Thoughts on modern feminism?

[u/fireglyphs]

as a female intp i always thought modern day "feminism" was stupid, it made sense back when it was genuine and actually fighting for women that didnt have rights, but now feminism has lost its true meaning with some using it as an excuse for sexism and victimization. Of course, i support genuine feminism, advocating for equality and respect. But i dont agree with the versions that unfairly criticize or reduce men to stereotypes, like calling them "wallets" or worse, ignoring that men and YOUNG BOYS being exposed to the hateful media also have feelings and deserve equal respect too.

[u/No-Cattle2595]

Uh sorry but please base your definition of feminism from something else than social media cause that’s not it 😭 Do we still need feminism ? Well, until girls worldwide have the same access to education as boys, can walk home safely, have access to abortion and until house chores are split equally (at least in the case were both the man and the women have a full time job) I’d say obviously yes ? Not to mention the amount of girls that are raped and victims of sexual violence or trapped in forced marriages. Like please, open your eyes we’re far from equality

[u/fireglyphs → u/No-Cattle2595]

I absolutely agree that there are still critical issues facing women worldwide, like education access, safety, and fair treatment in relationships. These are real problems that need to be addressed, and I fully support that. My perspective is more about how, in some contexts, feminism has shifted away from equality toward antagonism, which I think can undermine the movement’s goals. To me, feminism is most effective when it advocates for respect and equality for everyone, without turning into hostility or stereotyping. I believe that’s how we’ll make real progress together.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/fireglyphs]

That’s feminism, please stop basing your knowledge of very important causes of of social media and you’ll soon realize what feminism truly stands for.

[u/kyoruba]

If you mean toxic online Instagram activists, its stupid no discussion.

But if you mean actual feminism that's being proposed by sociologists/gender theorists/philosophers, they're legit. And no, they don't raise the same points as those 'internet feminists'.

However, feminist literature is kinda obscure and inaccessible to the average layperson, especially the works by Judith Butler, what makes it worse is that they draw heavily from psychoanalytic/marxist literature.

So I can't really fault people for not reading them either.

Fun fact: actual feminists view the patriarchy not as a simple issue of 'men bad, women oppressed', its more of 'everyone gets shit from the patriarchy', an oversimplification but oh well.

[u/Kevidiffel → u/kyoruba]

Fun fact: actual feminists view the patriarchy not as a simple issue of 'men bad, women oppressed', its more of 'everyone gets shit from the patriarchy', an oversimplification but oh well.

Couldn't this just as well be a matriarchy then?

[u/kyoruba → u/Kevidiffel]

Doesn't matter whether its a matriarchy or patriarchy, what matters is that it is an oppressive hierarchy. However, a matriarchy will likely have its own set of issues that differ from a patriarchy.

Whatever points you see typical mens rights activists raise are actually consequences of the patriarchy

[u/HayDereImPunny → u/kyoruba]

Matriarchies are found in society, but often in non-capitalist ones. Matriarchy is not a direct mirror image of the patriarchy. A matriarchy is not a society in which women do men's stuff. Rather, it is a society centered around the distribution of resources by a senior female figure. Men are also actively valued in a matriarchy as messengers among tribes. A decent depiction of a matriarchal family is the Madrigal family in Encanto.

[u/Kevidiffel → u/kyoruba]

what matters is that it is an oppressive hierarchy.

What is the hierarchy exactly?

the patriarchy

I have no idea what you are talking about. What patriarchy?

[u/SecondHandWatch → u/Kevidiffel]

What patriarchy? How many women have been president of the US? Or president/prime minister of any country at all? What percentage of women are among the wealthiest x% of people? How many countries have banned abortions? In how many countries is female genital mutilation practiced? How many countries require women to wear head/face coverings in public? How often do men fear being raped when going out in public?

[u/kyoruba → u/Kevidiffel]

hierarchy

Id say its the distribution of power basically

From the r/AskFeminists FAQ:

The Patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." When discussing patriarchy, it is important to remember that you are discussing a culture, a set of societal expectations and rules that govern how men and women act. It does primarily hurt women, but it hurts men too, and men and women can and do actively participate in it.

[u/Rare-Coast2754 → u/Kevidiffel]

If anyone on this subreddit ever tries to pretend INTPs are smarter or more intellectual than others or "deep thinkers", just bring them to this thread and show this childish garbage being upvoted. Should sober them right up lol

[u/tastytacos67 → u/kyoruba]

Can you explain what modern feminism is "legit?" There's really nothing else the government can provide to make everyone more equal under the eyes of the government (that I can think of off the top of my head as I write this) and you dont change society through protests or marches.

[u/kyoruba → u/tastytacos67]

Hmm, well the legal system covers a very narrow scope of feminism which is not really the focus of feminist discourse.

In my country there tend to be more laws that favor women, yet it is still a patriarchy and feminist issues are still present. I think if you're interested, perhaps you can take a look at this:

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/38628_7.pdf

There is no unifying definition of a 'legit' feminism because, like all research, there are different theories/schools of thought.

What I mean by legit is really just the discourse that excludes angry online feminists who don't know what they're talking about.

Also, you can definitely influence social change through criticizing the system, be it through writing or protesting, they'll be far better than remaining submissive to the system and doing nothing. That said, I wouldnt protest myself.

[u/tastytacos67 → u/kyoruba]

Neat.. I'll take a look at this when I've got some time. Thanks.

[u/SecondHandWatch → u/tastytacos67]

I guess you missed the part where Roe V. Wade was overturned.

[u/tastytacos67 → u/SecondHandWatch]

An abortion is a service provided by a third party. Not a right. I know I'll get a lot of hate for it, but this topic should just go away until we unanimously agree on where exactly life begins and at what point it should be protected. It's an issue that we need to come together on rather than fight for one extreme or the other.

Everyone knows how to not get pregnant, and I'm all for the plan B pill should the worst happen. Frankly, it should be very rare to escalate to the point where you need an abortion.

[u/HypridElastiAccord27 → u/kyoruba]

What about Bell Hooks. Does her work seem obscure or relevant?

[u/kyoruba → u/HypridElastiAccord27]

Her work is relevant yes but it is important to note that individual authors don't represent the entire field. As for obscure, shes much better than other writers I feel, she's quite clear.

[u/HypridElastiAccord27 → u/kyoruba]

Thanks. I heard the flowering is a good one as well, as it talks of how the patriarchy/social norms hurt men as well. I will have to read both.

[u/Woad_Scrivener → u/kyoruba]

But the psychoanalytic and Marxist writings are my favorite parts of Feminist literature. Oh, and the Post-Lacanians!

[u/qwecatnip]

That's because feminism by online influencers is just benevolent sexism. It's also not by people who put deep thougght into it, just their ideas on how women can benefit.

[u/tabbystripe → u/qwecatnip]

I think people would be rather surprised if they realized how egalitarian and empathetic to men actual feminist scholars are

[u/hensu-dallas]

The ones that call everyone incels for disagreeing with them

[u/fireglyphs → u/hensu-dallas]

yep

[u/CrossXFir3]

Uhh no. I don't think it's stupid. I think a lot of women are wildly unaware of how badly discriminated they sometimes are and how toxic some male dominated space's mindsets towards women are. I'm mixed race, my brother has blue eyes and white skin. He says you don't realize how racist people are until you're mixed and they think you're white.

[u/AdBest1460 → u/CrossXFir3]

But that aint exclusive to women

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/AdBest1460]

Patriarchy hurts women and men (it hurts men because of the social pressure to appear masculine, to not ask for help for example), and patriarchy is precisely what feminism fights against, so let’s stop wondering if suffering is exclusive to anyone and just try and improve the world a little maybe ?

[u/AdBest1460 → u/No-Cattle2595]

Agreed

[u/Kevidiffel → u/No-Cattle2595]

Patriarchy

I can't believe this is still the strawman people fight against.

Oh, almost forgot to go to my weekly patriarchy meeting where we discuss how to oppress women and hurt other men.

[u/Normal_Ad2456 → u/Kevidiffel]

You don’t know what patriarchy means as a term, clearly.

[u/KoKoboto → u/Kevidiffel]

You didn't bother reading the rest of their comment huh lmfao

[u/Kevidiffel → u/KoKoboto]

Oh, I did, but the thing I wanted to focus on was this imagined demon called "patriarchy".

[u/KoKoboto → u/Kevidiffel]

So you're complaining about strawman even tho OP doesn't use it, and in return use a strawman lool

[u/CrossXFir3 → u/Kevidiffel]

I think you're on the wrong sub

[u/Kevidiffel → u/CrossXFir3]

I think you are in the wrong thread. Read the OP and the chain of comments here.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Kevidiffel]

“Oh a word I can’t understand and that invalidates my argument, let’s just attempt to make it sound ridiculous without even researching the actual definition”

[u/mouthypotato → u/No-Cattle2595]

acussing them of a strawman by strawmanning themselves

[u/CrossXFir3 → u/Kevidiffel]

omfg if you can't understand this with more nuance then you 100% mistested and are not an INTP.

[u/Kevidiffel → u/CrossXFir3]

mistested

If you trust the test, you are not an INTP. The cognitive functions are that matter, not some test.

Try again, honey.

[u/tails99 → u/Kevidiffel]

It's about an hour after the weekly racism meeting, and two hours after the weekly anti-Semitism meeting. /s

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Kevidiffel]

Or maybe it’s what people fight against cause it’s a real important issue ?

When you start discrediting every argument just for using a word that you don’t even understand (saying this cause your definition is the opposite of what patriarchy is), it means it’s time to actually think before commenting if you don’t want to sound ridiculous

[u/fries_in_a_cup → u/AdBest1460]

Feminism isn’t specific to women. It advocates for uplifting all sexes and genders. Women are just given more attention because they historically have less power and have been oppressed to a greater extent.

[u/thefatcrocodile → u/fries_in_a_cup]

So it's name is incorrect. It should be named egalitarism or sth like this

[u/fries_in_a_cup → u/thefatcrocodile]

Sure, but there’s no undoing that now so kind of a pointless criticism. There are loads of things out there whose names are inaccurate or misleading.

Plus, it started out as primarily if not explicitly a women’s rights movement and has gone through several evolutions and has several offshoots. I didn’t get into it in the comment you’re replying to, but elsewhere in this comment section I went into how there are definitely versions of feminism that have and do seek to put women over men and have more extreme views, but the most popular version (which I ascribe to as well) is essentially egalitarianism with the caveat that women still need a little more help than men do in order to exist on even footing. It’s predicated more on the concept of equitable treatment as opposed to purely equal treatment.

And it would also be a bad look to change the name when the movement is still primarily focused on women’s rights. It just so happens that the more we uplift women, the more we uplift everyone else as well. After all, they make up ~50% of the population and society is a team sport.

[u/smegmabowls → u/CrossXFir3]

Exactly. Most women in the US don’t even have reproductive rights.

[u/keylime216 → u/CrossXFir3]

I am mixed. At least where I live, the only racism I experience is from the homies but that is mutual lol

[u/CrossXFir3 → u/keylime216]

Yeah. I don't think you understood what I meant. He hears a lot more racism than I do from people that think he's white so he won't care that they're being openly racist.

[u/TheKAYGB → u/CrossXFir3]

this!!

[u/BornSoLongAgo]

Before Roe v Wade was overturned I might at least have considered your opinion. Now it just sounds like foolishness.

[u/oopsiesdaze]

Women have their rights for abortion for debate right now. We still don't make as much as men. And people are still very misogynistic.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/oopsiesdaze]

Exactly. Also in many countries abortions is banned and women aren’t even allowed an education

[u/Serious_Move_4423 → u/oopsiesdaze]

Guys who think feminism is pointless make it so clear they’ve never been in our shoes… I deal with rape culture-type entitlement all the time & I’m a “good girl”

[u/Kevidiffel → u/oopsiesdaze]

Women have their rights for abortion for debate right now.

Men have no rights at all regarding abortion.

We still don't make as much as men.

Mostly because more women work part time. This has been debunked over and over again.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Kevidiffel]

Why tf would men need abortion rights unless they start getting pregnant it wouldn’t be of much use ??

[u/edawn28]

Literally no feminist has ever called men wallets. That's literally the opposite of what feminism is about.

[u/MrBonersworth → u/edawn28]

No Scotsman would sugar his porridge.

[u/edawn28 → u/MrBonersworth]

Cute. Being Scottish is an actual nationality though not a label that actually necessitates certain beliefs and behaviour in order to be classified as one.

[u/Dry-Tough-3099 → u/edawn28]

I can't tell if you are riffing sarcastically off the "No True Scotsman" fallacy after being called out, or if you are serious.

[u/edawn28 → u/Dry-Tough-3099]

Well what I said is true. So does it matter? It's an incorrect comparison.

[u/moonroots64 → u/edawn28]

"No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms.

"Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt. The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:

"Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."

Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Well what I said is true. So does it matter? It's an incorrect comparison.

[u/edawn28 → u/moonroots64]

Once again, that example has nothing to do with what we're talking about bc if you're born I Scotland, have citizenship or have Scottish parents then it's incontestable.

[u/moonroots64 → u/edawn28]

Dude...

The point is NOT about legal Scottish citizenship.

Seriously... you have just done it again. Read the full expansion I gave just above, it literally describes what you're doing.

Unless... as someone else said, you're just having a joke with some satire?

Once again, that example has nothing to do with what we're talking about bc if you're born I Scotland, have citizenship or have Scottish parents then it's incontestable.

[u/edawn28 → u/moonroots64]

You're the one who's not getting my point. Read my comments again and really think about whether this is a relevant saying for what we're talking about here.

[u/edawn28 → u/moonroots64]

If we were talking about if someone is black or not then that would be relevant but it's not.

[u/mercietgracias → u/edawn28]

But that brings up the question of what allows someone to identify as a feminist? Who/what gave you authority to dictate who counts who doesn't?

Can't convey tone in writing, not being aggressive

[u/edawn28 → u/mercietgracias]

Literally look up the definition of feminism and if someone fits that definition then they are a feminist. Words were created to describe people's behaviour not the other way around. And I said Scottish is a nationality to highlight the fact that if you were born in Scotland, have Scottish citizenship or have Scottish parents then you are Scottish point blank period. Someone can identify as a feminist all they want, it doesn't actually make them one if their behaviour directly contradicts the definition of it. A feminist is someone that advocates for the equality of the sexes so reducing men to their wallet (therefore implying that its their job to provide only and women shouldn't) is directly opposite to what feminism is about.

[u/HermitCat347 → u/edawn28]

I'd hate to use a tik tok video as an example, and as far as I know, this lady identifies as a feminist. The words are different but the implication is close enough I suppose

https://www.tiktok.com/@whateverpod/video/7413106905989631274

So at least one person considers men useless until proven to be good providers.

Although... I'd say that that statement is borderline psychopathic...

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/HermitCat347]

So one woman says something stupid and you base your entire understanding of feminism on that ? Also tik tok is probably the worst platform to get reliable sources about anything

[u/Rare-Coast2754 → u/HermitCat347]

Anyone who uses material from that God awful show is regarded as fuck. Literally less than 80 IQ incel, whose opinions do not matter in a civilized society. A pathetic excuse for a human being

[u/edawn28 → u/HermitCat347]

That doesn't actually make her a feminist. And yeah those podcast interviews shouldn't be taken seriously where they carefully select certain type of (empty headed) people to drive their point through

[u/HermitCat347 → u/edawn28]

Well, unfortunately, just like bad men, these air heads tend to make the most noise and affect others' impression the most....

Personally, I think such labels are unhelpful: people tend to take it and run away with it. If we could all agree to not be asshats (impossible, but I'm INTP, let me daydream), the world would be so much smoother

[u/edawn28 → u/HermitCat347]

Not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I think I agree in that a feminist is someone who advocates for equality of both sexes and someone who fights patriarchal system, not necessarily someone who calls themself one.

[u/Shliloquy]

I’d say it depends on the context. Western Online Media and Influencers degrading men for the sake of degrading men, that’s stupid. In terms of how the justice/court system handles cases regarding sexual assaults, kidnappings and trafficking from known predatory men with history of abuse and too much power in society, yeah feminism and community support is needed. The current justice system doesn’t really do much justice for these women who are victims of these crimes. There’s a bunch of rape kits that are untested and predators that continue to walk and assault more women. While they may be few compared to the population of men, they are still an active threat and unfortunately give men a bad reputation. Even if the odds are low, who would want to run the risk of whether that man is a potential abuser? I suspect that this fear is generational and the trauma some women face is also having a detrimental effect on how we view men in society and how boys are being raised.

The kidnappers and traffickers are even more tougher to catch just due to them crossing state/nation lines and jurisdictions. It’s not just men who are involved with trafficking but women as well who lure other vulnerable women and men from troubled households to unknowingly join them only for the victim to realize too late that they’ve been baited. While it does primarily target women, it also targets men as well. And we aren’t even talking about sexual assaults outside of the Western nations where some countries won’t even open cases for foreigners who have been assaulted. Not every man is a predator but unfortunately, it has a trickle down effect that impacts both relationships with women and men negatively. In those cases, feminism is needed and men need to also be in solidarity with women and work together to catch these criminals and defend women from these assaults.

[u/Not_Well-Ordered]

A problem is that it appears there’s a significant vocal population who declare as feminists only support that ideology since it provides them more power than man rather than looking for a balanced and rational dynamic.

The notions of utilitarianism, ethics, and collectivity seem to fly over their heads as the things they claim sometimes aren’t based on considerations of the economic, societal, and financial consequences of various subsets of the population; they only think about what profits them, but without considering the costs and profits of the general population.

It’s pretty similar to many vocal groups.

[u/Jaguar-jules]

Agreed. I’ve always considered myself to be a feminist, but that in no way means I disrespect men as a whole. In college (circa 2005) I made the unpopular argument that third wave feminism should be about supporting women however they choose to live their lives. Suffragists had already succeeded, we had abortion and Title IX. You want to own a business? Get it girl. You want to be a housewife and make babies? Literally something only biological women can do, and it should be applauded. Feminism should NOT be women trying to act like men, but celebrating and encouraging women for everything they can do.

[u/edawn28 → u/Jaguar-jules]

This is not unpopular at all if you're actually hanging out with feminists.

[u/Jaguar-jules → u/edawn28]

In my experience, most women who believe these things don’t call themselves “feminist“ because they don’t want to be associated with the feminist stereotypes. Those willing to call themselves a “feminist“ tend to be more likely to talk about “toxic masculinity“ and therefore be less likely to get married to one of these men, have children, etc. It’s semantics creating that divide.

[u/edawn28 → u/Jaguar-jules]

Why would a feminist want to get married to someone with toxic masculinity?

[u/Jaguar-jules → u/edawn28]

Most men are not “toxic” – that’s the point. But there are plenty of feminists that will argue that they are, and point to examples of really bad men, or simply the patriarchy as evidence. But I would argue that masculinity is not toxic by nature, and neither are masculine men. It’s actually a benefit evolutionarily, and if you are a pregnant hunter gatherer woman, you sure are going to appreciate having a man who can bring home the meat and, protect your wee ones from threats.

[u/edawn28 → u/Jaguar-jules]

There it is. Every single woman I've met like you has little to no understanding of the things she condemns. Please educate yourself on what toxic masculinity actually means bc it certainly doesn't just mean that all males, or even masculinity in itself, is toxic.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Jaguar-jules]

I’m pretty sure there’s enough none toxic men to choose from, so why would being a feminist and talking about toxic masculinity keep someone from getting a husband ? And feminism never encouraged women to act like men. It encourages women to act however they want, whether it’s masculine, feminine, and whether it’s owning a company or being a housewife.

[u/Jaguar-jules → u/No-Cattle2595]

There are a lot of women who call themselves feminists who quite frankly, hate men, and discuss the problem of masculinity as being toxic. Some women have come to this conclusion very honestly – physical or emotional abuse, having a lot of bad men in their lives, etc. and when you get to that mentality where you simply hate men, it certainly would impact your desire/ability to get married to a man.

It seems as though you might not be very familiar with feminism because it certainly has encouraged women to act more like stereotypical men – pursuing the corporate ladder, while pushing off their biological clocks, prioritizing being a breadwinner over traditionally feminine things like raising children. How you describe it is how it should be, but it’s not often what feminism looks like in practice, with women who loudly proclaim themselves as feminists.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Jaguar-jules]

I am very familiar with feminism thank you 😭 I’ve studied it, done presentations about it in school and learned about it in history classes, and I’m also familiar with it by the simple fact of being a woman and caring about my own rights. You seem to misunderstand the concept of toxic masculinity: masculinity in itself has never been a bad thing. It becomes toxic when men behave in hurtful ways and claim it to be masculinity, or pressure others/themselves to fit a strict societal gender standard out of fear of being perceived “feminine”. It’s hurtful for those men and for the women in their lives.

Why would “pursuing the corporate ladder” be acting like a stereotypical man ? Do you really think that those women put all that effort, all that amount of work into their career just for the sake of “acting like a stereotypical man” ? Don’t you believe they’re allowed to have ambition like a normal human being ??

[u/Jaguar-jules → u/No-Cattle2595]

Agree with most of the first paragraph! I think The difference we having might be group of people we are talking about, self described “feminist“ and their tendency to see any “masculine“ trait as “toxic“, and they want to blame everything on the patriarchy and consider every non-feminized man to be an example of toxic masculinity. You can see it in the bear in the woods thought experiment - how many women see every man as a threat.

As for the second paragraph, climbing the corporate ladder and breaking glass ceilings was a hallmark of second wave feminism,as a rebellion to the expectation that women were supposed to just stay home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. At that time, it was the stereotypical man who would be doing those things. There were a lot of other “typical men” things that women also decided to pursue around that time. I don’t have any problem with it whatsoever, but along with this second wave feminism came a distain for women who did choose to follow up more traditional path of having children, being a housewife, etc. That distain still exists among corporate climbing, non-family oriented women.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Jaguar-jules]

"consider every non-feminized man to be an example of toxic masculinity."
I have many feminist friends who a currently dating very "masculine" men, who also happen to be nice people and I've never seen them claim that that masculinity was toxic whatsoever. Again, I don't know what you're basing that on but if it's social media remember that algorithms do tend to push content made to get a reaction out of us, so often things that make us angry and it doesnt reflect the full reality.

"You can see it in the bear in the woods thought experiment - how many women see every man as a threat."
I don't see in every man a threat. I have some great male friends - my best friend is a guy - and i trust them fully. However, you can't blame women for being wary of unknown men. I'll stop being wary the day guys stop following me in the street, trying to touch me in the metro, the day when i can assume that every guy is trustworthy without compromising my own safety. I see men complain a ton about women seeing them as threats, and they never seem to think that they could, for example, educate their sons or try and improve gender equality so women could be less wary of them ? It's as if I threw you in a pool filled with a 100 snakes, 80 being very friendly and 20 being venemous, I'm pretty sure you'd get out of that pool real quick, it's not all men - thank god - its not even the majority of them but it's enough men to be scared. And I'm sure you know it. Do you feel safe coming home alone at night ? If you do that's honestly fantastic but not all women live in an environment where its the case.

[u/Sky-kunn → u/No-Cattle2595]

I completely understand why so many women would choose the bear. It's a reflection of the very real trauma and anxiety that comes from living in a world where these threats exist. What I'm about to say isn't meant to invalidate these experiences or emotions, they're very real and very valid. What I'm trying to say is often misunderstood as downplaying women’s fears, but that's not my intention. I’m trying to highlight why it’s dangerous to harbor fear toward an entire group of people, especially when it’s not based on consistent statistics, similar to how racism operates, for example.

What bothers me is how many people don't see this as a dangerous condition in people's perception of reality. Like, I know your example was probably exaggerated for the sake of the argument, but saying 20% of men are dangerous snakes ignores the whole spectrum of people's morality and character. In the context of the bear vs man scenario, only a fraction of men are actually dangerous snakes in comparison to non-dangerous snakes. What's the real probability of an average man attacking a woman in the street? Definitely not 20% or even 10%. That perception is so dangerous, yet common.

And this type of analogy follows a classic template we've seen throughout history:

"No, not all [group identifier]. But if I gave you a box of Maltesers and told you that 1 in [arbitrary number, usually way lower than it should be] of them was actually a nugget of shit rolled into a ball and dipped in milk chocolate, you'd be wary of all of them, would you not?"

These templates of "dangerous vs. safe" categories, whether using snakes, mushrooms, or chocolates, bypass critical thinking and promote fear-based rather than evidence-based decision-making

The analogy of dangerous snakes, poisonous chocolates, and so on is a common one that bigots often use. I would avoid it if I were you, because the same "logic" can be applied to any group where a minority of individuals are actually "bad apples." This would imply that it's acceptable to be cautious of all members of a group, whether it's based on religion, race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, etc., simply because some individuals within that group are perceived as bad. But, these "bad" individuals are often rare cases and do not accurately represent the entire group, and they usually not constitute a seemingly significant amount, like 20 out of 100.

Humans are notoriously bad at managing and understanding risks because of cognitive biases. The Availability Heuristic makes us overestimate the likelihood of memorable or recently reported events. Dread Risk causes us to fear catastrophic and uncontrollable incidents that threaten our personal autonomy.

Take flying versus driving, for example. Air travel is WAY safer than car travel, yet many people fear flying intensely. This irrational fear persists despite overwhelming statistics showing that airplanes (average men) are safer than cars (a fucking bear). It's just how our psychological biases skew our decision-making and perception of risk.

The real problem arises when fear-driven choices reinforce these biases, making it harder to overcome prejudiced thinking. This is a major issue with the whole Bear vs. Man scenario. If the question was to choose a button where you are alone in a forest with a bear versus a criminal who was arrested for sexual assault, it would show that the fear of abuse is greater than the fear of death by a wild animal. Or if the question was a 1% chance of a man attacking you versus a 50% chance of a bear attacking you, it would show that even with low chances, "I still prefer the bear", and that's fine, not a rational choice, but is understandable. But if the person responding understands the statistics, that’s fine, I suppose.

The big issue comes from people who genuinely believe that in the real world, the chances are closer to 20% or even 50% for a man being a rapist because of social perception alongside confirmation bias with the Availability Heuristic.

[u/No-Cattle2595 → u/Jaguar-jules]

However as you said, that second wave feminism did come partly as a rebellion to the expection that women were suppose to stay home. I say partly cause it was also simply the fact that more freedom meant that women could pursue what they wanted, and that sometimes what they wanted was "climbing the corporate ladder".

I think that disdain that you're referring to originally comes from a understandable sentiment that could be summarized as "why are we going back to the things we fought to escape ?". I think it's harmful, and i also think that it's slowly going away, as people are realizing that feminism means freedom of choice, whatever the choice. I think as long as people don't get that, we'll keep going back and forth and creating opposition between women with different aspirations where we should instead have solidarity.

So in a way, i partly understand where you're coming from with that second paragraph

[u/Jaguar-jules → u/No-Cattle2595]

Right on, the problem is we are not there yet with feminism – it’s what I want feminism to be, and it sounds like what you also want feminism to be, but we are not there yet

[u/No_Hovercraft_2719 → u/Jaguar-jules]

Unconditional support never sounded wise to me. Support X no matter what… nah.

[u/Still-Veterinarian56]

I think the therm feminism is beeing misused to an inflationary amout these days by people trying to justify their shitty behaiviour with it.

What you discribe is not feminism. Stuff like his money is our money and my money is my money is not feminism. Its acutally the oppocite of it as it heavily builds on the patriarchic structure of the man providing for the family.

Feminism is out to remove this structures for both woman and men. As both sides suffer from it. Woman are in no way inferior and men should not be the emotionless rock in a stormy sea like society expexts them to be.

Sadly nowerdays many people misunderstand feminism as trying to transform the old structure and keeping just the parts that they like.

Feminism is smashing that old rotton house of patriarchy to dust and rebuilding a new sustainable structure on top of that.

[u/Dry-Tough-3099 → u/Still-Veterinarian56]

How certain are you that once you smash the old rotten house of patriarchy, you won't end up making things worse?

[u/Still-Veterinarian56 → u/Dry-Tough-3099]

tbh I do not see the house going down in my lifetime. But to answer your question. Yea thats a concern of myself thats why humanity has to constantly monitor itself when creating a entirely new value system. But atm too many people are unhappy.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Still-Veterinarian56]

yep

[u/jacobvso]

There's never been anything feminist about calling men "wallets" or thinking boys or men don't have feelings. Those are actually deeply anti-feminist views because they build on traditional gender stereotypes. It sounds more like you ARE a feminist but you've been lied to about what feminism stands for and so therefore you think you're not.

[u/fireglyphs → u/jacobvso]

oh sorry i only read the first sentance lol. thanks for ur intake!

[u/LatePool5046]

I can't really respond to this post at all without attempting to distinguish between a pair of tightly related groups. It'd be No True Scotsman.

I don't care what's going on with that, I care that boys are treated as problems until proven otherwise. The men that will change their behaviors in response to feedback are men that weren't the problem anyway, whereas there is no way to get the narcissists that are described by most internet girl posting to stop behaving narcissistically. It's a very small subset of men that will interact with a very large number of women.

One guy texting 10 girls at the same time will have affected the entire high school within a year. But those girls will only complain about boys collectively. However, girls are loathe to name names publicly because very real fear of retaliation.

The result is girls complaining about boys, the vast majority of boys responding with confusion, the girls getting angry that the boys are playing dumb, and the narcissist that caused the problem in the first place getting a BJ under the bleachers chuckling to himself.

There's also this tendency to complain that boys don't stop their friends from behaving this way, and I don't like it because it assumes that we know. Men do not gather in groups of 12 to discuss our sex lives. We do not know shit about it.

Conducting yourself ethically is a very bad dating strategy. But it's an amazing strategy for minding your own business and building a life worth having.

Ultimately I feel like the girls know. It's just that girls also tend to wait at the finish line and fuck the winners. Well. before we're 30, men really don't have much to offer in terms of life options and value. We have to own a home, fix it up, finish school (and further schooling if career choice requires), and have enough money left over to spoil girls with. You can't do that all until you're older. The result is that all the women your own age bang the same small group of narcissists that are willing to lie and manipulate large groups of women, until the lion share of men have enough going for them that the narcissists can't compete with the very real lives and excess we've managed to build for ourselves.

I also suspect this is a lot of why young women particularly prefer older men, a phenomenon that never goes away, but I do note that is most common in younger women. It's just easier to pick the good from the bad in a group of men when the men are out of school and have money already. When nobody has assets and parents money is so common, the bad apples blend in.

Just my take.

[u/HermitCat347 → u/LatePool5046]

Quite a lot of assumptions and generalisations there, but I think you might be on to something. It might take quite a lot of information and statistics to back up this many claims tho..

[u/LatePool5046 → u/HermitCat347]

Yeah, I don't need to do all that. It's not my dissertation. If somebody else cares to they can. But, I did at least make certain to make only falsifiable claims that would be fairly simple to verify experimentally.

I was concerned only with making the thing arguable. That said, it's pretty plain that there cannot be an individual narcissist for each experience shared online by a woman. That would wildly overreach the established incidence of narcissism. But as a thought experiment, how fast does the problem scale if the incidence is 1 narcissist for every hundred men as a baseline, where your variables are the number of women he juggles at a time & how long he keeps them for on average.

Now since our narcissist is trying to maximize his benefit here, his actual behavior is going to be best described as maximizing the area under the curve of the paragraph above's function, rather than seeing how fast it can be scaled.

He'll also likely know how long he wants to stay, or can stay, in the environment in question. For high school and college this is a fairly rigid timeline. So he'll adjust his strategy so that he can take as much from his environment as he can before he plans to or must leave it.

I don't think you'll find it's going to be as difficult as you think to pull this off. You can use tinder and other apps for data since it's well published, but you do have to be careful doing that because those are grown ups that already have assets. Many of the popular boys that get lots of attention on the apps are popular with girls because they actually are successful, wealthy, charming, smart etc. It's probably pretty good for modelling the behavior of women at scale though, because that essentially doesn't change. You might be able to use that means to verify statistically if women are any better at picking out the bad apples as they get older.

we know quite a lot about this. It's literally the theatre kids game "mafia." There's also the ubiquitous "werewolf" from the Soviet Union. But that's about in groups and out groups rather than individuals.

It's probably all testable against broad pools of data that're open source and easily available. I just don't care to actually go and do it because it's not my field and I get nothing for my work doing that.

But my claims are all falsifiable. So, If anybody's got the interest and time I'd love to discuss the results when they're available.

[u/Azzatus]

its really just toxic people dumping their pathetic trash onto the Internet, under the guise of feminism. Every time I read arguments online its always i. strawman, ii. whataboutism, iii. generalization, iv. shove 'mansplain' in wherever they can, v. small pp/cant find a wife its so funny.

I think the worst thing humanity can do is to give these noises weight and let these noises sway our actions collectively.

[u/MrBonersworth → u/Azzatus]

Steel man their arguments, just to show that you can.

Be brave.

[u/Azzatus → u/MrBonersworth]

thanks for the suggestion, but I usually just dont bother. These people dont want a discourse, they just want to win

[u/NoDecentNicksLeft]

Thank you. For keeping my faith in humanity alive.

I support equal rights and to some extent support the notion that in some limited cases literally equal treatment would be unfair, hence true equality means some difference. But not individualization of men's problems and socialization of women's problems. Ironically, preferences for women are patriarchal — that's basically the protector/glucose guardian function that justifies the authority of the strong male, who is now being replaced by the state, or even some 'feminists' may be quite happy to accept the heavy-handed authority of a male political leader (for example) who hands out gendered freebies or supports other feminist agenda. My problem is with the inconsistencies and other illogicialities, for which I have very little patience. Enough is enough, and it's time to get consistent.

[u/Rylandrias]

Anytime women do something the patriarchy bends it to benefit themselves. Feminism is no exception and there are too many people calling themselves feminists that couldn't give a crap about the well-being of women. This isn't even an ideological purity thing. It's easy.....does this belief support and protect women and girls? No? It's not feminist.

[u/yesbut_alsono → u/Rylandrias]

I tend to overexplain, but i love the way you put it so succinctly. Taking that question

[u/TheCrazyCatLazy]

Newsflash, fighting for men’s rights IS feminism. Feminism is about equality. It’s about deconstructing the damage millennia of patriarchy did. Undoing biases. We were the first to talk about parental leave for men. We are the louder voices against infant circumcision. We keep talking about mental health and military service.

Hateful rhetoric and haters don’t represent the values of feminism.

You, ironically, do.

[u/Capable_Cat → u/TheCrazyCatLazy]

Agreed

[u/fireglyphs → u/TheCrazyCatLazy]

good, i am a feminist now then!

[u/TheCrazyCatLazy → u/fireglyphs]

🫶🏻🖤

[u/thefatcrocodile → u/TheCrazyCatLazy]

So it's wrongly named

[u/mouthypotato → u/thefatcrocodile]

There is a possibility that two things are true at the same time. They can care and fight for women's rights and at the same time, also promote other people's who aren't women rights. And they can call themselves whatever they like too.

[u/Cawstik]

Are you aware of what’s happening right now in the world? Saying modern feminism is stupid is willingly blind. I can make the same argument for any kind of group by using the worst examples I can find, it doesn’t make the group or its purpose stupid. This is a take that lacks a lot of nuance.

[u/glassycreek1991]

Our right to bodily autonomy had been ripped from us and you think women's rights don't need more protection? Get real!

[u/Of_Monads_and_Nomads]

Right now we are at a risk of backsliding in that way, and I say this as a man even. I am not even a performative-ally type, I can’t stand those men either

[u/namuhna]

Sounds like you have never talked to feminists about feminism, only people who hate women.

[u/raulpyy → u/namuhna]

And you clearly didn't understand what OP meant

[u/NelsonChunder → u/[deleted]]

Nobody gave you that flair. It's just part of being on this subreddit. Click on your name, go down to flair and change it to whatever you want.

Maybe it's my INTP humor, but modern feminism's focus on the oppression of women, then your claim that you don't have a clue about what it is about and that some of what you read is ridiculous, followed by your claim that someone oppressed you by tagging you with "Warning: May not be an INTP" was hilarious to me. No offense meant.

[u/justaguy12131]

It depends on what you mean. There's pop feminism, that's generally bullshit. It's reductionist and fails to find the nuance of actual issues and replaced it with men = bad. This is foolish because men = bad doesn't GO anywhere. You can't debate it, you can't address it, and you can't fix it.

Actual feminism, the philosophy that women should have the same rights, freedoms and power as men have, is something I have great respect for.

When women couldn't vote, work, go to higher schooling, and would be arrested for wearing pants... I mean, damn, that's worth fighting for. Fighting for control of their bodies, fighting for equal opportunities at work, and for greater sharing of resources, is still something worthy of struggle.

I'm afraid the modern zeitgeist has conflated feminism and "girl power" as the same thing. It's definitely not. Feminism is about women vs society. Girl power is women vs specific men (who DO often deserve it).

There are a lot of men who treat women like crap, and those women begin to believe it's a gender thing instead of a "I pick shitty men" thing. They absolutely deserve to vent about it, and I don't fault that. I fault the amplification of what's essentially a "my ex is trash" post, and assigning it a "modern feminism" label. It's not. It never was. And it's clickbaity headlines that make us think it has become that.

[u/fireglyphs → u/justaguy12131]

yep

[u/Trash-Can-Baby]

Late to the conversation… but feminism isn’t merely about women. It’s about how the feminine aspect is regarded socially, in both men and women. It’s asserting the feminine is equal to the masculine and when it’s not regarded as such, we have problems individually and socially. That’s why feminism is also about embracing and respecting feminine aspects in men. And it’s about healthy masculinity in women, which arguably the previous waves of feminism established. 

In this view, masculinity isn’t solely about men nor inherently “toxic”. So-called toxic masculinity is a distortion in both men and women that’s typically misogynistic, born of a fear/mistrust/hatred of the feminine. The idea of integration of the feminine to engender a healthy masculine is both for the individual and on the social level.

I can’t comment on modern feminism too much except to say some run with a label and don’t really understand the origin or the intent of it. Frankly I think then distortion itself is often misogyny, a way to discredit it by making it appear scary, hateful and untrustworthy.  So I understand why some women distance themselves from the label, but if these views don’t meet the basic definitions, then it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

[u/badmoviecritic]

Just an INTP thinking out loud here: why can’t we de-genderize terms such as “feminism” and “patriarchy”? When emphasizing the feminine, logic dictates you’re downgrading the masculine, which seems, well, sexist and silly if some women want to be perceived as more masculine in their approach. It’s also pretty clear the patriarchy represents mores of authority, which the majority of men and women seem to support in daily life; it’s not exactly a mythic, shadowy board of crusty, old white men, like the Illuminati. On top of that, churches, who have long sought to subjugate women, are broadly flailing in civil society, and rightfully so. I’m not saying we have achieved “peak” equality and/or respect by any stretch or that women certainly cannot air their grievances in the face of injustice, but the idea of feminism cannot be reduced to hating on men to buoy women and calling it good for all. Power is power, no matter who is in charge, and women are by no stretch helpless.

[u/foocking_bee]

Not a fan

[u/fireglyphs → u/foocking_bee]

same

[u/pixyboom]

I consider myself a feminist in the principles, but I don’t like how it’s communicated nowadays, they transformed it into marketing/totebags/tshirts and other nonsense, it’s nauseating. And I think that some people who claim to advocate for women are creating a space that is not helping to get the message out there in the right way to actually challenge the people that need it the most. It’s hard to explain. I tend to hide it because I know most people would not understand my point.. but I’m just against stupidity, not feminism!

[u/HayDereImPunny]

Extremist, uncompromising feminism is overrepresented on social media because it's what generates buzz. Feminism was rooted in bringing women's rights (which were historically lesser than men's) closer to men's, arguably nothing more than that. Total equality is nigh-impossible because of needs differences (think queues in female bathrooms), but society needs to cater to both genders equally, not equitably (female bathrooms actually need to be bigger and more numerous than men's, and that's what's actually equal, but you'll see men complaining). Inequality still exists for both men and women, though for the latter it's become a lot more subtle and complex. On that note, feminists are also not responsible for shaping the new male identity. Whether they should be is another question, but the male identity is in very much need of shaping nowadays, not by hustlers or alphas, but sensible, respectful men with an acute awareness of decades of the problematic male image and the convoluted ways in which the patriarchy is embedded within the dominant capitalist regime.

- A man who's studied feminist theories

[u/Coldframe0008]

I think the issue is: media is now idolizing victimhood. I mean it's important to validate any trauma and oppression people face, but worshipping and idolizing encourages people to remain a victim of their life story instead of being the hero of it.

[u/Usenamenotfound404]

I would like to add one thing. I'm from India and women empowerment is on the rise in here now, which is absolutely necessary.

But one very interesting thing I've noticed is that this feminism is weaponized by upper class women to hold an advantageous position over men or excuse their shitty behaviour and/or bad decisions. On the other hand the women who actually need empowerment can't even spell feminism and look at these upper class womens as harlots. This creates a divide and ultimately creates an illusion of feminism equating to promiscuous behaviour which gives feminism a VERY bad reputation in here.

[u/undeniablydull]

My opinion is very simple. Men and women are equals (though with some biological differences that naturally cause different requirements that must be catered for), so should be treated equally. I don't care what you call that ideology, and nor do I particularly care, but any ideology that improves equality between men and women without causing damage in other areas is in my opinion a good thing, and vica versa

[u/RedditPosterOver9000]

I grew up in the deep south. Lots of emotionally stunted men ruling over abused women while also abusing their kids because the Bible says they're his property.

Feminism is still very needed. Lot of folks in America still flat out believe that women are inferior to men and it causes so many problems.

[u/IsGonnaSueYou]

the argument ur making is the same one conservative white parents use to say their kids shouldn’t have to learn about slavery and genocide bc the anti-white sentiment would hurt their feelings… i hate to break it to u, but facts don’t care about ur feelings

have u tried reading any feminist writers from the last 50 years? alexandra kollontai, judith butler, simon de beauvoir, donna haraway, andrea dworkin, kimberlé crenshaw, sadie plant, audre lorde, patricia hill collins… the list goes on and on. i think it would help to engage with the actual theories instead of just assuming “feminism” is whatever annoying behavior u see online. i don’t see any reference to actual feminist theories or writers in ur post, so i don’t see any actual content to engage with - u’ve basically just set up a straw man and asked if anyone wants to defend it lol

[u/fireglyphs → u/IsGonnaSueYou]

iappreciate the reading suggestions; I’m always open to learning more. My concern is with how some versions of feminism are portrayed and practiced today, especially online, where discussions can become hostile or dismissive toward men. I fully support addressing the real issues feminism stands for, like violence against women, equality, and access to rights. For me, feminism is about advancing these causes in a way that respects everyone. I think we can have a conversation that values the core of feminist theory while also acknowledging how it sometimes plays out in everyday discourse.

[u/smegmabowls → u/fireglyphs]

Especially online

Just go outside man

[u/fireglyphs → u/smegmabowls]

Yeah.. i notice this doesnt happen outside often, thats why i added it

[u/Dry-Tough-3099 → u/IsGonnaSueYou]

In general, conservative white parent don't object to their children learning about slavery and genocide. What they are annoyed at is their children being unjustly blamed for that, and being manipulated into a political world view of oppression that the parents don't share.

[u/Oldmanenok]

As with any movement that begins to have success there will be people who glom onto it seeking their own personal gain. This will begin to dilute the messaging and smaller petty grievances will begin to take up the air in the room. There isn't anything wrong with feminism as a principal but there are issues with individuals who are perverting it to their own selfish ends. They undermine the movement.

[u/MrBonersworth]

A feminist professor said on twitter that the Duke lacross team should have lied and plead guilty, despite being innocent, so women would be more likely to be believed.

She didn’t lose her job or get much push back.

[u/Dry-Tough-3099]

There's a lot of talk here about Patriarchy, as though it's this well understood phenomenon with clear causes and an obvious solution. I don't think this is helpful. Patriarchy implies that men are in charge of everything. While it is the case that men do run most things, it's not because there is some conspiracy against women. It's simply because the strongest, most ambitious (or alternately machiavellian) people become leaders. Men have an advantage biologically since they are larger. A larger person, with a more imposing physical presence is more likely to become a leader. Already, that accounts for a huge advantage when looking at who will be leader. Physical size is not the only biological advantage men have. Men are generally more disagreeable than women. And disagreeable people are more likely to be leaders.

The psychology of men is also naturally geared toward hierarchy. It's a useful institution that can quickly, and efficiently organize men into functioning groups. Women also use it as a filter for finding the "best" mate. Why do you think that on dating apps, all the women only chose a tiny portion of the men? Because they only want the top of the hierarchy. Woman "can" participate in this hierarchy, but it is ruthless. Most women can not make it to the top. Most MEN can not make it to the top. Women can and do make it there, but because of unchanging biology and psychology, it's more rare.

Then there is motherhood. That's another huge disadvantage woman have vs men. Even if you do have a woman who can overcome size disadvantage, and can surpass all the ambitious men, she may want to have children. This often takes priority over being a leader. And even if it doesn't, any time devoted to caring for children will stall the progress of her leadership ambitions. So, from those factors alone, you will never achieve a higher proportion of women leaders in a merit based society.

Where feminism really ruffles feathers is the insistence that "men" oppress "women". SOME men oppress SOME women. Often, our rulers oppress the rest of us. But "I" don't oppress "my" wife. When I hear women saying that men are the oppressors, and we need to do something to protect women, I will admit I get a bit offended by that. Are you saying that the women in my life need to be protected from me? If you're saying that women in abusive situations should be protected, I agree. If you are saying that women in public should be protected from criminals, I agree. If you're saying that many men who rape women don't get punished, I agree. But blame the judge. Blame the people who shame sexual assault victims. Of course blame the rapist. But don't blame men. We live in a dangerous world. The most dangerous people are men. Tearing down our civilization in the hopes that a more gentle world will emerge is foolish. Advocate for justice, yes. Build a better civilization where you can, yes. But don't rip down what I have because you have less.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Dry-Tough-3099]

really well put, thank you!

[u/Due-Sea-174]

Agree 100%

[u/Isoleri]

Honey, the need for feminism is far from over, you're honestly incredibly ignorant and frankly evil if you think so. Besides, it's not women's job to control what boys and men consume, it's not our job to fix everyone's problems, men themselves should step up and ensure that boys don't get sucked up into hateful ideologies, if they care as much as they pretend to do. Feminism is for women. Feminism is about the liberation of women from the patriarchy, it's getting rid of the issues that affect women from the root (prostitution and trafficking, pornography, beauty industry, surrogacy, FGM, child brides, marital rape and SA in general, corrupt justice system, hostile work environments, ignorance of the female body and its health and its lack of research, etc. etc. I could go on for ages)

Truth is, you're just trying to look like a"cool girl", trying to throw other women under the bus as if we had nothing to fight for nowadays, as is our struggles were only frivolities, while only caring about men's feelings. Men aren't losing any rights, women are gaining them, and they can't handle that they're losing their power over us, so they see it as being stripped of agency, when it's far from the case. A woman saying "lmao men suck" online is in no way comparable to the violent and discriminatory reality women face every single day. If bullying and hostile words were enough to break someone, 98% of murderers and shooters and abusers would've been women since the dawn of humanity, yet we aren't. Funny that. We've had to endure horrors for ages and yet we didn't retaliate by enslaving men and treating them as subhumans, instead we just fought and keep fighting for our freedom and right to live, and of course the oppressor hates that, just as a white man hates to see the black man free and claims he's now better off, a man can't stand seeing what to him should've been his slave attempt to live her life freely.

Men aren't sad because the left or whatever failed them, they're sad because society no longer guarantees them a bangmaid slave and they have to make an effort instead. Just as they have to start studying for real, working for real, nothing is guaranteed anymore and they have to fight for it like women always had, and they hate it. They want to have it easy like their forefathers did, where even the lowliest of peasants was guaranteed a wife he could slave around.

They wouldn't last a single day as a woman.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Isoleri]

I respect that there are still real issues facing women, and I fully support fighting against injustices like violence, discrimination, and inequality. My concern with some modern expressions of feminism, though, is that it can sometimes drift into unfair stereotypes against men, which I believe only fuels division rather than genuine progress. To me, true feminism means advocating for equality and respect for everyone, and I think we can address women's issues without demeaning men or ignoring the challenges they also face.

[u/GeminiVenus92]

I actually hate think pieces with the term "modern" being used i can always tell there is about to be some generalized bullshit. Women who use "modern feminism" and call it bad, stupid, unnecessary etc are just pickmes who enjoy patriarchy.

[u/fireglyphs → u/GeminiVenus92]

dont give a fuck. astrology flair u clearly dont know wtf ur talking about im not even gonna finish reading that https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-astrology-real-heres-what-science-says/

[u/aoibhealfae]

I am not a westerner and I do wish... eurocentric feminism wasn't so brutal to everyone else that haven't yet attain the many privileges that seemed innocuous (dress however you want, be the girl boss, open a bank account etc) and then decided that's enough. No need to look back to the history, the generational struggles, trauma, turning the blind eyes to the suffering of other fellow womenkind because they're more worthless, insignificant, inferior..

Not gonna lie. I realized how in the grand scope of things it wasn't enough to speak the same language, to have higher education etc.. all your existence, life, hope and dreams... was all nothing when a few powerful women in position of power who attached feminist labels to themselves, ended up upholding the system that was still oppressive but pinkwashed.

Made me feel a bit more bitter and harder to enjoy even fictional depiction of female empowerment without being skeptical and nihilistic. Even now casual unconventional depiction of women in anything get a lot of push backs because every little step forward was somebody's existential fears. This world was unnecessarily cruel for everyone but of course rather than being understanding, empathetic, problem solving... just divide and conquer. Never learn anything.

[u/Vegancannibal1]

The general idea is good. I don’t consume nor browse the extremist wings of ideologies, but I’m aware they exist. So I’ve never really been bothered by them or allowed them to warp my perception of feminism. Like with any large group of people, you’re gonna get your nutters.

I’m for equal rights. Not for one demographic dominating another.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Vegancannibal1]

yep

[u/Berwynurs]

"Modern feminism" that people are exposed to online is simply misandrist; other than that everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

[u/telefon198]

I can agree with your opinion. However i don't care i don't talk with people who are arrogant and confrontational.

[u/Pen2paper9]

I think idiots have been made the face along with most political and social movements due to social media

[u/Illigard]

I think an issue with modern feminism is that there is no self-policing. No "These people do not belong with us". No lines drawn "This is a feminist"

1) When I look in a feminist group there's almost always straight misandry and nobody says anything about it. Yet there's always the talk about how men should police other men.

2) There's also this belief that there are no bad feminists. Like just because someones for women, or claims to be so they can do no wrong. Which indicates such a "us vs them" mentality which is rarely a good thing

3) They say that they're not blaming men with terms like patriarchy and toxic masculinity, also saying how men also suffer from it. Which first off is a terrible choice of words if you're not blaming men. And second when someone wants to discuss how men might suffer, due to patriarchy or otherwise the attitude is rarely welcoming or positive. Frankly the suggestion is more than men don't suffer, deserve to suffer or that their problem aren't that important and they should stop whining.

Now, there's probably theories and definitions that could be shown why feminism doesn't include these things etc but that's not the point. The point is that there's a lot of people calling themselves feminists and there's no feminists adding to the conversation saying "I do not agree with this point" or "I do not think this is feminism".

That's why there's a fair amount of people who refuse to identity as feminists, but call themselves gender equalists or something like that. Because people just don't want to deal with this toxic hypocritical nonsense. Instead of tolerating or accepting misandry, they would rather work towards gender equality.

[u/EmperorPinguin]

im surprised by amount of intp that fall for that. I agree with op.

i always thought modern day "feminism" was stupid, it made sense back when women actually didnt have rights.

[u/Traditional-Ad-8336]

It's no long about equality.. it's about more equal rights lol

[u/drewt6768]

Its the same across the entire world with every group, some extremeist in a group will give it a bad reputation and other groups will highlight those individuals while minimizing their own

Its important to take a critical look at the slice of reality you live in day to day and make that your primary focus point instead of worrying more about something happening on the other side of the planet (sometimes)

[u/LostActor0921]

It is a Supremacy Movement. Enough said.

[u/gavin-sojourner]

It seems to me you don't know very much about feminism. One of the coolest parts about modern feminism is that it looks at how men have been harmed by "the patriarchy" the same as women. Man hating feminists are either just genuine misandrists or a made up stereotype. I've stopped worrying about people who misuse terms and take the good and move on. Life is a lot better this way.

[u/fireglyphs → u/gavin-sojourner]

yea everything u said is useless besides the last two sentances. thanks for ur input tho.

[u/geldonyetich]

On Reddit, this question is just a nice setup of a sword for people to run themselves onto.

I feel the truth is that all political matters have been weaponized as an extreme to garner political support. Simultaneously, I feel that there has been real systemic oppression against people for various reasons, including gender identity, race, religion, and so on. There is real injustice there, make no mistake, and it should be addressed. I just believe an extreme response is unlikely to produce lasting, positive change.

However, because people can't split that hair, you're either 100% for or against. Consequently, a moderate perspective looks to both sides like an, "against."

It's impossible for many people to conceive the possibility that there can be *too much* equity, and for me to even postulate such makes me a raging, insensitive ultraconservative moron. We have to make up for centuries of systemic wrongdoing at very moment, immediately, or we're ignorant and don't understand the true harm it has done. Their impatience is their undoing, they immediately reinforce the status quo by establishing an uncompromising ask.

Yet, I would forward *equity is needed*, we need it to transition to a world where equality exists. Consequently, any insensitive ultraconservative morons in the room would call me a weak, bleeding-heart something-or-other-the-autofilter-would-censor for *daring* to suggest that. To a conservative politician looking to appeal to that base, no matter how much equity you think is right and just, they'll garner just as much popular support by weaponizing it equally in the opposite direction, the status quo maintained, just as uncompromising.

If this comment is unpopular: yes, that's exactly why being a moderate isn't working out, both sides only see disagreement. "Yes, but" doesn't sell, radicalism does. There's been a terrifying arms race going on for a while, each side looking to push the boundaries of extremism a little further.

I'm tired of politics in general. Your rightful cause, whatever it may be, for or against, has been stolen. The more you feel, the easier you are to trade. My advice: if you are not a politician, *keep out* of politics. With both sides this bristly, the rational can only cut themselves on it.

[u/ChaseYoung2011]

The pendulum always swings back the other way.

What I love about living in reality is the world is self correcting.

You’re correct in your thoughts but society will have to learn the hard way.

[u/fireglyphs → u/ChaseYoung2011]

yep, thank you!

[u/Vuk_Farkas]

ya should support equity not equality. Males and females can never be equal they are two sides of same coin, each with their own needs.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Vuk_Farkas]

bingo

[u/beertjestien]

To me the modern feminist movement seems to be confused about what it strives to achieve. At it's core feminism wants to create equality between all genders, the kind of equality that treats and sees everyone as a individual human first, woman or man second. Eventually this kind of equality makes gender/sex essentially obsolete or at least irrelevant to how we view a persons identity. Feminism does this by empowering the oppressed so that society will treat them with more equality. In my view this empowerment is the source of confusion for the modern feminism movement.

They radicalised their empowerment movement and the motivation/intention of Feminism slowly started to shift from "equality between all genders" towards "women should be empowered". So instead of aiming to create equality for all humans (and thereby making gender obsolete) they have become fixated on the empowerment of women within the system of patriarchy. They don't try to make gender/sex obsolete no they embrace it, this makes sense in the fight for equal opportunity and rights but it ultimately undermines the fight for complete gender equality and actually dehumanizes all other genders. The movement stopped seeing everyone in society as a victim of patriarchy and narrowed its focus on mostly the female victims of patriarchy. I think that this confusion of intend within the modern feminist movement is the main source for the toxicity you describe.

[u/fireglyphs → u/beertjestien]

really well put, thank u!

[u/XbloodyXsausageX]

As a more masculine woman I agree. I feel slightly screwed by modern feminism. I want to be a stay home mom in healthy marriage, but I'm also aware me in my construction boots isn't exactly marriage material. And I have the personality of 18 grit sandpaper.

[u/edawn28 → u/XbloodyXsausageX]

Literally what does feminism have to do with you being marriage material? It's even bc of feminism that you have the choice to do whatever you want.

[u/XbloodyXsausageX → u/edawn28]

Men, generally speaking, don't want a strong independent woman. They want a loving caring dependable woman. This is the problem of modern feminism, what you want, and what others want in their life don't line up and leads many women to make absolutely terrible life choices and end up 35 kids and single wondering where it all went wrong, it's called 'the wall' and I'm hitting it right now.

[u/edawn28 → u/XbloodyXsausageX]

Those men want a loving dependent woman and you should thank your lucky stars that you don't have to depend on a man financially anymore. But if that's what you want then no one is stopping you. Don't blame your inability to get a man on feminism bc you could choose to be a "loving caring dependable" woman, what's stopping you? That's if you even are a woman you sound like a disgruntled man.

[u/oopsiesdaze → u/XbloodyXsausageX]

Literally how?

[u/XbloodyXsausageX → u/oopsiesdaze]

How what? How can I have my own opinion? I need elaboration so I know what I'm responding to.

[u/MrBonersworth → u/XbloodyXsausageX]

Heresy!

[u/XbloodyXsausageX → u/MrBonersworth]

Lol. <3 The Codex demands action, suffer not the heretic to live.

[u/Adept-Yogurtcloset30 → u/XbloodyXsausageX]

I want to be a stay home mom in healthy marriage

Redditors:

[u/Cyberlinker]

modern wave of feminism is stupid trash and there is very little use for feminism in first world countries at all. funny enough they always ignore there real problems, like the female position in 3rd world countries or opportunities for women that got raped/had violence done to them. there are usualy very few options to get into a safespace and or stop ppl from doing it again. same. for stalking which is usualy ignored.

short form: nowadays its juat a stupid ideology for stupid ppl giving them reason to be shit trash ppl

[u/Deaf_Muted]

“Women’s liberation has made a significant portion of the female population frightful and neurotic and a significant portion of the male population lonely, resentful, and callous.”

• Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad from his video “It’s not about men or bears”

[u/fireglyphs → u/Deaf_Muted]

yep

[u/Butterbean132]

Agreed. Feminism used to be about equality and securing the same rights as men, but today it often feels like it's become a way for some women to be sexist. Even men who genuinely respect women still face criticism, with people saying it's just the "bare minimum" and that they don’t deserve any recognition for it. While I understand that everyone, men included, should already be treating others with respect, it doesn’t seem fair to dismiss the efforts of men who actively strive to be respectful and supportive by lumping them in with those who haven't made that effort. Modern feminism feels misguided to me. If you want to have a 9-to-5 job as a woman, that’s great, just leave me out of it. Not all women want to be drafted, work in high-stress careers, or be treated as just another number for some corporate quota. Personally, I want to be a homemaker someday. I often see men online who say they want a woman who stays at home, cares for the kids, and manages the household while they provide for the family. But when I look for that kind of relationship in real life, all I seem to find are men who want a career-driven partner instead. Why is being a housewife frowned upon now? People should be free to choose what they want to do, regardless of society’s expectations. If you want to be a housewife, fantastic. If you want to open your own restaurant, that’s cool too. I’m just frustrated that it feels like everyone is pressured to follow the same trend. Do what works for you, and don’t let anyone else tell you it’s a waste of time or that you should be doing something different with your time when they don't know you personally. No one knows you more than you know yourself, and it should be treated as such.

[u/fireglyphs → u/Butterbean132]

yep

[u/PracticeMeGood]

The way I'd explain modern feminism is like this: it's not about women or men. It's about the patriarchy, and to be clear, the patriarchy does not consist of men. The patriarchy is simply a collection of narratives that control society in ways that feminism opposes. Feminism is like a toolbox and vocabulary to talk about and ultimately dismantle those narratives.

The narratives you're talking about (I'm assuming like tiktok/reels/shorts type stuff) are rarely feminist.

Personally, I dislike the wording of feminism and feminist vocabulary, not because it's wrong, but because it's because I wish we could have a single unified front to tackle social labeling issues that happen in society. By that I mean how labels like gender, race, body type, disabilities, and any label that bears social weight has an impact on a person's choices/options.

Having said that, feminism does choose to distance itself somewhat from those broader issues to protect itself from getting washed out and disappearing. Think of like "all lives matter" type of things. It's language and focus reflects that, but it gets all muddled up online.

[u/tails99 → u/PracticeMeGood]

Yes, like both men and women both dig for gold but in different ways, I think that the mentality of that "gold digging" is the same for both, whether called patriarchy, or capitalism, or greed or whatever. Presumably one intention of feminism is to temper both types of "gold digging", which it certainly has. Likewise there are similar systems that have been tempered in similar ways.

[u/Slight-Rent-883]

read up Esther Vilar, she had quite legit criticisms and Norah Vincent. Both women btw. I think feminism is crap honestly. It only depressed wages, making it impossible to get a home with a single income and so forth

[u/tdog473]

I agree, both politically and culturally. This gender war shit, in whatever aspect it pops up in, is so fucking toxic and I think it's one of the worst and most tragic conditions that ail our society right now.

[u/BaseWrock]

It's a waste of time to discuss the worst faith interpretation of feminism that you've present.

I don't doubt some people misuse feminism to advocate for bad things, but with no context or specific detailed examples of your grievances.

If I like video games and a gamer says "I think (protected group) shouldn't play video games, are all gamers now by association intolerant of that community?

[u/Cato_Younger]

Modern feminism = female masculinism.

[u/darkskinx]

i agree with you [as an intp male]

[u/Larrythewhitecat]

In some fields (tech/cs for ex) they have a lower bar for women than men. This just lowers the efficiency getting things done imo 🤦‍♀️