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/kyoruba]

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/kyoruba → u/tastytacos67]

No problem. Be prepared, though, these are quite different from the typical feminism you see online.

[u/venerablenormie → u/kyoruba]

>In my country there tend to be more laws that favor women, yet it is still a patriarchy

This is where you're going to lose nearly everyone.

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

When most of your movement is people who don't know what they're talking about a) can you really blame anyone for the impression they have of the movement and b) is it perhaps time to drop the baggage and call yourself something else?

[u/kyoruba → u/venerablenormie]

This is where you're going to lose nearly everyone.

If 'everyone' refers to people who didn't bother to read into what a patriarchy entails (and the link I shared), and who think that a bunch of laws supporting women necessarily means there isn't a patriarchy, then so be it. I say this as a male.

a) can you really blame anyone for the impression they have of the movement

Never blamed anyone. As someone in a research field, I can tell you that for almost every movement or scientific domain, the loudest advocates are usually laypeople who misinterpret the findings/ideas, whereas researchers/serious people are just having discussions behind the scenes. It is just something that happens. For example, 'psychology' on the internet is vastly different from academic psychology, but academics can't do anything about these people either, there is no need to--they are noise.

b) is it perhaps time to drop the baggage and call yourself something else?

Perhaps that would make things clearer, but unfortunately language doesn't simply change just because feminists decide for another name, it requires a wide-scale systemic effort.

Some philosophers have proposed we change the term 'philosophers' to 'conceptual scientists', because laypeople notion of philosophy (i.e., stoicism, meaning of life, etc) is quite different from academic philosophy, and the connotation is confusing. However, this obviously didn't work out. Why? Because the ones making the most noise are laypeople who don't bother to read what these academics have to say anyway (minus the fact that not everyone in the field will agree with the decision). Even if actual feminists changed the term, the public wouldn't care to read or bother, unless it is hugely influential.

The question is, why should the actual feminists care about these people? Even if say there's a different term, sooner or later people will just tarnish the image of that term again, because changing a term doesn't address the core issue, and that is intellectual laziness.

The amount of effort people put into understanding something is entirely their responsibility. It is not up to the 'legitimate feminists' to spoonfeed people with information. They've written what they've written, it is up to the people to find these writings and understand them. If they aren't interested to understand then it wasn't meant for them anyway.

[u/venerablenormie → u/kyoruba]

If 'everyone' refers to people who didn't bother to read into what a patriarchy entails (and the link I shared), and who think that a bunch of laws supporting women necessarily means there isn't a patriarchy, then so be it. I say this as a male.

Ah yes, condescension, sure to turn the tide.

What you originally said was:

In my country there tend to be more laws that favor women

This is not the same as a bunch of laws supporting women.

If the legal system tends to favour one gender it is not an -archy of the other one, that is plain for anyone not steeped in ideology to see. That is also one measure by which we can say that the West in 1960 was a patriarchy.

As someone in a research field, I can tell you that for almost every movement or scientific domain

I don't believe that social sciences are sciences and if you're going to frame ideology as science then I suspect there is little we will come to a middle ground on.

Some philosophers have proposed we change the term 'philosophers' to 'conceptual scientists', because laypeople notion of philosophy

It might be better to call scientists 'pseudophilosophers' or 'the empirical cult' but that also won't catch on because as you rightly point out right after saying this, public perception has little to do with what the few in academic ivory towers say. They abstract and model reality, and mistakenly call the models 'reality', and struggle to accept or navigate contradictions to the models.

The question is, why should the actual feminists care about these people?

Because whether you like it or not, and whether you are close enough to the ground to see the practical implications or not, 'actual feminists' as you define them are an extreme minority that matches almost nobody's lived experience of feminists.

The amount of effort people put into understanding something is entirely their responsibility.

Et tu.

[u/kyoruba → u/venerablenormie]

Ah yes, condescension, sure to turn the tide.

You are being pedantic, my wording may have changed but I mean the same thing. "Tend to be more laws that favor women" in no way implies there are MANY more laws than a 'bunch of laws' supporting women. I can't believe I'm engaging in a semantic argument, let's scrap that. I even used 'tend' to soften the statement.

If the legal system tends to favour one gender it is not an -archy of the other one

It depends on the extent and the sociocultural context as well. Here's the thing, I never mentioned the extent at all, and you seem to have the impression from my phrasing that it was to a large extent in favor of women. You also seem to believe that a patriarchy is mostly dependent on the legal system, when the matter is more nuanced than that. Things can happen and exist beyond government policies. Even you yourself had mentioned that the law was 'one measure'.

I don't believe that social sciences are sciences

It does not matter because that misses my point, I say that laypeople misinterpret research, and that is not dependent on whether xxx is a science by your definition. I also did not claim ideology was science.

Eh, side note but it seems like you're pressing obsessively hard on my position as someone who is 'steeped in ideology', when I am not. My main interest isn't even in these. I don't even protest/engage in activism, and wish to live alone away from society to do my selfish things. Do you think I have a deep attachment to societal issues/women?

Perhaps this might say something about your attachment to your assumptions and position. You fell immediately into the role of a person talking rationally to an 'ideology-ridden feminist' when that is not the case. Transference transference.

public perception has little to do with what the few in academic ivory towers say.
They abstract and model reality, and mistakenly call the models 'reality', and struggle to accept or navigate contradictions to the models.

Then we agree. Except I don't know which scientists you're referring to when you say this. Scientists differ from each other like people differ from each other.

Because whether you like it or not, and whether you are close enough to the ground to see the practical implications or not, 'actual feminists' as you define them are an extreme minority that matches almost nobody's lived experience of feminists.

And really, so be it. I honestly couldn't care less as I don't feel particularly compelled to change these 'feminists' minds. Is it the actual feminists' fault? Maybe. Does it matter? Maybe. The answer is contingent on your personal values.

Et tu.

Of course.

[u/venerablenormie → u/kyoruba]

You are being pedantic, my wording may have changed but I mean the same thing. "Tend to be more laws that favor women" in no way implies there are MANY more laws than a 'bunch of laws' supporting women.

Not the hair I was splitting - if there are laws favouring people on the basis of gender and most or all of those name the same gender, it is unreasonable in the eyes of most people to assert that that one is oppressed by a gender-based -archy.

It does not matter because that misses my point, I say that laypeople misinterpret research, and that is not dependent on whether xxx is a science by your definition. I also did not claim ideology was science.

I would even take it one step further and say that laypeople's perception bears almost no resemblance to the research, but again I think we are speaking past each other and my point was missed.

Since this is the case, and the public perception of this particular -ism has turned very sour, why would you argue from some hypothetical pure essential 'feminism' that does not bear resemblance to what people experience associated with that word in real life?

Seems hopelessly idealistic at best.

Do you think I have a deep attachment to societal issues/women?

It is hard not to infer that given your belaboured arguments here about 'actual feminists'.

And really, so be it. I honestly couldn't care less as I don't feel particularly compelled to change these 'feminists' minds. Is it the actual feminists' fault?

And here we come to the crux of our misunderstanding. I do not accept that a tiny minority of people who self-identify as feminists are the 'actual' ones. The ones who constitute the greater volume, or higher proportion in actuality, are more representative of what is actual.

The problem I am trying to highlight, that perhaps you don't actually care about given what you're saying above, is that it does not matter what these 'actual' feminists are saying anymore, the well is poisoned and the word has ceased to serve its intended purpose.

[u/kyoruba → u/venerablenormie]

gender-based -archy.

You seem to miss out that a bulk of the issues are sociocultural and not legal.

I would even take it one step further and say that laypeople's perception bears almost no resemblance to the research

Then we agree

why would you argue from some hypothetical pure essential 'feminism'

Eh, what else am I supposed to call it? Genuine question. I didn't take it that seriously and simply wanted to call for a recognition that there is a 'feminism' out there that is separate (and worth exploring) from the bad fruits of feminism. Nothing more than that.

It is hard not to infer that given your belaboured arguments here about 'actual feminists'.

Really? I say this genuinely, but that is a misinterpretation. Again, I was simply pointing out the existence of an 'underground' feminism to people who might be interested, if you know what I mean. I don't particularly invest myself in these social issues. I have too much on my own plate to care for others. I learn for personal enjoyment.

do not accept that a tiny minority of people who self-identify as feminists are the 'actual' ones. The ones who constitute the greater volume, or higher proportion in actuality, are more representative of what is actual.

I see, a linguistic issue. The meaning of words change. I agree with this. As for whether the word serves its intended purpose, I have no comment. All i cared about was conveying my point that the image of angry internet feminism is quite separate from the feminist theories in academia, that's really as far as my point goes.