• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

What type of feminist are you?

babylonboy said:
If you think I'm being serious, you need to read more of my posts that typically reject sincerity.


You unspeakable bigot.
Click to expand...

As an anarcha-feminist, bigotry isn't even in my repertoire!

Mandark said:
So it appears that even antifeminism is a kind of feminism.
The result is funny because I consider myself a socialist, I just don't see that much relation between capitalism/socialism and position of women in society. But as far as strands of feminism go, I would indeed choose liberal one if I really had to.
Click to expand...

Gender relations can tie into capitalist economic relations, in that hierarchical social relations (like patriarchy) are required for capitalism to exist. Not to say patriarchal societies have all been capitalist societies historically, or that capitalism is inherently patriarchal by nature, but in many western societies, this tends to be the case.
 
ebola? said:
Pro-tip: when chiming in about how you are not a feminist and how feminism sucks/is chauvinist/is obsolete, you might want to give a reasoned argument explaining your view, to ensure that you're putting something forth something with interesting content.
Click to expand...

I see your challenge and I raise you:

Saying you're a feminist is about as clear as saying you are for a better future. Sure, most people are for it, but the way to accomplish that is open to a variety of disagreement.

It's such a broad term that it approaches being meaningless. It covers everything from "women should have equal rights under the law" to "trans people are asshole traitors". At which point, what is there to agree with that's concrete? The movement has fractured significantly, and wildly so, to the point where subsets of feminism disagree with each other. It doesn't help that a large part of the most vocal feminists have moved into narrowly defined echo chamber which has self-reinforcing memes. It's turned toxic: Feminism, especially the online version, has turned away from trying to change the world and turned towards hateful, cultish behavior.

Take your quiz here, my results are:


* Libertarian / Individualist feminism: (100% )
* Liberal feminism (85% )
* Antifeminism - actively opposing feminism; views male supremacy as natural and/or necessary. (73% )


Really, come on. The same person can get 100% on individualist feminism and still net 73% on male supremacy. Pffft. Male supermacy is about as good of an idea as female supremacy. They are both bullshit. As for libertarianism, it's a perfectly fine idea as long as it doesn't involve real human beings.


So I'm done with it. They can play their game of oppression Olympics, fracture their movement more, and engage in their self-reinforcing behaviors that isolate them. It's not my movement. I know by my very gender I won't have a voice in a large part of it. I'll be hanging with the equalitarians or humanists instead.
 
Escher, I used to dismiss feminism, and describe myself instead as an egalitarian, and I though I agree with essentially all of your points, I've recently come to understand feminism in a different way, and to understand more fully quite how complex the role of gender is in society. There's people who are saying crazy things, and obviously don't listen to them, but don't dismiss feminism out of hand. I mean, a year or two ago I would have considered myself as, essentially, opposed to the idea of feminism (how does one promote gender equality by promoting solely the interests of one gender?); now, I would call myself a passionate feminist. I'm a man, too, btw. A lot of your criticisms are right, but I feel that the intellectual journey I've undergone has been enlightening and humbling; I hope you'll give me the opportunity to speak of it in more depth and cogency when I'm not high and drunk (I know, I'm not meant to be posting in here bullfuxxored, I'm sorry).
 
^I felt the same once, please, just hear me out tomorrow. I used to make a point of how I was an egalitarian, not a feminist. That's changed. It might be we really do disagree, or it might be that I can show you that the attitudes you already have could actually be reasonably called feminist. It would mean a lot to me if you would hear me out, tomorrow, when I'm not seeing double.
 
I would say that in order to truly be an egalitarian, one must also be a feminist. Feminism isn't about the supremacy of one gender over another, but the equality of both. I use the same reasoning when considering the early "black power" movement in the united states. That movement didn't argue black supremacy, but racial equality. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but as women have been the oppressed majority globally for then past several milllenia, feminism and egalitarian ideals go hand in hand.
 
The war on men has been particularly bad this year. I saw an article in the new york times calling for liberals to protest the superbowl and the hyper masculinity it promoted.
 
There's a war on men? Shit, I didn't even realise. We still own 99% of the world's property, right? I'd never considered that I, as a middle-class, university-educated Englishman, might in fact be downtrodden and subjugated and under assault. When will the voice of the white man be heard?
 
Bardeaux said:
It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but as women have been the oppressed majority globally for then past several milllenia, feminism and egalitarian ideals go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I'm pretty sure the oppressed was equal opportunity. Sure there may have been some men at the top, but there's plenty of men and women at the bottom.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
For the most part, I'm pretty sure the oppressed was equal opportunity.
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow here

Sure there may have been some men at the top, but there's plenty of men and women at the bottom.
Click to expand...

Historically though, and even still into the modern era around the world, women are a repressed majority. Not just economically, but socially.
 
Interesting quiz...it's one of the few political quizzes where it came back pretty much entirely as I thought it would, 100% for "Libertarian/Individualist feminist".
 
Bardeaux said:
Not sure I follow here
Click to expand...

Those without power - the serfs, the peasants, etc, were basically equal opportunity in terms of gender.

Don't make the mistake of only looking at the top - look at the bottom as well. Sure, the monarch on average, may have been a man, but that doesn't mean most men were monarchs.

Historically though, and even still into the modern era around the world, women are a repressed majority. Not just economically, but socially.
Click to expand...

You're talking not a large majority though. Most of the world's population are not living in open, free democracies. Most live under flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, or authoritarians (source). And even in relativity free democracies like the US, there are still classes of people with very limited prospects.

Come on, join me on the dark side of "humanist". You can be angry about sexism, but you can also be angry about so much more - class privilege, racism, gender identity discrimination, lack of homosexual rights, etc.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Those without power - the serfs, the peasants, etc, were basically equal opportunity in terms of gender.

Don't make the mistake of only looking at the top - look at the bottom as well. Sure, the monarch on average, may have been a man, but that doesn't mean most men were monarchs.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see. But I have to disagree. Even in these examples, gender hierarchies existed within the larger social hierarchical structure. Peasant women were subservient to their peasant husbands and royal wives were subservient to their royal husbands. It's true, the male peasants were subordinate to the royal women, but this gender dynamic existed across all classes, and still does today to some extent. Certainly in very culturally patriarchal societies.


Come on, join me on the dark side of "humanist". You can be angry about sexism, but you can also be angry about so much more - class privilege, racism, gender identity discrimination, lack of homosexual rights, etc.
Click to expand...

I do consider myself a humanist, gender inequality is just the particular topic at hand in this thread :P

However to reiterate, I think in order to have a truly egalitarian perspective, one must believe in gender equality, ie there has to be a feminist element.
 
You've obviously never been married bardot if you think a peasant woman was/is subservient. History is also full with many strong female monarchs. Even in supposed patriarchal societies like the Middle East it is usually a male led facade, with wives holding their husbands on very short leashes.

Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria and many of todays current European Monarchs are powerful females. As they say behind every great man. In the US you can not deny the obvious influence of First Ladies from Nancy Reagan, Hilary Clinton to Michelle Obama.

Don't dismiss the power of the pussy (or perhaps the weakness of the penis)
 
Of course there are historical examples powerful women. History is also full of predominantly matriarchal societies. However even in western democracies women weren't legally allowed to vote, weren't socially allowed to drink publicly, to smoke or to engage in "men's business" until the 19th century. Some cultures even considered women property to be bought and sold. In the US, women were culturally inferior to men right up until the 60s. In the parts of the middle east you're referring to, (let's use Saudi Arabia as an example) women aren't legally allowed to drive a car or dress how they want.

It's very difficult to deny the historical oppression of women, I'm going to need a little more convincing than this.
 
I know literally hundreds of Saudi couples and despite not being allowed to drive I can say from experience that the one wearing the pants in those relationships usually have it covered with a veil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top