DALLAS, October 11th, 2013 – A recent Huffington Post OpEd written by “sometimes-activist” and writer Aaminah Khan perfectly captures why many associate “modern feminism” with female chauvinism, not gender equality.
“10 Ways to Be a Better Male Feminist” condescendingly details a long list of rules for male behavior within “the movement”. If you have a remote interest in the future of gender issues, reading is encouraged. Khan is a talented writer with a talent for passionately preaching a peculiar brand of elitist sexism worth exploring.
Khan makes no apologies for her anger, nor should she. Passionate activists entrenched in social justice causes often earn their rage. We all wield anger to drive our message, inspire our mission and impact others. But in order for this tactic to be effective, rational consistency is key.
From one side of Khan’s mouth she denounces misogyny while shelling half the human species with hot rhetoric designed to belittle and ridicule. As one commenter noted, when the author says, “If you want to be a feminist, you have to be prepared to give that [special treatment] up. It’s hard. I know how hard it is.” Yes, the way we explain to men the necessity for gender equality is treating them the way their ancestors treated ours, by patting them on the head with a sugary, “There, there, now…”
Not all feminists are like this, but many of the most vocal advocates are self-entitled rage-queens that embrace attitudes repellent to free-thinkers, humanists and individualists (such as myself). Their unattractive methodology, reliance on hate and rage, and the arrogant dependency on academic phraseology does not win converts to the gender equality fight.
So let me set the record straight:
Group-thinkers like Khan are not designated to speak for me, for all feminists, or the cause as a whole. Feminists like Khan do not determine how political, economic and social equality for all women is achieved, nor how we should endeavor to reach these goals.
Pursuing gender equality isn’t only for a special group, with terms and conditions singularly defined by hostile feminist circle jerks. The fight for equality isn’t relegated to a collective of rage-fueled bigots. Individuals don’t need special permissions to communicate on matters of equality. [contextly_sidebar id=”d779b4eccce623a20633824ee54e1d90″]
If you value and promote equal rights and opportunities for both genders equally, you are a feminist. If you believe in equality for all races, genders, orientations, religions, and political views, you can be an agent of true equality. If you understand why gender equality is important for the advancement of human civilization, you don’t have to “sit down, shut up, and listen”.
You also don’t have to agree with every opinion or be equally incensed by every instance of selective outrage. Your opinions are not worthless until your behavior has been conditioned and your lexicon polished by “true feminists”. All you need to do is be a just, moral person willing to challenge your own premises. What does that mean?
As my friend and male feminist Chet Lake rightly noted: for equality to advance, men and women must ask themselves:
“Why do I believe what I believe? Why do I believe X? What possible biases or influences might be causing me to favor X? Why does my opposition believe Y? What possible biases or influences might be causing my opposition to favor Y? Is there something he or she knows that I do not? If so, what is it?”
This is how progress begins, with men and women equally approaching gender issues with openness and compassion. Individuals exchanging ideas freely, each with license to politely highlight when the other is crass or obtuse. An echo chamber of grievances does not advance dialogue. Individuals with thoughtful, uncensored opinions, questions and values combined with willingness to effect change spark growth.
And just as there are straight allies to the LGBT rights movement, and just as there were white allies for the American civil rights movement, women interested in equality need male allies to further this discussion. We don’t want to censor you; we want you to participate fully and effectively.
So don’t waste your time pandering to groups with god-complexes intent on disparaging instead of educating. Get involved with true activists and organizations furthering the fight for equality by pushing for sex work legalization, advocating for victims of sexual assault and challenging gender role determinism. 20th century feminists changed the world, but most of the planet’s women remain locked in hell. Volunteer, donate, organize and educate yourself and others.
The future needs you, not an eggshell-creeping, sycophant-parroting, Third Wave talking points for pats on the head.
To feminists like Khan: I applaud your passion, but your actions say to other human beings: ‘you traditionally have the power and privilege in society, but now I have the power to silence you and make you a non-entity. Your opinion has no value.” What if you were treated with blatant disregard because of situations out of your control? What if you were belittled because of history, not your history mind you, but history itself? Are you interested in being powerful or making a difference?
Times are changing and Millennials are rising. If remaining relevant tomorrow matters, feminists like Khan should take their own advice: challenge thy own premises and be honest about the true mission and message. If gender supremacy, not equality, is the ideal, say that. Actively and openly evolve as a women’s advocacy movement and fearlessly posit your pro-femme agenda. Because right now you certainly don’t speak for me.
Author Bio: Tiffany Madison is a writer, libertarian pundit and social media strategist from Dallas, Texas. Her column for Washington Times Communities covers current events, civil liberties, veteran’s issues and foreign policy. Her work has been featured or referenced by Policy Mic, The Rutherford Institute, Freedom Outpost, Military.com, and AmberLyon.com.
(Photos: Shutterstock)
57 comments
“Pursuing gender equality isn’t only for a special group, with terms and
conditions singularly defined by hostile feminist circle jerks. The
fight for equality isn’t relegated to a collective of rage-fueled
bigots. Individuals don’t need special permissions to communicate on
matters of equality.”
Bravo Tiffany. Denouncing misogyny while promoting misandry
is the new feminism for women like Kahn. This sort of mindset permeates the halls of academia and the entertainment industry as well and men who associate with women of this particular brand of feminism tend to be self-deprecating misandrists themselves. As you have said, equality is the true ideal, not supremacy.
Thank you. 🙂
I reject the label feminist- but I do support equality for women and many of their causes. Hopefully feminists can accept egalitarian support from those people who do not want to wear the label under which so much questionable activism and rhetoric finds shelter. With so many different schools of feminism, and different interpretations of feminism- it’s really not for feminists to decide that other people are feminists anymore “because they support equality”. Respect the choice of people who don’t want the label- there’s a lot of fine print involved in supporting “feminism”.
Hi there. I do not call myself a feminist, though I support gender equality. The basic definition of “feminist” is an advocate for gender equality. Egalitarian is a lovely word, but the intention was to counter this narrative that there are advanced sets of criteria to being a “feminist”.
Fair enough- I wasn’t sure if your intent was to say “you can call yourself a feminist if you want” or “whether you know it or not, you are a feminist”. I don’t have an issue with the former, but I do have a problem with conscripting people into a political cause (because I think that taking that label endorses a lot more than egalitarianism).
Absolutely. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
“god complex”
Correction: “goddess complex” Lol
Great article! I recently wrote an opening post on Facebook about my frustration with Feminist groups: “I denounce Feminism as pure Idiocy. I want to formerly make this distinction as a woman that doesn’t believe in: collectivism, privileges, or enforced equality. I am not a minority and have never considered myself a victim of my female circumstances. Quite the contrary, actually.”
I am not a believer in the feminist movement, yet I appreciate your views and will listen with an open heart.
Look, you’re going to call godwin, but I have to point out that Nazism promoted a very efficient form of government. Remember, if you favor efficient governments you’re also a Nazi.
Please don’t tell me I’m a feminist because I believe in gender equality, that’s precisely what 95% of feminist leaders do not believe in.
The word you are looking for is egalitarian.
“Egalitarian” entails equal opportunity, which is impossible without privilege, oppression, and coercion.
Hi there! Thank you for reading. Actually, the basic definition of “feminist” is an advocate for gender equality for women. Egalitarian is a lovely word, but the intention was to counter this narrative that there are advanced sets of criteria to being a “feminist”.
“If you value and promote equal rights and opportunities for both genders equally, you are a feminist.”
I reject that. Mentioning a single sex in the call for “gender equality” doesn’t entail gender equality. By this very logic, you could call yourself a men’s rights advocate — or masculinist, I prefer.
Advocating for equal opportunity is only possible with statism, requiring the privileged to benefit from the government’s coercion of the oppressed. Opportunity isn’t a commodity, it’s almost always the result of hard work and it’s *always* a risk to pursue an opportunity. So it’s really no different than the principle of wealth redistribution.
You are correct. I am a men’s rights advocate.
Why not just be a humanist instead of favoring either sex?
Being a feminist and/or a masculinist entails that you think either sex has been wronged by an orchestration of the other sex. Neither stance is really about equality.
I would agree, but for the sake of the article and the self-labeled title the original author claims, I felt it appropriate to wrest the definition of “feminist” from the hands of Khan and her ilk.
Sorry but the Trekkie in me requires this. khhhhhaaaaannnnnnn!!!!!!! XD
Fair enough, but I personally believe that part of the effort to win people’s minds is to simply reject feminism for the horrible ideology that it is.
The original feminists were trying to rectify government-imposed social inequality such as suffrage for all. But I’m curious if they actually ever used the term “feminist” or if history revised them to be called that. I don’t think they wanted to empower women due to the wrongs of men, I think they just wanted to be represented. The actual social change that was happening around that time was that women were increasingly no marrying at young ages. So you had adult women who didn’t have a husband to represent them in the public sphere, and they had no vote so they couldn’t participate in the public sphere themselves.
And let’s not kid ourselves, modern feminists have no interest in equal rights — ergo why the ideology is so abhorrent.
Humanism humanisms:
– the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
or:
– the cultural movement of the Renaissance; based on classical studies
Human:
– Homo sapiens.
Humanism:
– Advocating for humans.
There is a history behind each word, and the history behind feminism is that girls and women have been held back for at least 4000 years, kept from education and work, forced into being either wives, nuns or prostitutes. In the 1700s a sort of womens movement started and it is thanks to this human rights movement that, in the western world, not only rich white landowning men have the right to vote today, but all men and women no matter their skin colour. This is what feminists fought for – everyones right to vote, the slaves emancipation, and now we fight for everyones right to be an individual, the abandonement of preordained gender roles, and also for the girls and women all over the world who still don’t have their basic human rights.
For you to say that the fight for gender equality could equally be called masculinism, would be equal to saying that in the racial equality struggle the Black Power movement could have been called White Power instead, since they were fighting for racial equality and to
mention one race doesn’t entail that – it is equally insensitive and oblivious. Women and non-whites have been the underdogs of the world for millennia, and it would be to erase part of our history to rename the feminist movement, and history is doomed to repeat itself if we make ourselves oblivious to it. We need to remember what women have been subjected to, and still are in many ways. More girls have been killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in all the battles of the 20th Century. More girls are killed in routine gendercide in any one decade, than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.
I don’t understand why there is such a distaste for the word “feminist”, I don’t go around demanding humankind/mankind to be renamed.
Honey you are proving my Professors point so thank you. Also in 20th Century 100 million People were killed by Communists countries all together. PP founder hated Jews, Catholics and Blacks and the point of the PP was prevent undesirable groups from reproducing. That is the same thing Hitler did. He outlawed abortions for Aryan women and used abortions on Jewish women. Also women’s level happiness has gone down to their lowesty point since the started measuring it. More women want to get married than men and when the researcher asked why men didn’t want to get married because they know women hate them and there is no point and getting married when stand a chance of losing everything you worked for and never getting to see the kids you help create.
Those preordained gender roles are biologically and evolutionary imprinted in us since before we were born. That is another reason why my Professors don’t like femimist.
The only preordained gender roles that are biologically imprinted in females is to copulate with the best possible male, then to nurse and care for our offspring until they are grown enough to fend for themselves.
Why is this even relevant to this discussion? It has nothing to do with modern human life, or with human rights, gender equality or peoples’ rights to be individuals.
Aren’t we supposed to be the intelligent enlightened animal? Then why would we hold on to and perpetuate outdated beliefs? Your claims aren’t even verifiable since no human has grown up with absolutely no external societal values imposed upon them, and therefore we cannot know what is learned and what is genetics regarding gender roles when it comes to other things than mere survival and propagation instincts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child). Research before you flap your gums. There’s the human you claim doesn’t exist.
“The only preordained gender roles that are biologically imprinted in females is to copulate with the best possible male, then to nurse and care for our offspring until they are grown enough to fend for themselves.”
Yeah, and estrogen and testosterone are totally interchangeable! Seriously, don’t get your science for Women’s Studies classes. It’s embarrassing.
“Your claims aren’t even verifiable since no human has grown up with absolutely no external societal values imposed upon them, and therefore we cannot know what is learned and what is genetics regarding gender roles when it comes to other things than mere survival and propagation instincts.”
That’s just flat out wrong. There are numerous isolated cultures. There are instances of children raising themselves.
Why do you call me honey? Is that an attempt to ridicule, offend and belittle me? And how am I proving your professors point? Please do enlighten me.
Regarding women wanting to get married – I have never wanted to get married, neither my best friend nor my sister. Actually, most of my female family, friends and acquaintances are unmarried by choice. They aren’t religious so they don’t really see the point of these outdated rituals. Many of my male family members, friends and acquaintances feel the same way, but a smaller percental of them. Based on the people I know, more men than women want to get married, have a family, children.
Look at Japan, legions of women refuse to get married or have children, as do their male counterparts.
Maybe women in the US still want to get married, because that is what they are indoctrinated to want, they are taught it’s their purpose in life, their life’s most important day is their wedding day and blablabla.
Many of the 1.5 million children in the U.S. whose parents divorce every year feel as if their worlds are falling apart. Divorcing parents are usually very concerned about the welfare of their children during this troublesome process. Some parents are so worried that they remain in unhappy marriages, believing it will protect their offspring from the trauma of divorce.
Yet parents who split have reasons for hope. Researchers have found that only a relatively small percentage of children experience serious problems in the wake of divorce or, later, as adults. In this column, we discuss these findings as well as factors that may protect children from the potentially harmful effects of divorce.
Rapid Recovery
Divorce affects most children in the short run, but research suggests that kids recover rapidly after the initial blow. In a 2002 study psychologist E. Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia and her then graduate student Anne Mitchell Elmore found that many children experience short-term negative effects from divorce, especially anxiety, anger, shock and disbelief. These reactions typically diminish or disappear by the end of the second year. Only a minority of kids suffer longer.
Most children of divorce also do well in the longer term. In a quantitative review of the literature in 2001, sociologist Paul R. Amato, then at Pennsylvania State University, examined the possible effects on children several years after a divorce. The studies compared children of married parents with those who experienced divorce at different ages. The investigators followed these kids into later childhood, adolescence or the teenage years, assessing their academic achievement, emotional and behavior problems, delinquency, self-concept and social relationships. On average, the studies found only very small differences on all these measures between children of divorced parents and those from intact families, suggesting that the vast majority of children endure divorce well.
Researchers have consistently found that high levels of parental conflict during and after a divorce are associated with poorer adjustment in children. The effects of conflict before the separation, however, may be the reverse in some cases. In a 1985 study Hetherington and her associates reported that some children who are exposed to high levels of marital discord prior to divorce adjust better than children who experience low levels. Apparently when marital conflict is muted, children are often unprepared when told about the upcoming divorce. They are surprised, perhaps even terrified, by the news. In addition, children from high-discord families may experience the divorce as a welcome relief from their parents’ fighting.
Taken together, the findings suggest that only a small percentage of young people experience divorce-related problems. Even here the causes of these lingering difficulties remain uncertain. Some troubles may arise from conflict between Mom and Dad associated with the divorce. The stress of the situation can also cause the quality of parenting to suffer. Divorce frequently contributes to depression, anxiety or substance abuse in one or both parents and may bring about difficulties in balancing work and child rearing. These problems can impair a parent’s ability to offer children stability and love when they are most in need.
Grown-up Concerns
The experience of divorce can also create problems that do not appear until the late teenage years or adulthood. In 2000 in a book entitled The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, Judith Wallerstein, then at the University of California, Berkeley, and her colleagues present detailed case studies suggesting that most adults who were children of divorce experience serious problems such as depression and relationship issues.
Yet scientific research does not support the view that problems in adulthood are prevalent; it instead demonstrates that most children of divorce become well-adjusted adults. For example, in a 2002 book, For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered, Hetherington and her co-author, journalist John Kelly, describe a 25-year study in which Hetherington followed children of divorce and children of parents who stayed together. She found that 25 percent of the adults whose parents had divorced experienced serious social, emotional or psychological troubles compared with 10 percent of those whose parents remained together. These findings suggest that only 15 percent of adult children of divorce experience problems over and above those from stable families. No one knows whether this difference is caused by the divorce itself or by variables, such as poorer parenting, that often accompany a marriage’s dissolution.
Having children is good for your health – as long as you stop at two.
A study of more than 1.5million men and women found that becoming a parent has a clear effect on the chances of developing conditions from cancer and heart disease to becoming an alcoholic or dying in a car crash.
But the relationship is not straightforward – it depends on the number of children a couple have.
Having two children is the perfect amount for a happy life, researchers have claimed (posed by models)
Too few or none at all, and they are at increased risk of dying from almost all of the conditions studied, perhaps because they lack the extra motivation to look after their health.
But too many, and they struggle to cope with the financial and emotional stress of bringing up a large family.
Having two children, however, is just right, the journal Social Science & Medicine reports.
More…
Pregnant women with gum disease are more likely to have premature babies
The researchers studied records of Norwegian men and women born between 1935 and 1968 for information on births and deaths.
Worst off were those who were childless, or had only one child.
They were at increased risk of dying from almost every illness or problem studied, with alcohol abuse proving particularly problematic.
Accidents and heart and circulatory disease were prominent in the women, and lung and respiratory problems common in the men.
This may be because they did not feel as great a need to take care of their health as those with bigger families. But large families have problems too.
The analysis, by British and Norwegian researchers, showed that having four or more children raised the risk of cervical cancer in women and of violent deaths and fatal accidents in men.
Women with only one child are at increased risk of dying (posed by models)
Researcher Emily Grundy, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: ‘Four-plus children might have adverse effects arising from stress, socio-economic disadvantages and lifestyles, off-setting, or even outweighing, social benefits of parenthood.’
However, having lots of babies was found to cut a woman’s odds of breast cancer.
This was to be expected, as the physiological changes associated with pregnancy and breastfeeding are known to help ward off the disease.
Three children brought a mixture of good and bad health, while parents of two fared the best – perhaps because the number provides the right balance of stress and support.
But, when it comes to simple happiness, three may be the magic number.
In recent research, 90,000 British mothers and fathers were quizzed about their circumstances and how happy they were with their lot in life.
This showed that marriages become happier with the arrival of a baby – with three children bringing the most joy.
However, children only brought happiness to couples who were married. If a pair were simply living together, the birth of a child tended to bring discontent, the Glasgow University study found.
Researcher Luis Angeles said this may be because the commitment of marriage brings with it the readiness to have children. Or, that parenthood brings the most benefits when ‘ conditions were right’.
Dr Angeles’ analysis also revealed that a married couple’s happiness increases with the birth of each child, up to the third. With child number four, levels of satisfaction start to dip.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257569/Having-children-good-But-stop–fatal.html#ixzz2kBY5TSDa
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Do you know why women live longer than men. Well the reason is simple women can have kids. Every time a women has a kids she produces more antibodies to protect the child those’s antibodies don’t go away after pregancy they remain and after having two kids a women is no longer allowed to give blood to a male because her antibodies would overload his immune system and kill him. More antibodies help defend the body against sickness. Therefore it helps women live longer
Japan also has a high suicide rate and people will literally work them self to death. And the government is trying to get young people to start having kids again because there populations is declining
If you’re going to talk about history, don’t go revising it expect a positive response.
“There is a history behind each word, and the history behind feminism is that girls and women have been held back for at least 4000 years, kept from education and work, forced into being either wives, nuns or prostitutes.”
My God can this be debunked in some many ways. I’ll just go for the one that’ll ruffle your feathers the most: prostitution. Women have not been “forced” into prostitution. Most prostitution when the government isn’t involved is done by choice. Women didn’t just get captured and thrown into brothels as you’d like us to believe. Women *chose* to be prostitutes at brothels — brothels that were run by madames. They did it because it was a way for them to make a living, and a comfortable living at that. They made such a comfortable living that prostitutes have been leaders in fashion trends mainly because they could afford the clothing.
“In the 1700s a sort of womens movement started and it is thanks to this human rights movement that, in the western world, not only rich white landowning men have the right to vote today, but all men and women no matter their skin colour. This is what feminists fought for – everyones right to vote”
*SUFFRAGISTS* fought for everyone’s right to vote, not feminists.
“the slaves emancipation”
*EMANCIPATORS* fought for emancipation, not feminists.
“and now we fight for everyones right to be an individual, the abandonement of preordained gender roles, and also for the girls and women all over the world who still don’t have their basic human rights.”
Now you fight to blame all of your problems on men and to get privileges at the expense of oppression of men. And this is why people should and do hate feminists. You’re irresponsible tyrants and misandrists.
“For you to say that the fight for gender equality could equally be called masculinism,”
You’re not fighting for gender equality, you’re fighting for privileges for women by oppressing men. And I didn’t say that feminism and masculinism fight for gender equality, I clearly said they fight for the privileges of one sex over another and are both equally abhorrent. “Men’s rights” activists are just as bad as you feminists.
“would be equal to saying that in the racial equality struggle the Black Power movement could have been called White Power instead, since they were fighting for racial equality and to mention one race doesn’t entail that – it is equally insensitive and oblivious.”
Yawn. This is a tortured attempt for you to make yourself even more outraged than you already are. Just deal with the fact that I’m saying your ideology is awful.
“Women and non-whites have been the underdogs of the world for millennia, and it would be to erase part of our history to rename the feminist movement, and history is doomed to repeat itself if we make ourselves oblivious to it.”
Yeah, Cleopatra was an underdog. Queen Elizabeth? Who was that? You want me to continue, because I could go all day on this. Unless you think Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth secretly had penises or something.
“We need to remember what women have been subjected to, and still are in many ways.”
Likes wars! Oh wait, no that’s the men.
“More girls have been killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in all the battles of the 20th Century.”
*LOL* That’s an utter crock! You serious expect anyone to believe that more women were killed because they were girls — good luck proving that — than all of the fatalities in World War 2? Or are you counting all of those abortions in China and India where baby girls are murdered because they want a son? Yeah, that counts. And you can blame government for that, not men.
“More girls are killed in routine gendercide in any one decade, than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.”
Okay, now you’re just blabbering because that’s a mathematical impossibly, no matter how satisfied you were with yourself when you typed that.
“I don’t understand why there is such a distaste for the word ‘feminist’, I don’t go around demanding humankind/mankind to be renamed.”
I already told you! Feminism is hated because it advocated privileges for women by oppressing men! It’s not that hard to remember, seriously.
“Opportunity isn’t a commodity, it’s almost always the result of hard work …”
I was going to reply to your comment in more detail, but I’m afraid this part – unless you somehow mean something totally different to what this apparently says – paints you as someone who is following a particularly nasty agenda.
*LOL* It’s a “nasty agenda” to realize that people work for the things they want in life? Cool story, bro.
Ah, but that’s not what you said. The fact that you’re now trying to *change* your story doesn’t say much about your confidence in the original pronouncement.
Opportunity is “almost always the result of hard work”? Not wealth you were born with? Not privileges you were born with? Sounds to me like you’re denying the existence of any inequality that isn’t somehow ‘deserved’.
We are equal but inherently different biologically. Men are better at some roles women thats not sexism thats just pure biology. And women are some roles then men. Doesn’t mean men cannot full fill some womens roles nor can women not a some men’s role. My Anatomy Professors has three masters and had both her kids in grad school, because that was the only time she good do it and have a career. Her husband is at stay at home dad because heart problems and the fact that he can cook anything from scratch. Wheres my Prof. is the bread winner and she would go insane if she had to stay home all day. The amount you start pushing a different gender role on men or women rather letting them choose out of necessity or choice thats where we start to see problems. Also my Professor is not a feminists she probably kill you if you called her that and so would my other two female professors. They think feminists are just illogical idiots running screaming ‘I hate men” or something like that
To be a professor but not know what feminist means… Didn’t they use dictionaries? Don’t they use google?
“Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.”
How can anyone be against this, let alone a professor?
If I were to use that very same logic, where all feminists are labeled crazy man-haters because a few are, and start calling all men rapists because some men are, and label all christians murderers because some are, and claim all catholics to be pedophiles because too many are, and accuse all whites of genocide because so many have been active in that shit…? …or not.
My Professors aren’t feminists again.They don’t like them at all when I mention Feminists to them they roll their eyes and explain to me why based on science and reason that they are idiots.
Why don’t you pass on their infinite wisdom and explain to me, with science and reason, why feminists are unlikeable idiots?
You just came here to start shit with people. Didn’t you Li? “…equality of women.” Thus proving that feminism is indeed NOT about equality for all people. One look at the U.S. justice system will tell any person with half a brain that.
Hi Tiffany, I am wondering why you didn’t link to the original article you reference in the piece, as is typical in blogging. I feel you misrepresented the author’s tone and message, and it seems unfair to not include a link to it to allow your readers to easily find it and review it for themselves to determine if your criticisms are fair.
Hi there. This is an OpEd piece with sources to quotations, not a blog. The article is hyperlinked in the first sentence, but for some reason the link does not appear obvious and blends in with the rest of the text.
Hmm, I’m not able to find anything to click on when I scroll over the first couple paragraphs. Could be a glitch on my end, and I’m glad to know it isn’t an intentional omission on yours! Thanks for replying.
No problem! If you’re on a PC, hover over the word “recent”. If you’re on mobile, it might not work. I also linked to Chet Lake’s profile and a few other places, so sorry for the confusion. I think in the future, I’ll bold my links. 🙂
Kahn comes off “It’s my way or the highway” which is supposed to be what she’s fighting against. You really explain the fallacies of her point of view well. Equality is what’s needed, not a shift in power. Civil rights movements in general should not be about getting the upper-hand, or revenge, for a year or decades. That would be a lie to their very words. Civil rights movements, the way great men like MLK envision them, are about equality and shaking your neighbor’s hand as peers with dignity and respect no matter their traits. Too many great causes are founded on this, but attract those who would rather flip the scales. The two types appear to be the same and the distinction is often unnoticed. It’s a shame. Equality for everyone.
I firmly believe that the word “feminism” should be replaced with either “equalism” or even “humanism”. “Feminism” leaves a bad taste and to me reeks of gender supremacy.
But huMANism doesn’t? How about huMANity? How about every single supposedly general/generally describing word that is in fact masculine? Man has been the norm for thousands of years, but here we have a word in feminine form/a feminine word that means equality for all, and suddenly everyone falls over themselves to knock it down.
Also, the word “humanism” already has a meaning:
Humanism humanisms:
– the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
or:
– the cultural movement of the Renaissance; based on classical studies
Before feminism is replaced with a word that doesn’t “reek of gender supremacy”, every single masculine/masculine-form-word out there that is supposedly general shall be replaced with a neutral word. No more policeman, no more fireman, no more “god”, no more actor, doctor, teacher, no more human, no more humanism or humanity, no more man or mankind.
Well,you ate a big warm bowl of crazy with a side of stick up your ass this morning. Thanks for proving my point in grand form. Seriously,get off of your high horse. You’re no better than me or anybody else. Back to your man-hate group with you.
Let’s see if I get this straight – You have absolutely no valid arguments to counter my factual post, so you resorted to name calling and a lame attempt of belittling?
It is obvious that you have an inferiority complex, otherwise you wouldn’t be so afraid of gender equality, or womens fight for their basic human rights, and you wouldn’t feel the need to troll feminists. Your inferiority complex is painfully apparent when you write that I should “Get off my high horse” and that I’m “no better than you or anybody else” – because I have never said or insinuated that I am, it is you that are projecting your fears and views on me. I love smart, intelligent, clever, funny, sexy, beautiful, strong, interesting men and women, I however strongly dislike stupid, simple-minded, ignorant, arrogant, unintelligent, oppression-apologetic people.
Back to the point; It is called “feminism” because women all over the world have had to fight, and in many places like Afghanistan, Irak, India, Congo they are still fighting for their basic human rights. Women have earned that the movement for gender equality is called “feminism”. Here in the west we can now start focusing on gender roles, since we have come a long way in claiming our human rights, and start focusing on the way we raise our children so that every individual will have the right to be themselves and become what they want no matter which gender. It is both petty and hypocritical to think that a word that is feminine “reeks of gender supremacy” all while ignoring all the masculine words out there that actually do “reek of gender supremacy”, such as mankind/humankind, which for a long time excluded females since women weren’t considered humans. Women weren’t even considered citizens or persons in the western world until the beginning of the 1900s.
It is apparent that you hate women, otherwise you wouldn’t be so afraid of feminism and you wouldn’t feel the need to tear us down when you think we have gotten too uppity. You are basically sitting in a sandbox throwing cat shit – you can’t refute my facts, so you call me man-hater. Ridiculous.
Oh I do have plenty of valid points and arguments. I simply refuse to debate with a delusional psychopath who thinks they’re correct no matter what. Especially when I have to type on a tablet. Anything I say (type,in this case) would fall on deaf ears ( or blind eyes in this case) so there’s absolutely zero point. Also,not once did I say that I am against equality. Nice way to put words in my post. P.S. those aren’t facts they’re delusions. You’re the precise type of person this article is about. Self-righteous to the core. P.P.S. It takes a large measure of intelligence to know not to bother debating with a self-righteous,victimhood claiming brickwall with a superiority complex and a large dose of misandry and hate for the opposite gender in her little black heart
This comment is a perfect example of what the feminist movement has become.
So you want to erase from the movement any recognition of the fact that gender equality is, first and foremost, an issue of correcting the mistreatment of women? Even if we focus on the ways in which gender inequality affects men, most of that is a secondary effect of a problem which primarily affects women, eg. child custody issues which are the result of women being stereotyped as the most suitable child-carers.
My problem with statements like yours is I think you’re being disingenuous, and I think the problem with feminism that a lot of men have is that it’s a movement where they don’t get to be in the spotlight.
Jon,bluntly stated,you’re a moron. The problem I have with feminism is that it promotes preferential treatment for women while stripping men of their rights and dignity. Women by far are treated as the superior gender. Nothing they do is seen as wrong. How do I make my case that men are treated worse than shit in the treads of your shoes? Simple. Women who commit the same crimes as men get far softer sentences. A woman need only scream rape and the entire neighborhood and local law enforcement as well as the D.As office is in a tizzy calling for blood. Men cry rape and they’re ridiculed,debased and ignored. So eff off you weeping lil mangina. P.S. None of your BS will ever get you laid so stop trying. Douche bag. P.P.S. Suffragists fought for equal rights for all while FEMInism (I prefer to call it “feminazism” because well it’s fascist BS) only fights to hand women everything. Fuck men right mangina boy?
Lmao!! Wow! You are so off the mark it’s not even funny. I’ll let somebody else put you in your place you pandering mangina sissy.
My ex went crazy with the feminist shit.
“If you value and promote equal rights and opportunities for both genders equally, you are a feminist.”
No, you’re not. You’re a humanist. I understand you’re trying to play politely with them, but you can still say things how they are without them interpreting it as poop flinging. And if they do, you’re too far out of their league anyway (I am inclined to believe this much more than them having a rational reason to believe you are being impolite).
The word “feminism” has a prefix (“femi”), and it speaks volumes about their work. It is unlikely that someone may understand this link, but think about this: no matter what feminism does, it will always be feminism. It will always be that word. How can they even pretend to promote equality on both sides of the coin with that kind of name? Why not call themselves humanist?
The more you ponder upon it, the more you realize that their movement is actually a female supremacist movement, just like male rights groups also have nuances of male supremacy. Both have equal potential of being chauvinistic.
My issues with Feminism go beyond just the radicals.
Quite often they use recycled Marxist propaganda, to pit the Proletariat [women and Feminist-sympathizing men] against the Bourgeois [Men in power, traditional society].
Much of the movement, in fact, was founded my Marxists, and although many feminists argue that suffragists were Feminists, by their own words, they were not – they had huge ideological disagreements.
I have no issue with women being treated as people – what I have an issue with is women trying to enact thousands of biased laws to ‘even’ or ‘level’ the playing field. Compete on the same terms, and if you succeed, when you succeed, I promise most of the issues you think people have with the movement will go away.
The issue right now is that the climate in this country, and pretty much all western countries is the dogmatic assertion that all men are rapists [to quote a feminist founder] and that we are animals that have to be ‘redeemed’ through indoctrination and other processes to make us acceptable to the feminist mindset.
I’m not crazy – I’m just a man, and when men say this, we get accused of all sorts of things. But try looking up Christina Hoff Summers’ work.
Modern women complain that modern men are less manly – they are correct, but they fail to connect their social engineering [blurring gender lines, feminizing boys and relentlessly building masculine traits in young girls to the point of making them psychopathic] as the cause.
“My issues with Feminism go beyond just the radicals.”
From the evidence in this post, your issues with feminism mostly seem to be down to your own confusion and conflating of one thing with another. For example, the ‘modern women’ who ‘complain that modern men are less manly’ (if any exist – I’ve never encountered any) are almost definitely not going to be the same people who are keen on attacking and breaking down gender roles. Those are two separate groups of people.
Not that I for one moment accept that ‘feminising boys’ is a thing that has actually happened. As a man, I’m rather grateful that people like you, with your firm ideas of gender dichotomy, don’t get to dictate your skewed vision of the world to the rest of us anymore.
And accusing feminists of any kind of social engineering, as if the movement has the power to do some kind of top-down reconstruction on society, is facile and makes you look hysterical. So does claiming that the ‘climate’ in this country or any country is ‘the dogmatic assertion that all men are rapists’, which no one but the most radical feminist has ever asserted.
tldr: get a grip.
You’re not a man Jon. You’re an indoctrinated sissy who clearly only thinks what your told you’re allowed to. Reclaim your testicles. Or not since you obviously have no use for them.