situation where there's a limited number of resources - would the best possible outcome for women be receiving the majority of such resources? Yes. However that would work to the detriment of men when equally sharing the resources would be the better approach for all concerned. Feminism by it's very nature is not egalitarian and so cannot work towards parity of the sexes without the risk of radicals or extraneous factors causing a change of course. That's without mentioning how society has come to view criticism of feminism as growingly unacceptable, or at least nowhere near as well funded as the oftentimes biased research and campaigning that supports radical researchers views, leading to something of an echo chamber where only views that agree with feminists are heard.
Again, you are mistaking the very nature and core of the movement itself. It isn't to achieve superiority over men, or to attain a degree of anthropological pay back. It's merely to achieve and or defend equal rights in all arenas for women. A feminist is by definition, merely a "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women". I am a feminist. Everyone I know is one.
What about areas where feminism and the MRM meet? Family courts, reproductive rights, gender roles, politics, etc... There are a whole range of issues that need a middle ground to be the catalyst for equality not one movement advocating what equality looks like from their standpoint.
You seem to be under the impression that an egalitarian movement couldn't fight such oppression in the same way that the feminist movement can, why would that be? There would obviously be a strong women's voice in the movement, tempered with more reasoned thinking and approaches than one gets in the feminist movement at the moment (Warren Farrell protest, anyone?), that directs the flow of resources and campaigning towards helping those women. The egalitarian movement would also be undeniably more intersectional than the white feminism we find in America, Canada and the UK at the moment and be better suited to understanding what happens in nations like India and how best to change it without going down the 'white feminism is right feminism' route.
Each group fights for the right to establish equality, parity not superiority. They best represent their own group, because generally they themselves understand their own problems better. If everyone is aiming for equality for their own group, I see no reason why they should be threatening. You are clearly mistaken if you think that feminist movements in general, or more mainstream, accepted, and large feminist movements don't aim for equality. An egalitarian movement is colourless, has little impact, and doesn't engage people. By labeling it a feminist movement, it strikes up a chord with women, it focuses the issues for women. Women are the ones involved in issue, and have the most stake in the issue. Why should we not label it a female movement?
