Is feminism still necessary?
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Would you say feminism is necessary in other countries like Afghanistan or many countries of Africa?
No. Human equality groups can accomplish as much as feminist groups ever did. And without the angry backlash that north american style feminism (in otherwords, women only win by putting men down) caused.
Geez, other than the bra burning I don't think I really noticed feminism per se. I was raised to treat everyone as an equal so the movement was a moot point for me. 
P.S. Humanism = Good
P.S. Humanism = Good
Last edited:
S_lone
What a neat question.
At first I said 'yes' - then I thought 'no' - and then I had to consider what 'feminism' means these days.
It is comprised of various elements depending upon where one lives and if one is a male or female and of what age group. Some fortunate women are truly emancipated, and some are still in chains in degrees of servitude and custom.
If we historically pracitced 'humanism' as Karrie suggests, the question would be invalid as there would be little to discuss, but in some areas of our world, feminism is a necessary evolution whose time is coming - I hope - and that one day all of us will enjoy true and pure equality - with each other, regardless of any differences as to our ethnicity, gender, abilities, and beliefs.
It would be a comfortable place - our world - if we were truly the human race - all inclusive yet honoring our differences as embellishments to our importance in our histories of humankind.
What a neat question.
At first I said 'yes' - then I thought 'no' - and then I had to consider what 'feminism' means these days.
It is comprised of various elements depending upon where one lives and if one is a male or female and of what age group. Some fortunate women are truly emancipated, and some are still in chains in degrees of servitude and custom.
If we historically pracitced 'humanism' as Karrie suggests, the question would be invalid as there would be little to discuss, but in some areas of our world, feminism is a necessary evolution whose time is coming - I hope - and that one day all of us will enjoy true and pure equality - with each other, regardless of any differences as to our ethnicity, gender, abilities, and beliefs.
It would be a comfortable place - our world - if we were truly the human race - all inclusive yet honoring our differences as embellishments to our importance in our histories of humankind.
I agree with Karrie in the sense that in the end, humanism is what we should all aim for, and equality between sexes is pretty much a prerequisite for a truly humanist view of the world.
But that being said, I think Curiosity is right in pointing out that in some parts of the world, ''feminism is a necessary evolution whose time is coming'' ... hopefully...
By feminism, I have in mind the empowerment and liberation of women and not a shift from male dominance to female dominance. To me, proper feminism is a movement of liberation from male dominance.
The fact that we often refer to humanity as MANkind tells a lot about our history... For a very long time MAN has been the central figure of history. An overwhelmingly large proportion of the great and not-so-great figures who changed history were MEN... for better or for worse...
But why is that so?
Can historical male 'dominance' simply be explained by the fact that women had to care for and nurture the children?
And is male 'dominance' really over? Do we need a period of female 'dominance' to restore a true universal balance between the sexes?
And perhaps the most important question of all is...
Are men and women fundamentally different beyond their physical differences?
Or is the notion of GENDER a social construct that is expiring?
But that being said, I think Curiosity is right in pointing out that in some parts of the world, ''feminism is a necessary evolution whose time is coming'' ... hopefully...
By feminism, I have in mind the empowerment and liberation of women and not a shift from male dominance to female dominance. To me, proper feminism is a movement of liberation from male dominance.
The fact that we often refer to humanity as MANkind tells a lot about our history... For a very long time MAN has been the central figure of history. An overwhelmingly large proportion of the great and not-so-great figures who changed history were MEN... for better or for worse...
But why is that so?
Can historical male 'dominance' simply be explained by the fact that women had to care for and nurture the children?
And is male 'dominance' really over? Do we need a period of female 'dominance' to restore a true universal balance between the sexes?
And perhaps the most important question of all is...
Are men and women fundamentally different beyond their physical differences?
Or is the notion of GENDER a social construct that is expiring?
Is Feminism still necessary
No, not as it was needed before and not as radical. However on the job market there are places that women still have to fight for equality especially concerning salary. Women are now taking over management jobs but many are relegated to secretarial and clerical jobs, mostly in the private sector. But with feminine determination we will achieve this without feminism.
I agree with you that humanism is a much better way to achieve our goal.
However where women are subjected to male domination feminism is still needed.
Also I don't think we want a swing to complete female domination like the one men had, instead we want a balance where we can be equals.
No, not as it was needed before and not as radical. However on the job market there are places that women still have to fight for equality especially concerning salary. Women are now taking over management jobs but many are relegated to secretarial and clerical jobs, mostly in the private sector. But with feminine determination we will achieve this without feminism.
I agree with you that humanism is a much better way to achieve our goal.
However where women are subjected to male domination feminism is still needed.
Also I don't think we want a swing to complete female domination like the one men had, instead we want a balance where we can be equals.
Yes and yes, in my considered opinion, though I also have to agree with Karrie's argument to a large extent, and I'd take it a little farther: feminism, properly practiced, IS humanism as Karrie defined it. The difficulty, or one of the difficulties, with it is that it often isn't properly practiced, but as Bill Clinton once said about something else--affirmative action in general, I think it was--"mend it, don't end it."
I was a child in the 1950s, 11 years old when the decade ended. My mother was at home all the time, as were the mothers of everyone I knew. I was an adolescent in the 1960s, through that great period of social ferment and the origins of the modern feminist movement, though the movement itself long predates that era. The things you grow up with you tend to see as normal: mothers stay at home, fathers go out to work, that's just the natural order of things when you're 10 years old and that's how everybody behaves. But I've come to understand that that's wrong, not because there's anything wrong with the role of homemaker, that's a perfectly legitimate choice for people of either gender who want to make it, what's wrong is the absence of choices such socially defined roles, and the subtle and sometimes not so subtle sanctions against making different choices, demand.
I'm over-simplifying here, because I don't have the time or energy to write the 10,000 word essay the subject deserves, but I don't think I'm wrong in any essential way. First, keeping women at home removes half the adult population from serious engagement with the wider world, and it ought to be perfectly obvious that we can't afford that. We need all the brains and insights we can get. Second, it puts a terrible economic burden on men. My father, for instance, was solely responsible for the economic well-being of a wife and six children and, later in his life, two aging in-laws and his aging and emotionally abusive mother. He was able to do it, he was a great success financially and professionally, but when I finally got to know him in his last decade, it became clear to me that the stress and anxiety of that responsibility shortened his life and reduced its quality. That's not fair, that financial burden should have been shared, and one of the great successes of feminism is that these days those burdens generally *are* shared.
But that merely justifies the observation that feminism was necessary once, not that it still is. There are other justifications too, having to do with women's quality of life and ability to contribute to their families and the wider world, but I don't think I need to rehash those with this crowd. Feminism is still necessary because there are still barriers based on gender that have nothing to do with ability, there are still boneheaded attitudes about women's abilities out there, and there are still penalties for deciding to become a mother, in terms of career development, pensions, and the like, particularly if women decide to stay at home with the children until they start school, for instance. Men face similar penalties: leave the labour force for 6 or 8 years to be a stay at home parent, and odds are you'll never catch up to where you'd have been if you'd stayed. You will be perceived as not fully committed to the job. I've lived that one, when my wife had a job that took her out of town a lot and we had young children in school. I explained the situation to my manager, and made it clear that there would be times when I had to respond to my children's needs, such as if they were suddenly taken ill at school, and that I would make up the time whenever I could, but he wouldn't give me an inch, I had to stay there between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. unless I was ill or on holiday. He was also a fascist jerk and an alcoholic, but that's another long story. I ended up changing jobs over that, and when I got to be a manager myself I was a good deal more supportive and understanding of my staff's personal needs than he was. Even if you stay in the labour force, there can be penalties if you ever put your children ahead of your job. Something's wrong with the work-life balance when crap like that happens.
There are some legitimate knocks against feminism, of course, as there will be with any significant social movement. The empowerment of women I think has been unreservedly a good thing, for them in particular and society in general, but the job's not finished, and one of the reason's it's not finished is because feminism, again like any other significant social movement, has a lunatic fringe that in my view has spawned a few destructive stereotypes. There's the superwoman who can manage it all, career, marriage, children, everything, at no cost to herself and needing no help from anyone. No such animal, and anyone who tries that is going to burn out pretty quickly. No woman with any brains thinks she can really do that, but the idea's out there as part of broader culture we all live in, and I know of no woman who hasn't been conflicted by it to some degree. There's the feminazi who despises men as inferior and/or as simmering primitives just waiting for a chance to unleash violence on everybody in sight, views all heterosexual sexual activity as rape, and considers children to be parasites. Unfortunately, I can't say "no such animal" on that one, I've met some of them. And gawd spare me from the Sensitive New Age Guy.
I've never been quite sure what gender equality means in this context. Equality before the law, of course, equality of opportunity, certainly, equal rights, yes of course, but men and women are different, they're not equal and never will be in any absolute sense. Biology is only the most obvious example. Women can get pregnant, bear children, and nurse them, men can't. That's pretty fundamental, and it produces behavioral differences, perceptual differences, and different attitudes and priorities.
I think I'm rambling a bit here. One of the curses of a good liberal education is that you can see all sides of an issue, so you'll often be confused and uncertain, which I am. In general I support feminism, but I've also been badly hurt by it a couple of times, notably by a first wife who turned out to have a touch of the feminazi about her and couldn't tolerate my less than total devotion to her needs and her career at the expense of my own needs. Well, at least that's how I understand it today, I may think differently tomorrow.
I think feminism is humanism. I have never thought it was about putting down men or preaching female dominance. I thought it was about equality and appreciating what women offer society just as we appreciate what men offer society. I do think it's necessary.
Here here. I have little to add to Dexter's piece. I was largely estranged by feminism until I realized, as Dexter points out, that it is simply the belief that men and women are equal and deserve to be treated that way.
Saying that men and women are different and therefore will never achieve true equality is a bad rhetorical device that gets tossed around a lot. I am different from other men, physically and mentally, some men can lift 100kg over their head easily, I can't. We all have unique abilities and shortcomings and that in no way implies that we are unequal socially.
The reason that feminism the movement is still necessary today is because equality of opportunity (before the law) does not achieve equality of results. I have pointed this out before, take a look at the makeup of our parliament. In Science, it was shown that a woman has to be something like ten times as productive as a man in order to be viewed as his equal by their peers.
Gender is inextricably tied to the movement, gender is merely our impressions about sexuality. I am forever bringing up the fact that forcing a transgendered individual into a washroom that does not coincide with their impression of self-gender is humiliating and completely unnecessary. This isn't a daydream, I happen to know many places where this situation had to be considered.
Saying that men and women are different and therefore will never achieve true equality is a bad rhetorical device that gets tossed around a lot. I am different from other men, physically and mentally, some men can lift 100kg over their head easily, I can't. We all have unique abilities and shortcomings and that in no way implies that we are unequal socially.
The reason that feminism the movement is still necessary today is because equality of opportunity (before the law) does not achieve equality of results. I have pointed this out before, take a look at the makeup of our parliament. In Science, it was shown that a woman has to be something like ten times as productive as a man in order to be viewed as his equal by their peers.
Gender is inextricably tied to the movement, gender is merely our impressions about sexuality. I am forever bringing up the fact that forcing a transgendered individual into a washroom that does not coincide with their impression of self-gender is humiliating and completely unnecessary. This isn't a daydream, I happen to know many places where this situation had to be considered.
I was about to just say yes, but then I realized that humanism is a much better answer... why promote the strengths of one faction of humans, when you can promote the fact that we are all fundamentally equal and the same?
Where women have the advantage is in divorce courts in my Provence as far as i know it.
A woman just has to declare of verbal or physical without proof and the courts lean her way.
A man has to prove with out a doubt that the woman is unable to take care of her children for him to get custody.
That's my only beef ....... other than that everyone should get respect gender , race or beliefs.
A woman just has to declare of verbal or physical without proof and the courts lean her way.
A man has to prove with out a doubt that the woman is unable to take care of her children for him to get custody.
That's my only beef ....... other than that everyone should get respect gender , race or beliefs.
I want to see true equality here first before attempting to establish such rights on foreign shores & we have still a long way to go.
i think women should have more rights in other countries only because they have next to none. mayb if everyone was treated equally it would solve some things. but it seems like everyone finds something wrong with something else. everyone agreeing on 1 something, theres no such thing
Feminism has demolished white populations. In a few short decades there will be no significant white population left. Is that a good thing? I don't know. I suppose it depends on who you ask.
One thing though, that we could learn from this, is that women do have choices in their lives. Recently they have been making choices that aren't very good for the population. This isn't a moral statement. I don't give a rats ass what anyone does; it's just a matter of fact. That is the wonderful thing about fact, it can't be avoided even by moralizing and wish thinking - it is what it is.
This isn't a racist thing either. It's just the white populations seem to have really taken to the whole liberation thing. I don't care what race anyone is. I'm just considering demographics and the ramifications of that data.
It seems to me the feminist movement got some things wrong. Equal doesn't mean the same. women don't prove anything by acting like men except they have some kind of mental problem. I find it interesting that cross dressing is so prevalent amongst North American women. It is so common in fact that we don't even notice it. What is the message in that?
So while feminism has attempted to redefine what being a woman is, what it has accomplished is the destruction of our civilization and a population of women that if you yelled "act like a woman for gods sake!" They would look at you in complete bewilderment because they wouldn't have the faintest idea what in the h3ll you meant.
How strange that I know how to act like a man then? That all men know what it means, at least on some level, to be expected to act like a man.
It's a silly thing to ponder really because if your white you probably won't have any offspring on the planet in 100 years or so anyway.
So for those other people out there: take heed; we blew it.
One thing though, that we could learn from this, is that women do have choices in their lives. Recently they have been making choices that aren't very good for the population. This isn't a moral statement. I don't give a rats ass what anyone does; it's just a matter of fact. That is the wonderful thing about fact, it can't be avoided even by moralizing and wish thinking - it is what it is.
This isn't a racist thing either. It's just the white populations seem to have really taken to the whole liberation thing. I don't care what race anyone is. I'm just considering demographics and the ramifications of that data.
It seems to me the feminist movement got some things wrong. Equal doesn't mean the same. women don't prove anything by acting like men except they have some kind of mental problem. I find it interesting that cross dressing is so prevalent amongst North American women. It is so common in fact that we don't even notice it. What is the message in that?
So while feminism has attempted to redefine what being a woman is, what it has accomplished is the destruction of our civilization and a population of women that if you yelled "act like a woman for gods sake!" They would look at you in complete bewilderment because they wouldn't have the faintest idea what in the h3ll you meant.
How strange that I know how to act like a man then? That all men know what it means, at least on some level, to be expected to act like a man.
It's a silly thing to ponder really because if your white you probably won't have any offspring on the planet in 100 years or so anyway.
So for those other people out there: take heed; we blew it.