Feminism will fix the world! :)

[AngelMolly]

I've been doing a lot of research lately, and I realized that the world only got better with the advent of feminism. I know that not everyone here would agree with me on that, and that's okay lol. One day you will. If there are other proud feminists like me here, speak up! I wanna hear your support. And for the male feminists, I love you! You are helping change the world! :)

Also, if there is anybody here that disagrees that the world got better, I will be happy to educate them lol.

[Living For Love]

Could you please explain further why do you think feminism will fix the world?

[AngelMolly]

Well, I didn't mean literally every single thing in the world. But the social injustices that exist, it will. Once these social injustices are fixed, the world will be in a much, much better place.

[Sogeking]

Well, I didn't mean literally every single thing in the world. But the social injustices that exist, it will. Once these social injustices are fixed, the world will be in a much, much better place.

What social injustices, specifically?

[AngelMolly]

Pretty much all of them. The objectification of women, inequalities in pay, victim-blaming, stuff like that. There are a lot more. And they happen every day. And it hurts everybody, including men. In a simplified way, you can say "a happy wife is a happy life" lol ;)

[Hyper]

Pretty much all of them. The objectification of women, inequalities in pay, victim-blaming, stuff like that. There are a lot more. And they happen every day. And it hurts everybody, including men. In a simplified way, you can say "a happy wife is a happy life" lol ;)

You believe the pay gap is fact, don't you?

[phuckphace]

womens_rights.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/slOGaEQ.jpg

[Judean Zealot]

I get that you think feminism will solve those issues. Fine. But why you consider the very slight inconveniences or hurt feelings of Western women (who, let's face it, are in better condition that they ever were) as one of the most serious social justice problems in the world is beyond me. In addition, 'social justice' is one of the least pressing issues the world faces today.

Disease, racial prejudice, genocide, war, drugs... all these and more are disturbingly prevalent in our world, and quite frankly, the whining of a bunch of middle class teenaged girls isn't going to solve those (or women's rights, but that's a separate discussion).

[Stronk Serb]

It's not. The world has bigger things to worry about, what about the middle eastern wars? The economies which are hitting the shitter? The fact that the whole justice system is going to the shitter alo g with everything good from the old world? The fact that decadence and being concerned with the individual instead of the whole group is more important?

[Vlerchan]

I've begun to see social justice politics as a blessing in disguise. Imagine how much more horrendous the debates surrounding important issues would be this didn't exist to distract people.

And for the male feminists, I love you! You are helping change the world!
Wooh. Go team.

[Babs]

I mean, I'm all for feminism and everything, but it's not the solution to every social issue out there.

[Sailor Mars]

Gender equality, he'll, equality in general is an unrealistic idea that will never happen. Errybody got opinions bruh, no one is just going to change their opinion against or for a gender race orientation religion etc.

[Vlerchan]

Gender equality, he'll, equality in general is an unrealistic idea that will never happen. Errybody got opinions bruh, no one is just going to change their opinion against or for a gender race orientation religion etc.
Speaking of massive social ills. I present: Fatalism.

[Sailor Mars]

Speaking of massive social ills. I present: Fatalism.

Nah fam. Not saying things wouldn't be better if things were more "equal" (sexism, racism, shit like that), but that true equality where no one judges anyone else isn't gonna happen. I mean ofc there can be changes that equal shit out, but a non judgemental society ain't gonna happen

[Vlerchan]

[...] but that true equality where no one judges anyone else isn't gonna happen. I mean ofc there can be changes that equal shit out, but a non judgemental society ain't gonna happen
I'm fine with people judging other people. It's when people judge others on the basis of a irrelevant criterion that I have an issue.

The fact that might not happen regardless isn't an excuse towards not attempting to reduce it.

[Sailor Mars]

I'm fine with people judging other people. It's when people judge others on the basis of a irrelevant criterion that I have an issue.

The fact that might not happen regardless isn't an excuse towards not attempting to reduce it.
Ofc not everyone should try to be a better person.

[Kirina]

Pretty much all of them. The objectification of women, inequalities in pay, victim-blaming, stuff like that. There are a lot more. And they happen every day. And it hurts everybody, including men. In a simplified way, you can say "a happy wife is a happy life" lol ;)
but there are social injustices for men as well and what about "a happy husband is a happy life" ? Yes it doesn't rhyme but it is important as well.

and yes it is true that feminism also helps some issues for men and some feminists even says they are 100% for equality but that it just happens that the name of the movement is a feminine one. That is a problem in itself, the name is an issue. I mean for those that really are for 100% equality, why not just stand for a movement that implies it with its name? like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

[Babs]

That is a problem in itself, the name is an issue. I mean for those that really are for 100% equality, why not just stand for a movement that implies it with its name? like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Feminism is an egalitarian movement. I think of it sort of as, like, a sub-genre. Is there a word like sub-genre or political movements? If so, I think of it as that.
I dunno. Maybe that's stupid.

The name is a non-issue. I don't know why people insist upon making it one.

[Judean Zealot]

The name is a non-issue. I don't know why people insist upon making it one.

Because most of modern feminism is bitching over semantics as well.

[Babs]

Because most of modern feminism is bitching over semantics as well.

Well, you're not wrong.
Regardless, it's pointless and there are better things to argue about.

[Uniquemind]

Feminism as it was originally drafted as an idea in the western world, will help solve a lot of the western world's domestic problems, but it can't until it's taught correctly and until there is less fragmentation on what defines it.

It also needs to be less black and white in how it's preached, and unfortunately it is not because that's not a good media soundbyte:

"The objectification of women, inequalities in pay, victim-blaming" are all titles that are soundbytes, but why this stuff happens, the nitty-gritty details about why these exist need a discussion, some is flat out discrimination, others have logical reason of why they exist which makes sense in the business context.


In other parts of the world, respecting other countries cultural sovereignty under the guise of the tolerance of multi-culturalism, clashes with feminism, and either that part of those cultures needs to be erradicated or we modify what the acceptance of multiculturalism means.

America is the ultimate melting-pot of the idea of Americanizing different cultures- respecting certain elements of other cultures usually of immigrants - but then also forcing those cultures to forego practices that culturally are ingrained in gender-roles and individual freedom-restriction.

You can't have both, yet political-correctness forces us all to avoid this conversation.


Here are two examples that affect friends of mine:

1. In Mexican culture: Women aren't as valued as men. Many a time my female friends who are from this culture can't hang out, can't go to study sessions, have a strong sense of slut-shaming within the community, are responsible for their younger siblings, when in all honesty their parents should hire babysitters or stay home themselves to watch their offspring, instead of punting the responsibility to their oldest/older female daughter(s).

[AngelMolly]

I get that you think feminism will solve those issues. Fine. But why you consider the very slight inconveniences or hurt feelings of Western women (who, let's face it, are in better condition that they ever were) as one of the most serious social justice problems in the world is beyond me. In addition, 'social justice' is one of the least pressing issues the world faces today.

Disease, racial prejudice, genocide, war, drugs... all these and more are disturbingly prevalent in our world, and quite frankly, the whining of a bunch of middle class teenaged girls isn't going to solve those (or women's rights, but that's a separate discussion).


Let me start with the fact that just the fact that worse problems that exist in the world, even if those harsher problems are of the same type, this doesn't negate the fact that there are some very real issues and problems in our own that deserve immediate attention. Sure, women in certain Eastern countries have it way worse than any woman in the West, but it's not a competition. And yes, there exists much disease and other types of injustices in the world. This is a multitude of problems, and even if you cannot completely solve the more serious ones right away, that doesn't mean that you ignore the more minor ones. For example, let's say hypothetically that you are a heroin addict recovering in rehab, will you delay a best effort to become healthier and avoid eating junk food, just because you are not fully recovered from heroin? Maybe you will relapse again? Why invest any energy at all in other "minor" problems when you are dealing with a very serious addiction? The answer is, you probably wouldn't delay such an effort if this was something important to you (assuming you have a healthy psyche and are serious about your life). I hope you understand also that this is just an example explaining the logic behind my claim, so please don't get stuck on the semantics of it all (i.e. you can replace heroin and junk food with any other major/minor problem that someone is capable of dealing with simultaneously).

Second, a major aspect of your response actually strengthens my point! You are correct, there really is no comparison of the social injustices people (and women in particular) face in our own society vs. certain others. Take the atrocities in Saudi Arabia for example a woman who exposed a man who was sexually harassing another woman, and now she is the one facing criminal charges!! In India many more crimes of this sort happen, too many to count, but a Google search will yield you more than enough stories that will give you the general picture. So, let's do a thought experiment. Exactly how do you believe that the other societies came to the point they did? Think about it. Why would women face such severe social crimes in those societies, but not our own? Is it possible that those societies are largely patriarchal in nature? It's obvious that they are. What do you think would happen if ideologies of freedom and justice penetrated these societies? If women started having rights and the ability to be considered actual people? This is called 'feminism'! An additional question to think about is, HOW do we intend to help those people, and actively spread this idea? If only we had a major movement in our own society that grew in numbers and strength. Oh wait, there totally is! They are called feminists! ;)

Third, besides for the above two points that completely obliterate your "argument", let's now return to our own society for a moment. The 'whining of a bunch of teenage girls' that you refer to doesn't sound like it was based on anything that contributes one way or another, but it was rather a (cheap) tactic to discredit any previous claim I made by painting a picture that tries to make what I say look ridiculous, but in essence - is just an irrelevant moot point. While there may very well be a bunch of middle class teenage girls whining somewhere, it has absolutely nothing to do with the big picture, and that there are very real problems we face. The fact of the matter stands that there are serious problems of inequality in our own society, and society has only gotten better and more free since feminism emerged. Not that many years ago, America was a very oppressive closed-minded society, and it progressively got much better throughout the generations when women stood up and started demanding social change. Sure, we weren't the only social movement, but we were the most influential!

So take a moment and realize that feminism is not exclusively about women (although it starts there), but society as a whole. And even though there are aspects of feminism that stress seemingly "less important" issues, there is a big picture that encompasses it all, and it benefits YOU as well. So if you really care at all about the world and its problems, you should not only allow this process to happen, but support it! :)

[Judean Zealot]

Well, you're not wrong.
Regardless, it's pointless and there are better things to argue about.

Agreed. :)

[Hyper]

Not that many years ago, America was a very oppressive closed-minded society, and it progressively got much better throughout the generations when women stood up and started demanding social change. Sure, we weren't the only social movement,but we were the most influential!

American civil rights movement.

So take a moment and realize that feminism is not exclusively about women (although it starts there), but society as a whole. And even though there are aspects of feminism that stress seemingly "less important" issues, there is a big picture that encompasses it all, and it benefits YOU as well. So if you really care at all about the world and its problems, you should not only allow this process to happen, but support it! :)

I agree wholeheartedly, that a bigger problem somewhere else doesn't necessarily reduce the validity of concern or effort in dealing with a smaller problem.

The whole part about feminism changing cultures we know jack about (India, where actually most of the country is more modernized in terms of Western civil rights than people realise or Saudi Arabia) I will simply ignore because I'm not qualified in any way to truly criticize or analyze these societies.

Most of all, however, you have yet to actually specify what exactly are these problems of injustice and inequality that feminism is drastically needed for and is actively dealing with in order to ''fix the world''.

Also gender pay gap fact or no? :rolleyes:

[Kirina]

Feminism is an egalitarian movement. I think of it sort of as, like, a sub-genre. Is there a word like sub-genre or political movements? If so, I think of it as that.
I dunno. Maybe that's stupid.

The name is a non-issue. I don't know why people insist upon making it one.

I know plenty of people that think the movement is only for girls rights because of the name and even those with an attitude of "feminism is for girls". Again, because of the name. After explaining to them that it is for equal rights for men as well this is their response. "o.O but if it's for men as well, why is it called feminism?". I've asked them if the movement had a more neutral name if they had less prejudice. Everyone thought so!

Also meninism exist because men don't think feminism fights for their rights.
The sub genres just divides us further. Getting rid of them and having everyone under egalitarianism would make for a much larger and stronger movement.

[Vlerchan]

For example, let's say hypothetically that you are a heroin addict recovering in rehab, will you delay a best effort to become healthier and avoid eating junk food, just because you are not fully recovered from heroin? Maybe you will relapse again? Why invest any energy at all in other "minor" problems when you are dealing with a very serious addiction? The answer is, you probably wouldn't delay such an effort if this was something important to you (assuming you have a healthy psyche and are serious about your life).
The problem is that in real life there's a budget constraint. It takes both economic and political capital to engender change. The point being made is that when under a utilitarian perspective on objective requires a much larger investment relative to the marginal benefit when compared to other objectives then it makes little sense to prioritise it at this moment in time.

If only we had a major movement in our own society that grew in numbers and strength.
Unfortunately the Saudis couldn't care less what Westerners think of the cultural values and never have.

If the numerous humanitarian interventions of the last decade or so demonstrate one thing it's that freedom isn't just a trend that catches on.

You also need to understand the feminism in the West developed out of societies that were built on a liberal-individualist premise. This point also relates to the below.

While there may very well be a bunch of middle class teenage girls whining somewhere, it has absolutely nothing to do with the big picture, and that there are very real problems we face.
It discredits the movements and alienates woman of diverging perspectives.

That's the reason more strains like postcolonial - and Islamic: Black: Chicano - feminism exist.

---

Also gender pay gap fact or no?
Fact. Just not in the sense that Liberals argue it is.

Most of the wage gap is explained through so-called choice it would seem. I want to know what explains this 'choice' though.

---

The sub genres just divides us further. Getting rid of them and having everyone under egalitarianism would make for a much larger and stronger movement.
It just seems hollow. In modern liberal-democratic politics we all want egalitarianism as framed in some manner or another. Feminism indicates we're approaching this from an angle of historical woman's oppression.
It is a lot more efficient to divide along lines of specialisation that cast some broad-net just so we can make sure no-one feels ignored.
In terms of material outcomes there's a disproportionate impact of females.
It can be argued that most subjugation of men is a byproduct of maintaining patriarchal relations, which must be reproduced in the althussian sense.
It can be argued that de-gendering the term would dilute the historical role of woman in the struggle.
It is also just semantics and takes up too much time.

[StoppingTom]

I'm just not going to dignify this kind of naive thinking with an argument. Others have already spoken pretty well and eloquently in this thread.

[JavierDolan]

I don't know if I'd quite say it would "fix the world" but I do agree that feminism will help when it comes to equality of the sexes. I'm not jus saying that women experience sexism either, as it goes both ways. What may seem like a complete social and political shit-storm today will be the prevailing rights movement of tomorrow.

[Hyper]

Fact. Just not in the sense that Liberals argue it is.

Most of the wage gap is explained through so-called choice it would seem. I want to know what explains this 'choice' though.


Come on you know which sense I mean when I'm asking in a provocative manner, plus in general when you hear or speak using the phrase ''gender pay gap'' you are refering/thinking to/of the widespread feminist presentation of a supposed difference in wages based on gender.

[phuckphace]

the pay gap exists because women generally take what they're offered and don't bargain/leverage themselves the way men tend to. example: the company says "how about +1000 dollars annually to cover the cost of living increase after this move?" Bob says "ppfft, make that +10,000 and I'll consider it", Alice says, "Um okay sure!" the boss is happy that he got such a good deal on Alice.

[Uniquemind]

The pay gap issue is the first part of the debate that should hitch a ride on the broader issue of "rich get richer vs poor get poorer" trend.

It is also an issue that needs to factor in time off, maternity leave, sick leave for both genders.

There are aspects about feminism that can be addressed and fixed now, just not all at once.

The first obstacle is the American Republican Party blocking all progressive legislation and ideas at various state and federal levels in the USA.

They hate planned parenthood, and that can't jive with obtaining feminists as voters.

And democrats don't vote in midterm elections consistently enough, so the republicans control the show cuz they're consistent in obtaining power to vote even if their particular representative doesn't get nominated.

[Vlerchan]

[..] plus in general when you hear or speak using the phrase ''gender pay gap'' you are refering/thinking to/of the widespread feminist presentation of a supposed difference in wages based on gender.
Well there is some amount of empirical support for this regardless.

The analysis in this paper shows that, across our sample of eleven European Union countries, holding the distribution of characteristics constant, women are still paid less than men. The magnitude of the gaps – which can be attributed to differing returns – varies substantially across the different countries and across the wages distributions. We suggest that the considerable heterogeneity in EU countries’ institutions is likely to contribute to these differences, as illustrated by the simple correlations in Figures 4-6.

https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43252/2/DP510.pdf

I decided to use 10 year old data because there's less of a likelihood of high unemployment levels distorting trends.

the pay gap exists because women generally take what they're offered and don't bargain/leverage themselves the way men tend to.
It would seem that men have a greater likelihood of initiating bargaining and tend to be better at it otherwise. This has been replicated in both experiments and field studies. It doesn't count for a huge amount though. Card et al. (2014) (http://eml.berkeley.edu/~cle/e250a_f14/paper2.pdf) found that it counted for 5% of wage disparities. I have seen it estimated at up to 15% in studies that don't attempt to control for sorting effects, i.e., woman tend to end up in lower paying firms.

Even if we presume this is a nature thing we also need to ask if there is a reason firms are hiring men that negotiated a higher wage than the woman asked for.

The pay gap issue is the first part of the debate that should hitch a ride on the broader issue of "rich get richer vs poor get poorer" trend.
Except both operate through different channels. I don't see the point.

[Uniquemind]

Well there is some amount of empirical support for this regardless.

The analysis in this paper shows that, across our sample of eleven European Union countries, holding the distribution of characteristics constant, women are still paid less than men. The magnitude of the gaps – which can be attributed to differing returns – varies substantially across the different countries and across the wages distributions. We suggest that the considerable heterogeneity in EU countries’ institutions is likely to contribute to these differences, as illustrated by the simple correlations in Figures 4-6.

https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43252/2/DP510.pdf

I decided to use 10 year old data because there's less of a likelihood of high unemployment levels distorting trends.


It would seem that men have a greater likelihood of initiating bargaining and tend to be better at it otherwise. This has been replicated in both experiments and field studies. It doesn't count for a huge amount though. Card et al. (2014) (http://eml.berkeley.edu/~cle/e250a_f14/paper2.pdf) found that it counted for 5% of wage disparities. I have seen it estimated at up to 15% in studies that don't attempt to control for sorting effects, i.e., woman tend to end up in lower paying firms.

Even if we presume this is a nature thing we also need to ask if there is a reason firms are hiring men that negotiated a higher wage than the woman asked for.


Except both operate through different channels. I don't see the point.

With many women being the sole bread winner of a household it is vastly important for the middle class for women to be paid a fair and equal rate to what a male middle class bread winner would bring home, and then that family spends at a rate back into the economy to keep it growing rather than contracting their spending because she brings home less.


So yeah different avenues, but it plays into the larger broader economy issue. It can work if spun correctly argumentatively. Both issues can be connected by a smart politician looking to start a movement, esp. In America.

[Vlerchan]

With many women being the sole bread winner of a household it is vastly important for the middle class for women to be paid a fair and equal rate to what a male middle class bread winner would bring home[.]
This is a fair point. But it seems more tangential to the issue of the erosion of the middle class. It's not going to stop continued decline traditional middle class jobs as a proportion of all jobs. Like presuming that we closed the wage gap what we'd see is an appreciable rise in household incomes but the actual trend would continue as normal.

It would probably even exacerbate inequality because it's in the upper quintile that the most gain stands to be made on the issue of the wage gap.

[..] and then that family spends at a rate back into the economy to keep it growing rather than contracting their spending because she brings home less.
It's a bit more complicated than this and it's quite possible to inspire growth in the long-run whilst real consumption stagnates but I agree with the central theme.

[Drewboyy]

Women are in pretty amazing conditions in the west compared to a couple decades ago and to the rest of the world. Most of the things that there are debates over aren't really needed anyways.
Even more "equality" than there already is in between genders won't be helping anything or anyone in the world that much.

More pressing issues would be: [violence and] war.

[Sir Suomi]

What's the difference between a knife and third-wave feminism?

A knife has a point.

In all seriousness, feminism in the Western hemisphere is a joke. I can understand issues that are prevalent in underdeveloped nations that women there face, but if you're honestly saying that the fact that I think it's disgusting that a woman doesn't shave her armpits makes me a monster of a man, well, don't expect me to take anything that comes out of your mouth seriously.

[Uniquemind]

This is a fair point. But it seems more tangential to the issue of the erosion of the middle class. It's not going to stop continued decline traditional middle class jobs as a proportion of all jobs. Like presuming that we closed the wage gap what we'd see is an appreciable rise in household incomes but the actual trend would continue as normal.

It would probably even exacerbate inequality because it's in the upper quintile that the most gain stands to be made on the issue of the wage gap.


It's a bit more complicated than this and it's quite possible to inspire growth in the long-run whilst real consumption stagnates but I agree with the central theme.

We agree entirely, as I see nothing that you've said as directly contradicting what I said.

I'm just saying on that one issue, it's best for it to hitch a ride on the larger issue of shrinking middle-class. Meaning both issues CAN be addressed simultaneously with the same political capital tackling both issues.



What's the difference between a knife and third-wave feminism?

A knife has a point.

In all seriousness, feminism in the Western hemisphere is a joke. I can understand issues that are prevalent in underdeveloped nations that women there face, but if you're honestly saying that the fact that I think it's disgusting that a woman doesn't shave her armpits makes me a monster of a man, well, don't expect me to take anything that comes out of your mouth seriously.


No it's more than that. I need to think of how to phrase this so give me a sec.

Feminism has different fragmented messages with differing degrees of intensity, for lack of a better word.

Some issues are fair, and others are non-logical weirdness that cast a tint on the other moderate issues of feminism.


Also key figures that drove 1st and 2nd wave-feminism, have arguments and policies that are from the wacky side of things, and are too opinionated to the point of rudeness, that rudeness itself has been associated with feminism itself, which is where the bad-taste in the mouth for other men and women alike come from.

All 3 waves are also poisoned, because feminism was always based and framed against what was considered masculine, which is also a weird stereotype in of itself. For a long time feminism was always defined as what women can't do VS what a man is allowed to do.

That framework has to change for a successful movement and for the bad taste to go away.

[Benelli]

What people now refer to as "feminism" isn't going to do much (in my personal opinion.) Females now are not fighting to be equal, but fighting to be superior. Examples, the stupid battles over school dress codes and things of that nature. Boys are not allowed to wear mini skirts, and crop tops to school either believe it or not. They aren't supposed to show off their bodies either but obviously, some rules don't apply to men the way it does to females such as "don't show cleavage." They can't give you too much wiggle room because there will always be that one person that takes the inch and runs a mile with it. Now, with that being said a lot of school system dress codes are corrupt... but fight against that, don't fight to be able to wear a crop top to school. Fight for more men's equality in the court room being most men lose court battles, even when they are in the right. Fight for women to be coal miners, and plumbers - both predominantly male workers. Stop worrying about petty things, and why women are so "unequal" to men. Or, fight for the rights of women in other countries that do not have the freedom and rights that those in the U.S. and many other countries posses. New age feminism is not about equality. We need to fight for the rights of men, and women to be EQUAL. Not for one gender to be superior to the other.

[Uniquemind]

What people now refer to as "feminism" isn't going to do much (in my personal opinion.) Females now are not fighting to be equal, but fighting to be superior. Examples, the stupid battles over school dress codes and things of that nature. Boys are not allowed to wear mini skirts, and crop tops to school either believe it or not. They aren't supposed to show off their bodies either but obviously, some rules don't apply to men the way it does to females such as "don't show cleavage." They can't give you too much wiggle room because there will always be that one person that takes the inch and runs a mile with it. Now, with that being said a lot of school system dress codes are corrupt... but fight against that, don't fight to be able to wear a crop top to school. Fight for more men's equality in the court room being most men lose court battles, even when they are in the right. Fight for women to be coal miners, and plumbers - both predominantly male workers. Stop worrying about petty things, and why women are so "unequal" to men. Or, fight for the rights of women in other countries that do not have the freedom and rights that those in the U.S. and many other countries posses. New age feminism is not about equality. We need to fight for the rights of men, and women to be EQUAL. Not for one gender to be superior to the other.

I see what you're saying, but getting into the nitty-gritty of court room outcomes is another beast entirely, lawyers are a huge factor in of themselves. For simplicity's sake let's not get into that, but of course that's up to the OP. I just won't get into that within the context of feminism, and to qualify that discussion if it goes that direction: the verdicts of court decisions are in the world of legal VS illegal, NOT versus right/wrong, and there really are not clear rules defining equal and unequal in a lot of verdicts, there is only conclusions, to end issues people could not be civil enough to settle on their own.


Also school dress codes, are determined by school district, and it also varies depending if it's a public or private school.


But here's what I believe the issue is, and what you're getting at.

There is a part of feminism who has chosen to argue, (which I think is a wasted effort and unwisely picked battle), despite whatever a woman wears, no matter how revealing, should not justify the objectification of women by men. On the whole this is true, but during the process of arguing this concept it got mixed with the concept of entitlement and ignored the reality that men are visual creatures and that's hardwired into their genes and won't chance anytime soon. Adding in social media peer pressure to "flaunt it if you've got it for empowerment's sake" for "attention" there is an inconsistency among women on how to sell this political argument, especially when at a socially micro level, girl 1 resents girl 2+ for causing ripples of drama among their social network's (online and off) in both the friend's circle, and romantic circles (cue the slut-shaming, cyber bullying etc.) before guys have even entered the picture and the whole movement of feminism in regards to this topic just halts in it's tracks.


There are battles that feminism needs to define as worth fighting for, and there are other issues/battles feminism needs to address or triage, as issues that are hurting the consistency of the message of equality, because the situation of "having the cake and eating it too" is what's given the movement a bad reputation, despite it having a lot of merit for a stronger and more easily justifiable argument.

[sqishy]

Without reading much into this thread so far, I am coming into this to say that feminism will not 'fix the world'. It is not what links all problems together.

[thegreatgatz]

Notice suffrage occurred at the same time as a massive movement in organized labor. Organized Labor changed the world

[Microcosm]

I'm kind of confused as to what degree of feminism the OP is suggesting.

There's the moderate kind where women only want equality of pay and realize that a person's worth is not based on their gender.

Then there's the kind who think every woman is inherently better than any man simply because she is a woman, thinking that men are actually worse than women, not equal.

The first of these options I can sympathize and agree with. I'd say, though, that no one is inherently good based on their gender. I think that saying such a thing is actually laughable. The character of that person decides how good they are.

As for equal opportunity, of course we should give all people(including women) equal opportunity.

[AngelMolly]

I'm talking about the moderate type of course lol. Misandry is not feminism.

[Vlerchan]

Feminism has different fragmented messages with differing degrees of intensity, for lack of a better word.
It's the fragmentation that's the problem. That's because it leads to dilution. In order for second-wave feminism to become accessible to woman regardless of class or national background it had to stop being critical. It replaced liberation with autonomisation. It lost all sense of what underpinned woman's choices as long as woman got to make choices.

[Postmodern liberalism is disgusting like that.]

---

If the focus of my own political identification was middleclassdom I also don't think I'd waste time on peripheral issues like the wage gap if I'm honest.

Then there's the kind who think every woman is inherently better than any man simply because she is a woman, thinking that men are actually worse than women, not equal.
Just as an aside I tend to side with non-liberal feminists more often than note and don't believe this.

[Uniquemind]

I think the best way to promote equality, is to see people as people, and any issue that causes a differential discussion because of one's physical sex, as a byproduct of the fact of how our brains process information, which include social-communication, and various forms of categorization of data (the 5 senses, and sometimes the 6th sense too).

It's largely based in the physical realm, but if you step away from that, if you healthily dissociate "the self" enough to the point where sanity/insanity exists, and go with empathy as much as possible, you can begin to flex your perspective, and be a more compassionate person without necessarily compromising your ideals when you go back to being narrowing in, on how your specific life's perspective is impacted.

It's easier to do this on personal issues, it's harder to do this when legalese is involved because there's that "force of law" aspect to legal earthly law.


But on social issues like equality, feminism wins when gender roles for both men and women fall away, and a population adopts a rating scale of merit, with acknowledgement that between the sexes there will be differences that aren't going anywhere that impact socialization and performance, but by no means that people shouldn't be given a chance to try, and if one fails, then the performance itself should reflect that justification.

It's that simple.

You cannot make the shallow things in life disappear, you can only lessen their affect upon you, and also recognize how you have contributed to the shallow things in life to promote their existence.

(Ex: Race, physical appearances in beauty, personality types, verbal speech, greed etc.) It's all stuff to self-analyze and it's a conversation worth happening with yourself.

I don't know how many people are comfortable looking at their own dark side.

[Arkansasguy]

the pay gap exists because women generally take what they're offered and don't bargain/leverage themselves the way men tend to. example: the company says "how about +1000 dollars annually to cover the cost of living increase after this move?" Bob says "ppfft, make that +10,000 and I'll consider it", Alice says, "Um okay sure!" the boss is happy that he got such a good deal on Alice.

Don't tell that to a feminist, it'll ruin their sense of persecution.

[Arkansasguy]

Notice suffrage occurred at the same time as a massive movement in organized labor. Organized Labor changed the world

I'd buy that one group of radicals (the unions had legitimate compakints, but far too many of them were socialist) inspired another. Oh how much better we'd be if such people had simply stayed quiet.

[Uniquemind]

Now we're touching on a new vein of the topic entirely.

If we assume or run with the idea, that the resistance for accepting feminism is also due in part by the changes in culture to "male dominated scenes" then the resistance makes sense because it comes from those who don't accept change and want to keep the atmosphere the way it was before.

It's school-yard politics, it's actually exactly the same; and I don't think that has any merit to resist the change on those grounds.

But here's a question that might offer some merit to resistance.

Since corporate culture is very rough-n-tumble, do women entering the picture change corporate culture's bargaining power for better or worse on the international scale, with societies who don't give women equal opportunity/respect in their own societies.

Also what do women have to forego as a trade-off for what they are gaining? What in the past might've been previously a comfort zone, taken for granted before? How much does the individual have to adapt and change their personality and behavior to the objective demands of the job, versus retain their individual self-identity?

These are really deep questions, and it is asking a deep question of how much does our environment shape us and our values, versus how much of an affect we have on shaping the environment?

The interplay between the two is something worth talking about and studying at multiple levels.