I don’t think there’s much ground to disagree or misunderstand on my first statement - feminism, by its very name and definition, is a movement of women (fem-) against gendered oppression of women (misogyny, a form of sexism). The umbrella term is antisexism, which covers all kinds of sexism and includes feminism, masculism and, arguably, movements for the rights of nonbinary people. As per personal opinions, I strongly prefer a united antisexist front that could tackle the issues from both sides, and find the rest highly unproductive and divisive.
rather specific point of view
Exactly. And a very narrow one at that. Feminism is a movement driven by women, and, first and foremost, it takes into account the experiences of women. Trying to solve two-sided gendered issues only from the feminist angle is like taking masculist theory and trying to explain everything stemming from experiences of men.
Feminists do critique uneven pay, which I did mention. They do care about financial independence. However, they do not actively combat the issue beyond this point - it’s not a feminist problem when a man is still expected to provide a higher income, even when a woman is able to pay for herself. By essentially omitting this angle, feminists miss out on one of the key pieces behind why men are more likely to get a higher office. This very expectation of needing to spend more drives more men into high-earning careers, and, on the other end, in some cases they are more likely to be promoted exactly because they are commonly seen as main providers, and so it is recognized they need it more.
My problem is that feminism here is wrapped in a foil that disguises it for some sort of men’s movement, which might be enticing for some and gets some people engaged into genuinely believing feminism is the ultimate answer to sexism, for men and women. I have witnessed some of the more aggressive overtakings of the Internet spaces by some of the feminists, and believe this is one of the ultimate manifestations of a broken antisexist movement. The result? Men have little to no say in the wider antisexist movement that is now almost unilaterally feminist, and many of those silenced turn to patriarchy instead. Good job.
I’m searching for someone who, like me, still believes in that an antisexist movement should be united. I am feminist in the sense of “women should get all the practical and real rights men have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”, and I am masculist in the sense of “men should get all the practical and real rights women have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”. And I don’t believe either is worth a dime without the other.
I don’t think there’s much ground to disagree or misunderstand on my first statement - feminism, by its very name and definition, is a movement of women (fem-) against gendered oppression of women (misogyny, a form of sexism).
Feminism is also a sociological theory to analyses aspects of society. If you feel excluded from feminist movement - due to your experiences, sure. But I don’t feel excluded at all and I don’t understand what is the point of trying to convince me and others that they are.
I strongly prefer a united antisexist front that could tackle the issues from both sides, and find the rest highly unproductive and divisive.
So why are you so divisive yourself?
Exactly. And a very narrow one at that. Feminism is a movement driven by women, and, first and foremost, it takes into account the experiences of women. Trying to solve two-sided gendered issues only from the feminist angle is like taking masculist theory and trying to explain everything stemming from experiences of men.
Except Feminism does not try to explain everything. It’s a lens to view specific aspects of society. Not the only one around. You can use some class theory, or something eternally different or - use different lenses to understand different aspects of society. Nobody is forcing you to just use feminism. Just this place happens to be one that uses that specific lens.
Feminists do critique uneven pay, which I did mention. They do care about financial independence. However, they do not actively combat the issue beyond this point - it’s not a feminist problem when a man is still expected to provide a higher income, even when a woman is able to pay for herself. By essentially omitting this angle, feminists miss out on one of the key pieces behind why men are more likely to get a higher office. This very expectation of needing to spend more drives more men into high-earning careers, and, on the other end, in some cases they are more likely to be promoted exactly because they are commonly seen as main providers, and so it is recognized they need it more.
Nope.
My problem is that feminism here is wrapped in a foil that disguises it for some sort of men’s movement, which might be enticing for some and gets some people engaged into genuinely believing feminism is the ultimate answer to sexism, for men and women. I have witnessed some of the more aggressive overtakings of the Internet spaces by some of the feminists, and believe this is one of the ultimate manifestations of a broken antisexist movement. The result? Men have little to no say in the wider antisexist movement that is now almost unilaterally feminist, and many of those silenced turn to patriarchy instead. Good job.
Nope. It’s a lens used here to view mens issues. You just again make things up and expect people to argue with you.
I’m searching for someone who, like me, still believes in that an antisexist movement should be united. I am feminist in the sense of “women should get all the practical and real rights men have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”, and I am masculist in the sense of “men should get all the practical and real rights women have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”. And I don’t believe either is worth a dime without the other.
Go, make your own community than, since you seem to somehow believe that folks here think that men should not have equal rights as women. It’s funny that you are complaining about feminist talking over communities and than it’s just what you want to do here.
