Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Depends if you mean pants(US) or pants(UK).

I am Francophone, so I go by pantalon.

Quite so.



Depending on the degree of commonality.



Nor is this necessarily the case. A cursory glance at social media will reveal countless espousers of Empiricism who readily ignore such when it suits their purpose to.

A word that always makes me think of the BMU from Baldur's Gate.

Poor male feminists , they get stoned by both misogynist men and radical feminists.

You should have told me "Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!" *squeaaak*

Butt kicking for goodness!

I'm not sure about the terminology of feminism, feminist, feminist theory, all the waves ..., so I can't comment there except to say that what you describe above is unfortunate. It shouldn't be about blaming men so much as creating a new niche for women. To say that maleness is toxic or oppressive is not particularly helpful. It is what it is; the focus should be on creating new archetypes for both men and women (now that the traditional roles are no longer are viable.)

Aye, androbot01. I agree that it's unfortunate. I disagree that traditional roles aren't viable, though. I think the roles that we adopt within the relationships we choose are, likewise, a matter of choice. For instance, the roles of provider and caregiver are still the preference of most two parent households, and although the roles may not necessarily be filled by the traditional partner, that's the most common choice.

A lot of feminist writing is on the subject of what women are capable of doing, but I think they all too often forget to ask what women want to do. When women speak out, rather than accepting answers that disagree with their ideological beliefs, they tell such women that they're being oppressed.

Very true. We should achieve gender equality by lifting women up to the same level, not by dragging men down to the same level.

Many times, I've heard feminists say that feminism helps men too, by making it socially acceptable for the less masculine men. I'm all for this. As famous feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said, "men are put into tiny boxes". This is unfortunate.

However, all this talk of "toxic masculinity makes me think some feminists want to not only make it socially acceptable for men to be less masculine, but make it socially acceptable for men to be nothing but. I don't like seeing men put into a tiny box defined by masculinity but I wouldn't like to see men taking out of one tiny box and put into another tiny box.No, they're not viable. Sometimes I wonder if some feminists actually seek to reinforce traditional gender roles. They're correct when they say the wage gap is largely caused by women expected to take time for parenting duties. Should parenting be exclusively "women's work"? Of course not. Why then, do some feminists oppose joint custody after divorce? Surely expecting single mothers to take sole custody is just exacerbating the wage gap.

Even if she receives child support, this may bolster her income but do nothing for the wage gap because child support is not part of her wage.

However, rather than focus on creating new archetypes for men and women, I think we should abandon archetypes entirely and just let people be themselves.

I can't stand the feminist tradition of putting everyone into groups and saying "group A will always do this and group B will always do that". Intersectional feminism creates even more groups. I think saying men will always do this and women will always do that is reenforcing stereotypical gender roles. It's disrespectful to men and women because it presumes they have no individual agency.

All this emphasis on statistics will tell you what things happen but not why they happen. Statistics ignores the human story behind each individual. Ultimately, this heavy emphasis on statistics is dehumanising. It reduces us all to mere numbers instead of people.

What we need is a school of feminism that focuses on the individual, not the group. I'd gladly join a branch of feminism like that.

It's an inherently collectivist ideology. That's why individualism isn't a mainstream feminist position.

I'm not sure if that last sentence was intended as humour, but individualism isn't something you join, it's just something you choose.

So many of society's roles revolve around the children and family. I'd like to see more non-family roles accepted.



People put their kids in daycare before school and daycare after school to match the work hours. Why not just have them be housed, fed and raised by the state? Practically are already anyway.

I see your point. That thought did not occour to me

Me too.No. I used to hate daycare and afterschool care. Being in a group with 30 other kids is fine for exterverted kids but I was an introvert and I found it exhausting. I just wanted to be alone so I could relax.

Before school care and after school care means some elementary school kids are away from home for 9 or more hours per day. Fun for extroverted kids, exhausting for introverted kids.

Honestly parents should be able to raise their kids how they want and supliment their kids education how they want (learning doesn't have to end after the kids go home). Having kids raised by the state sounds like collectivism and I hate to think what kind of propeganda the state would be teaching these kids.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 15 Nov 2016, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh for sure. It is collectivism. But we're closer to it already than most are aware of.