SuperMse said:
Alright, guys, I was just looking at this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.270981-Poll-Do-you-consider-yourself-a-feminist], and I'm about to go Super Saiyan as a result. There are tons of people questioning the OP's definition of feminism and further perpetrating that feminists are angry, crazy women who want more rights than men.
This is contradictory to the core values of feminism. Feminism, at a basic level, is and has always been about EQUALITY between men and women. It was prompted by women feeling left out when men had more rights than them- i.e. right to vote, right to own property, right to be an individual citizen as a daughter or in marriage, etc. Just read Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women and you'll know what I'm talking about. But another aspect of feminism, especially more recently, has been the liberation of men from gender expectations as well as pushing for equal rights for any group that is departmentalized against, with the logic that if they are not helped, then women will not receive aid either. In this way, it has taken a much more humanist approach. Every single feminist I have met, and I have met a few unsavory feminists, has gone by this philosophy, and has never believed that women should have more rights than men. Do you really have so much daily interaction with feminists that you can claim otherwise, or just a few flimsy anecdotes? Have you ever actually studied feminist theory? Please stop going by a tired old stereotype perpetrated by the media and actually look at the feminist movement as a whole before you judge it. At least give it the courtesy of a Google search [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Feminism].
Feel free to go Super Saiyan, it doesn't make you right. Truthfully the people criticizing Feminism today are more on the money in a general sense than than OP.
The thing to understand is that the whole "women's lib" battle has been fought and run. We have as much equality in society right now between genders as reality permits. The basic situation being one where women are not held back from doing jobs that they are capable of, and are judged on the merits of their perofmance. At the most reasonable (but still off kilter) today's battles over "feminism" boil down to demanding superior rights for women to balance their disadadvantages compared to me. It comes down to things like establishing dual standards so there is a lower physical critria for a woman to do a job like "Police Officer", rather than allowing them to do the job if they can meet those criteria. Conversely there are also arguements about whether businesses should be able to hold women accountable for things like "poor customer service" when they have their priods, and of course other situations like whether or not a company should be forced to endure lower productivity and profits for the sake of an important female employee who decides to have a kid and can't focus on the job as much anymore, instead of replacing her. Things like contracts that make not getting pregnant a job requirement for women are contreversies in the last case. In short it comes down to what ARE demands for special rights and special treatment, rather than simply not being refused outright for being a woman and never having the oppertunities at all. I'm not going to engage in debate on any of these topics, I'm merely going to say that they can be argued from EITHER perspective and rapidly become a giant mess of moral vs. practical standards.
Away from the more "reasonable" arguements above, which are themselves enough to get feminism dismissed as anything but a political lobby since it's no longer about oppertunities but dual standards that favor women, you have totally unreasonable arguements like what some refer to as "catfight feminism" which is women vs. other women.
Catfight Feminism is basically when feminists demand society to step in to regulate things because other people are better than they are. The basic focus here comes down to the "hotties" against the "notties". Simply put an attractive woman has a substantial advantage in dealing with people, and can make decent money just by being able to look good enough, as well as reap all kinds of benefits. This is at the root of complaints about the so called "exploitation of women" because a lot of women without those attributes are simply jealous of the ones who have them. Assaults on modeling, porn, and similar things are heavily motivated by this. Apperance being an advantage, sort of like how athletic abillity is an advantage, not everyone has the capabilities of a Michael Jordan, so by this logic he should have been prevented from making umpteen million dollars. The women who have such advantages rarely if ever have any complaints, but those who don't are VERY vocal about it. When you see arguements that are tantamount to claiming that Angelina Jolie shouldn't have been around to make movies, because it's was exploitive to women.. or more specifically because very few women are attractive enough to promote themselves to superstardom that way, and the ones who can't are jealous. Amazingly it's rarely if ever the women who do this, who park their Lamborginis and Austin Martins to say "OMG, I've been so exploited! The mind numbing abuse, the huge piles of money I make take so much advantage of me". People talk aroung this kind of issue a lot, but in the end it comes down to the same bottom line, and that's some ugly or average looking chick who probably lost out to someone who was better looking at some point, having a tantrum about it using a political platform.
There are a lot of aspects to feminism, but none of them are entirely reasonable anymore, and all of them lead to nasty debates, which is why it has an increasingly bad reputation. Most women seem to be pretty happy with where they are, as society has come up with a fairly decent balance There is no "you can't do this job because your a woman" anymore, at the worst it's "you can't do this job because you don't fit the requirements to do it". The touchiest subjects come down to things like pregnancy, and honestly that isn't that big a deal because it's not something beyond a person's control. All arguements about that one get nasty because in the end it's really hard to justify arguements of equality when something like that can cost an employer money in a lot of cases. By winning on that front, feminists shoot themselves in the foot by making themselves liabilities which of course undermines a lot
of the root arguements. It's touchy enough, and minor enough just by having gotten to that point, where things like this don't justify the outrageousness of an entire movement.
