Young Woman Calmly And Eloquently Explains Why She's Not A Feminist.

a reply to: boymonkey74

ATS is the only place I go where 'feminist' is generally an insult...or a reason to berate someone who says they are one.

Gotta ask though. How the heck did you find yourself watching a video on feminism (third wave or whatever) that's currently showing 32 views?? Quiet day at work?

a reply to: Kandinsky

Day off and it was on another site...break.com lol.
I think that feminism has turned slowly into just hating on men.
I have seen in my personal and professional life fake feminists who only scream equality when it suits them but I have seen over the last year the lies major feminists have told to do with the gamersgate thing.
Personally I think we should celebrate our differences men and women because together we make one.

a reply to: boymonkey74

The one time (that I know of) I fell foul of a 'feminist' was at Uni. The lecturer made the statement that 'only men are responsible for wars.' Now obviously I threw Maggie Thatcher and QE1 out there as they were hardly Gandhi and never flinched from a scrap. It went down badly and I can still recall the silence in the room and her withering stare. Wasn't too bothered by that because she had made an ignorant generalisation and it didn't matter if everyone agreed with her...which they did lol.

Too often people tag themselves as representatives of a group and they're just assholes. Feminism was a long overdue movement that improved the western world. If some women choose to be assholes under the tag of 'feminist' it shouldn't detract from the greater good that was done by men and women who supported the movement.

Screw the extremists and the assholes!

Well, I couldn't resist checking back in and I'm surprised and quite heartened to see some very intelligent and adult discussion taking place. I can't help but think my post may have had an impact on the flow of the thread that may have, otherwise, gone the same way as a hundred others before it... That's great. Now, maybe we can talk about it.

theantediluvian - I agree. I think there's a lot of anger and pain in people in general these days, and many young women label their own anger and hatred toward men as "feminism" and that's where some men (mostly young men) get their idea of what feminism means today. These "neo-feminists" and the men they hate don't have a clue about women's historical fight for equal rights, specifically, women's suffrage, and later (in my time), the movement for women to make choices for themselves outside the normal gender roles of the time. I went into engineering, decided NOT to have children (after a failed attempt), and I have made many choices in my life that were outside the normal woman's roles. Because of the feminists before me, I was free to consider making these choices thanks to people like Gloria Steinem, who was neither fat nor ugly. Nor did she put down women who made choices to express their sexuality.



The reason this movement is called feminism is that it was the fight for WOMEN'S rights. Men already had rights. TODAY, we're seeing a different picture. Women were very successful in fighting for their rights and even surpassed men in some ways. I don't think that was intentional. It just happened in the fight.

I'm one of those "real feminists" who believe in actual equality. I think women in the military should perform equally to men. They should have every opportunity and responsibility that men do. The testing should be THE SAME. Men should have the option to have a "male abortion". Men shouldn't be jailed longer than women for the same crime. I'm not mad at men. I'm married to one. I love men and I love attention from men. But I do get very tired of saying I'm a feminist, only to be generalized as a fat, ugly, hateful bitch. I'll own bitch. But I'm kind of a hottie for a woman in her late 50s and I'm just not into hatred or anger.

Klassified - I agree with you as well. We need to have a new gender equality movement where women not only get the same pay for the same job, but also get the respect that an equal deserves. And we need to ADD to that to be sure men are getting the respect and opportunity that they deserve. I mean... equal is equal. Not the double standards mentioned by Quetzalcoatl14.

Interesting fact: The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced EVERY YEAR between 1923 and 1972 without even making it to the House floor. It just didn't have the support. The politicians of the time wanted women in traditional gender roles and just didn't think it was that important. Women across the country went on strike to pressure them to get it passed.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

But it was never ratified by enough states, largely because the GOP was against it, and its opposition was led by... a woman. A woman whose interests were alimony, baking and "special treatment" because of her womanhood. Wikipedia actually has a good article on the ERA.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
One of my favorite quotes in the recent, addresses one of the biggest double-standards of all time between men and women...

"Because the expression of my sexuality does not negate my integrity, intelligence or autonomy"

I don't know if the woman(Nicole Scott from Why I Dance) who said it, actually coined it, but it cuts right to the quick, and I have to tip my hat to it's author. I have had many discussions with men and women about how the expression of sexuality is perceived differently, depending on the gender expressing it. If we can ever get past that antiquated, perverted, and misogynistic perception of women's sexuality, it will be a big leap forward in equality, and in my opinion, our species.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that misandrists have become too large a percentage of those calling themselves feminists. .

This is so true. I've run across members here the wrong way because I fully support feminism but what they don't get is that I'm no misandrist. (Men are important in my life...have three sons, a boyfriend for 13 years without a single fight, most of my friends are men)

Unfortunately, I feel the word "feminism" has come to imply something so negative, spat out like poison, that it is undermining some of the good early feminists gained, loses men's support to sort out some of the last remaining issues women face and alienates a whole generation of young women who may want to work toward these remaining issues.

It would be great to have better words. To leave the "F" word in the past to represent those courageous women who made this young woman's (in the video) life livable. And to place misandrists and mysogynists in the same category and shun them equally.

She's a young, naïve woman who enjoys all the benefits won for her by generations of brave women - all while disparaging those same women. Shame on her!

Sal

a reply to: boymonkey74

a reply to: igloo

The word has been hijacked and we either take it back or find a new word. I think I'll just keep using "feminist" and throw in "equalist" on occasion. I like that. It's more accurate and people are less likely to get so butt-hurt about it.

jezebel.com...
It boggles my mind to no end when I see comments (from women in particular) that begin with "I'm no feminist, but..." or those that try to radically separate themselves from any word related to feminist or feminism. Civil and social and equal rights for women is all feminism IS and what a feminist supports.

The woman in the video has good points about men having issues just like women do. However, there are a lot of feminists that are working to bring positive changes to our society, and I have ran into some that are bringing positive changes for both women and men. If they don't all focus on men, so be it, someone else can focus on helping men. But for the record, I have heard discussions between feminists worried about men being raped in prisons.

I tend to like feminists - However, not all feminists are likeable. Some of them go over the top, and can get on my nerves. Those are usually the ones with the negative attitudes who are more focused on hurting men than helping women.

Affirmative action is always an interesting topic because it is meant to even the playing field by temporarily making it unfair to the advantaged side, in this case, men. One example is the college application process, which is reportedly easier for women than men to pass these days.

This came about because, for a while, women were not getting into higher education at all - my mom was the first woman to go to law school in her state - so the quotas were probably made to keep places of higher education from being biased against women, which they were. Back in the day, women would be harassed for trying to get a higher education by both their professors and their fellow students.

The question is whether or not that policy is still needed today. Keeping the policy is kind of like saying women are too weak to compete against men without help. But maybe it could be true, maybe our system is still rigged against women. I tend to think that society is sexist - in that there are roles that men and women are expected to play, and I think this way of thinking is outdated.

However, the sexism I see goes both ways - I think a man should be allowed to stay at home and take care of the family just as much as a woman should be allowed to go get work. I also think that child custody cases should have an equal chance of going to the man or the woman.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: boymonkey74

Gotta ask though. How the heck did you find yourself watching a video on feminism (third wave or whatever) that's currently showing 32 views?? Quiet day at work?

Sometimes people can get lost in certain YouTube districts... BoyMonkey must have been watching a bunch of similar videos!

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think that feminism has turned slowly into just hating on men.

I think there is an aspect of that in feminism today, but I don't support that aspect even though I am a feminist, in fact, I get annoyed when some feminists are outright destructive.

But there are other aspects of feminism that are worth paying attention to - the gentler aspects that aren't trying to tear the closest man's balls off.

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
She's a young, naïve woman who enjoys all the benefits won for her by generations of brave women - all while disparaging those same women. Shame on her!

Sal

a reply to: boymonkey74

I agree with your comment, but we should allow her mistakes due to her young age and lack of experience and research, she still has a lot to learn. It is very telltale that she did not speak on men's radical group-think being self-serving and not taking other gender/sexual orientation equality issues into consideration, while feminist groups do endeavour to tackle the inequality of other gender and/or sexual orientation issues. Then again, it may just yet another example of semantics and misunderstanding of the root problem plaguing all of society, all genders/sexual orientations.

@pamela_bridger said: "The feminist movement was extremely important and this young lady should be grateful that she can speak freely to these issues as a result of their sacrifices. "

That’s the myth alright, the reality is that feminism has been a destructive force in western society and needs to go away for good.

Here is what a male feminist has to share with all of us.

I am a feminist because women and men cannot hope to be in good relation to each other in the absence of the tangible empowerment of women’s lives.

I am a feminist in my ongoing effort to be a complete, ethical, and responsible man.

www.chalquist.com...

originally posted by: darkbake
However, there are a lot of feminists that are working to bring positive changes to our society, and I have ran into some that are bringing positive changes for both women and men. If they don't all focus on men, so be it, someone else can focus on helping men.

I agree. For the most part, I think that "someone else" is going to have to be men, to have the most effect. Historically, if a group is being marginalized, THEY are the ones who have to take the reigns and fight for equality, with help from those who are sympathetic to their cause, of course. I have seen a lot of men's rights groups, headed and operated by men that are successful in courtrooms and the legal realm.

Men "blaming" the women's movement because women tend to get custody, is blame misplaced, IMO. Bringing it to light and working with REAL feminists is the best way to go. Fighting feminism is just going to defeat the purpose and cause antagonism between two groups who really want the same thing.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Men "blaming" the women's movement because women tend to get custody, is blame misplaced, IMO. Bringing it to light and working with REAL feminists is the best way to go. Fighting feminism is just going to defeat the purpose and cause antagonism between two groups who really want the same thing.

Sit down, BH - you ain't ready for this - but I tend to agree with you here. Blaming female victories in custody battles on feminism IS misplaced blame, without a doubt. It was that way long before feminism ever happened, and is caused, I believe, by the perception that was once upon a time prevalent that women are more "nurturing", therefore better parents - i.e. a "sexist bias".

I'm tired of fighting feminism. It's not worth the effort, a battle beneath me. By the same token, for reasons I will get into shortly, I can't support feminism, either. So where does that leave me? Ignoring it. I've decided to studiously ignore feminism as irrelevant.

A concept of "egalitarianism" I could get behind, but when the bias that an ideology claims to fight against is BUILT INTO THE VERY NAME of that ideology, I find it incredibly difficult to take said ideology in the least bit seriously.

Somewhat earlier, you quoted from Jezebel, and I'd like to revisit that quote with some emphasis:

jezebel.com...
It boggles my mind to no end when I see comments (from women in particular) that begin with "I'm no feminist, but..." or those that try to radically separate themselves from any word related to feminist or feminism. Civil and social and equal rights for women is all feminism IS and what a feminist supports.

That part I highlighted is exactly what I'm referring to. it's impossible to accept at face value claims of "equality" that are pointed only in one direction. One way "equality" isn't equality at all, and that's why I cannot bring myself to support or work with Feminists. The concept is inherently illogical. It's a self-contradicting oxymoron.

a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

Yes I do.

"Equality" by it's very nature must go both ways. "Masculism" is no less unequal than "Feminism", and vice versa.

I focus on "semantics" because words have meanings. They are utterly useless as communications devices without meanings.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

Yes I do.

"Equality" by it's very nature must go both ways. "Masculism" is no less unequal than "Feminism", and vice versa.

I focus on "semantics" because words have meanings. They are utterly useless as communications devices without meanings.

"A rose by any other name...would smell as sweet".

I don't focus on semantics, I focus on the core beliefs and what a group is striving to accomplish.

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
She's a young, naïve woman who enjoys all the benefits won for her by generations of brave women - all while disparaging those same women. Shame on her!

Sal

She is young and naive because she is stating the fact the main stream feminism tend to over look?

I dont see where she discredited the old women's rights movement, i can see clearly she states the 3rd wave feminists, who enjoy everything the old feminist brought and now go further by destroying the other gender.

originally posted by: luciddream

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
She's a young, naïve woman who enjoys all the benefits won for her by generations of brave women - all while disparaging those same women. Shame on her!

Sal

She is young and naive because she is stating the fact the main stream feminism tend to over look?

I dont see where she discredited the old women's rights movement, i can see clearly she states the 3rd wave feminists, who enjoy everything the old feminist brought and now go further by destroying the other gender.

Where do you get the idea that the third wave are destroying the other gender?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

Yes I do.

"Equality" by it's very nature must go both ways. "Masculism" is no less unequal than "Feminism", and vice versa.

I focus on "semantics" because words have meanings. They are utterly useless as communications devices without meanings.

"A rose by any other name...would smell as sweet".

Fair enough. The same can be said of a skunk, however - it smells the same whatever one calls it, too.

I don't focus on semantics, I focus on the core beliefs and what a group is striving to accomplish.

How do you accomplish discussion if you and all others in the discussion have to listen to what the others "mean" rather than what they SAY?

The core beliefs are best presented in whatever name a group calls itself. One would not expect a group called a rugby club to actually be a knitting circle. By the same token, one would not expect a group referring to themselves as "Feminists" to actually mean "Egalitarians", while at the same time leaving out the entire other half of the equation.

Then again, it's your group, not mine, so call it what you like.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

Yes I do.

"Equality" by it's very nature must go both ways. "Masculism" is no less unequal than "Feminism", and vice versa.

I focus on "semantics" because words have meanings. They are utterly useless as communications devices without meanings.

"A rose by any other name...would smell as sweet".

Fair enough. The same can be said of a skunk, however - it smells the same whatever one calls it, too.

I don't focus on semantics, I focus on the core beliefs and what a group is striving to accomplish.

How do you accomplish discussion if you and all others in the discussion have to listen to what the others "mean" rather than what they SAY?

The core beliefs are best presented in whatever name a group calls itself. One would not expect a group called a rugby club to actually be a knitting circle. By the same token, one would not expect a group referring to themselves as "Feminists" to actually mean "Egalitarians", while at the same time leaving out the entire other half of the equation.

Then again, it's your group, not mine, so call it what you like.

They are feminists, egalitarians, humanists and much more - if you choose to not recognize that, then the skunk indeed stinks no matter it's name.