How Feminists Are Failing People Around The World

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on feminism lately and what it means to be a feminist. I honestly think feminism is currently failing the very people it says it’s trying to help.

To make this point, I’m going to look at a few things that are stated as ‘feminist goals’. Now keep in mind that feminism is a diverse ideology, but I personally think that how it’s currently being put into practice is letting millions of people down worldwide.

Let’s look at ‘Feminism Now’.


What does this even mean? It sounds like religious babble.

You see…there are cultural aspects that need unveiling…but there is so much to navigate you can’t know about it…but I do, right?

Could you be any less clear, Feminism now? What rights are women in Western cultures denied? What laws are on the books that apply only to women and not to men? What is this knowledge you have that we need?


What political movements? Where did you pull that 80% figure from and do you mean a wage gap or an earnings gap? Why is there no link given but there is one to the people disputing your numbers?

They say ‘for instance’ but never give an example to back it up.

The entire piece is just so vague and full of buzzwords it’s sickening to read.

But maybe they make better points later.


So they are monitoring language and shaming people for any word they deem unfit or misogynistic.

I’m glad that’s looked after. I can’t think of any other cause as worthy or more worthy.


So they are going to police other women as well. Good going. Go team feminism! If you don’t get along with every other woman, you’ll be labelled an internal sexist. That way we can silence even other women who disagree with our brand of feminism.


Being white, even a white woman means you’re walking on shaky ground.

Notice everything that sounds like woo is labelled as ‘internalized’. Just like God, you won’t be able to see it. Just have faith it exists. If you’re white, you’re privileged and should feel guilt.

It’s funny, because I’ve read this site as well as others, and they seem very concerned with things like this ‘patriarchy’ and systems of Western oppression etc, but they all failed to mention anything about stuff like this.

You know, places where the patriarchy will quite literally hack your genitals apart without your consent.

Just watch that video. If you can still hold up your cultural relativism argument afterwards, I don’t know what else to say.

Watch that video and then watch any mainstream feminist video and the complaints made seem downright petty.

Or why aren’t they mentioning articles like this one that outline 10 countries where you can still, literally, be put to death for homosexuality.

I mean, if feminism is truly about both men and women, then why aren’t we speaking out about the violence being done to homosexuals around the world? They like to talk about Western countries and LGBT rights, and I admit they could be better in some areas, but in some areas of the world, you can have your head lopped off by the State for being a homosexual. That’s sanctioned by law.

Yet people continue to defend these practices using cultural relativism arguments.

I wrote a post some time ago on why I can’t label myself a feminist. I do believe in equal rights for both men and women, but I see no reason to change my mind. It’s beginning to resemble a cult more than a movement worth backing.

Personally, If I had to take any label, I’d go with Egalitarian. I think it more closely resembles my ideals.



  1. I’m not a part of any feminist group, but I am a feminist. I see those “petty” slights all the time. And, yes, western women are conditioned to compete with each other as relates to looks. Just because my genitals aren’t being mutilated doesn’t mean I don’t experience sexism. Just because it isn’t as bad here as it is somewhere else doesn’t mean mysoginy doesn’t exist.

    It *is* possible to he concerned about more than one thing at a time. I can be outraged at genital mutilation, the stoning of women who are simply thought to be adulterous, honor killings, homophobia, etc., acknowledge how fortunate I am to live in the western world, all while recognizing that my *male* boss at work rates the value of the women who work in my office based on their looks.

    • Ruth,

      Rude behavior applied to you has nothing to do with your genitalia.

      I’ve spent my entire working life with brethren men and women who get bullied by abusive supervisors and coworkers.

      Because I am a white male, I never had a left-wing political machine to pander to me.

      I had to man up and handle the situation as best I could.

      This meant forming constructive social relationships with the men and women around (of all races and sexual preferences) me.

      That’s the best protection and defense against on-the-job abusers.

      After all, the great majority of us are all just doing our best to get by in a hard, cruel world.

      • SOM,

        I’ve had my share of rude behavior, including two bosses who thought they were entitled to grope and/or kiss me expressly because if my genetalia.

        Both were met with frustration. One was the owner of the small company I worked for. I was fifteen. I walked out that day because I could. I didn’t need the money to feed myself.

        The other was the VP of the bank I worked at. I handled that situation on my own, too. Not before a number of unwelcome advances.

        Good on you if you’re not a pig. Good for you if you’ve never experienced *that* kind of harassment. But you’ll have a hard time convincing me it had nothing to do with my being a woman.

        At the current the harassment I speak of is against a female coworker who is belittled and overlooked, not based on the quality of her work, but expressly because the male superior finds her unattractive. Not because he needs to be sexually attracted to her, but because she doesn’t meet his idea of attractive. That is just as wrong. If she were male it wouldn’t matter.

        • “Good for you if you’ve never experienced *that* kind of harassment. But you’ll have a hard time convincing me it had nothing to do with my being a woman.”

          Yes, it’s likely because you’re a woman.

          I went to a conference last year where the manager of a program found me and a male coworker from another city sitting at the bar afterwards. She came over and began to hit on him. He didn’t welcome the advances and a week later he was let go.

          It was likely because he was a good looking guy.

          “Not because he needs to be sexually attracted to her, but because she doesn’t meet his idea of attractive. That is just as wrong. If she were male it wouldn’t matter.”

          And women do this as well. I’ve sat there and seen it. I’ve watched the women put down contractors who were overweight, and swoon over men who were in good physical condition.

          Men also get groped. I’ve also dealt with unwelcome advances.

          It wouldn’t matter because your boss wouldn’t be attracted to another man. Just like if the contractors are women, the women where I work wouldn’t pay any attention either.

          There are bad people. It’s not just a woman’s issue. It’s a human issue, but that’s not how feminism treats it.

          • Feminism doesn’t treat it that way because feminism, by definition, is concerned with women’s issues.

            It is equally wrong when women do these things, but that doesn’t somehow justify the behavior. Yes, human beings are human beings.

            I can also agree that *some* feminist groups border on being cultish, if they aren’t, in fact cults. That doesn’t mean there is no place for feminism or that it has failed. We’re it not for the feminist movement I would not get paid anywhere close to the amount I’m paid, though it *still* isn’t quite the same pay that the men get paid. I wouldnt have the right to join the milirary if i choose. I wouldn’t have the right to vote.

            You are right that humans will be humans. I’ve never heard any feminist group, even the extreme fringes, say that women are incapable of behaving this way. Or that this behavior is acceptable on any level.

            I would never say that women aren’t capable of bad behavior. I have never, personally, seen this behavior from women I know who are in positions of authority and I would definitely call it out if I did.

            The women I know who are in positions of authority tend to be sexist toward other women, valuing them based on appearance.

            • Actually, most feminists I read said they were concerned with both male and female issues. They just never say how.

              It doesn’t justify the behavior but it shows it’s a human issue. If feminism is just concerned with the female equation part, I’m not sure why we are supporting it. Egalitarianism does it better.

              Feminism didn’t fail. It was successful. It got the rights to make women equal. Now they have the same rights as men in the West.

              Where it is needed still is in the places mentioned in this post. They could use a healthy dose of feminism but feminists are largely silent about those abuses, especially the mainstream feminists.

              Women where I live get paid just like men. Men and women often choose different fields. Not many men, fir example, are in social services or nursing.

              • Are you thoroughly convinced that women are treated equally in all areas of life in western culture? That there is no discrimination based on sex toward women? I’m not necessarily talking about laws, but in practice? You seem convinced based on anecdotal evidence, regardless of statistics.

                I have already agreed with you that I find some feminist groups to be extreme, but I think the notion that we are treated equally is inaccurate. A lot of what modern feminism deals with are attitudes.

                I also think that just because men have issues, too, doesn’t mean there is no place for feminism.

                But the menz….

                Yes, you have issues. Some are the same, some are different. Patriarchy hurts men and women in different ways. For example, patriarchy sets men up as bread winners and protectors and women up as care givers and nurturers. When couples divorce, women are more likely to be awarded custody and child support. Men are more likely to be financially devastated in a split. That is a men’s issue. I would support any man taking that issue up. That doesn’t make me less a feminist.

                I’m sure you could name a list of issues that pertain to men (some of which might also pertain to women, but not necessarily). I could and would support you in calling them out and even help you in your quest.

                It is unlikely to be an egalitarian quest because men and women can and do have different issues.

                Indeed, perhaps the reason we don’t hear more about sexual harassment by women in the workplace is because those in positions of authority are still overwhelmingly men. Perhaps it is because men don’t file sexual harassment claims.

                • Legally they are. In practice not necessarily. Just like men aren’t in practice either as you point out. These are individual cases and mot codified in law.

                  Killing gays and hacking apart a females genitals ARE codified in law and supported by society in some places. Do you not see the difference? If feminists are so concerned with the trwatment if women, tgey should be shouting from the rooftops about these things.


                  Egalitarian deals with equality of both sexes. To me that’s the important fight in Western culture. Feminism (as a movement) in the west has devolved into petty bickering without the spine to speak up about real, heart wrenching female oppression around the world.

                • You’ve also only offered anecdotal evidence. I’ve offered a link to Sarkeesian trying to censor the internet. To this site Feminism Now. To a video documentary. To the article of countries that killing homosexuals is allowed by law.

                  I only answered your anecdotal evidence with one of my own to show that it’s a human problem.

                  • I haven’t denied that killing homosexuals is allowed by law in some countries. What does that have to do with whether there are equal rights in practice in America or not? Why can’t I be concerned with both things at once, again? Is it because one is worse than the other? Because as long as killing homosexuals in another country is legal I should be quiet and feel fortunate I don’t live there?

                    Yes, you offered a link to Sarkeesian purportedly trying to censor the internet. Are you a gamer? Are you familiar with #gamergate? I’m not a gamer and I know at least a little about it.

                    I wholeheartedly disagree with censoring the internet from criticisms like, ‘you suck’. The entire premise behind what Sarkeesian and Quinn are doing, though, did not start that way and I don’t think it’s their intent to keep their wee wittle feewings from being hurt.

                    If you aren’t familiar here are some of the details:

                    Some of these women were driven from their homes in fear for their life and their wellbeing. They hid and some still hide. They look over their shoulder because they don’t have a face to go with the names of these people who are threatening them.

                    Here’s another one if the Washington Post isn’t enough:


                    Moreover, the Constitution still doesn’t guarantee equal rights to men and women:


                    Sexism isn’t just about what happens in the workplace:

                    Women are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than men:


                    One in five women has been raped in the U.S. compared to one in seventy-one men.

                    A gender pay gap, as well as a racial pay gap still exists:


                    Women are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence and/or stalking than men.


                    Eighty percent of Congress is comprised of men. There has never been a female president.

                    Even the women around me I hear saying that women shouldn’t be president. Whaaa?


                    Regardless of what the laws are there is still an underlying cultural attitude that those laws are only there to be politically correct but nod, nod, wink, wink, we really know the score.

                    If we, as women, cannot advocate for ourselves where does that leave us? We should just accept our situations as equal, even if they aren’t really?

                    What difference does a law make if it isn’t practiced? Just because I see an injustice for women doesn’t mean I can’t also see injustices for men, for the homosexual community, for black people, for Hispanics?

                    I don’t think the problem is as individual as you believe it to be. It is still systemic. I’ve known of cases where black people weren’t hired for a job because the people were racist. Of course that isn’t the reason that was given! But that doesn’t change the reality.

                    • Ill type a mote thourough reply later. I’m on my phone.

                      If you include prison populations, more men than women are raped annually. Ill get a link for you when I get home.

                      I am a gamer. Sarkeesian was named one of Times 100 most influential people. That doesn’t sound like oppression and what she was saying about gaming was blatantly false and stupid.

                      At no time is violence or the threat of violence acceptable. That again isn’t a unique female issue. It’s a human one.

                      Also getting threatened on the internet is quite common. If you’re big enough on say, YouTube, you will get trolled and threatened. Not saying it is right but that’s reality.

                      The pay gap is disputed. Even Feminism Now acknowledges that because men and women traditionally choose different fields and those fields have different pay scales. Someone like me in social work, doesn’t get paid as much as someone in the sciences and I’m in a female dominated profession.

                      Is the congress thing because more men than women are running or is it just mysoginy at work? Ate there no other factors? Are women prohibited from running?

                      I hope America elects a woman but it hasn’t been very long since they were allowed to vote or take part in the election process. Like I said, feminism was successful on that front and course is being corrected.

                      I highly doubt there is a cultural attitude that says women aren’t to be protected under the same laws as men. That sounds ridiculous to me.

                      What laws aren’t practiced?

                      Yes, a person was racist and didn’t hire someone. That’s individual. To be systemic, it would have to be supported by the system. Segregation was systemic for example.

                      And yes, I think it’s to prevent dissent in Sarkeesians case. She as much as said so in her case to the UN.

                      You have continually dodged FGM. That’s a female issue. Why aren’t mainstream feminists outraged?

                      Of course feminists could care about both things but my point is they don’t. They spend 99% of their time on what I quoted in this post and hardly any on multilating genitals.

                      Why is that?

                      And as the murder to theft analogy, I can care about murder abd theft, but if I called myself a human rights activist and spent almost all my time on thefts while ignoring the murders, I’d be a poor advocate. If I then only protected women or men who were victims of theft, I’d be an even worse advocate.

                      No one said women can’t stand up for themselves. I’m saying they are doing so poorly and that as an Egalitarian, I can stand up for women’s rights along with every other person regardless of whether they are women or men.

                    • You and I are probably not going to agree about this.

                      I can be a member of the Children’s Advocacy, a feminist organization, and a neighborhood crime watch. I can do all of those things equally well, even if their focus is on different things. Just because I write an article today about a feminist issue doesn’t mean I don’t care and might write an article tomorrow about inequality for homosexuals. That’s what I don’t think you are understanding.

                      Yes, some people find a cause to champion because they find they can accomplish more if they focus on a singular issue. That doesn’t make them ineffective.

                      You seem to be suggesting that feminism has done it’s job and that women need to just be quiet and go about their business, unless it’s for a cause you happen to find worthy.

                      Are you a member of such an Egalitarian group? Is there a movement for such? Do you have a link to this Egalitarian group?

                    • Fair enough.

                      No egalitarianism isn’t a group. It’s a way of seeing things. I don’t do groups well. I have supported feminist groups, breast cancer awareness walks etc.

                      And no, I don’t think anyone should be quiet and go about their business. If anything, I think we should talk more. That’s what this blog is about.

                      But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with feminism as a movement or not criticise what I see as an injustice and attempts to silence criticism through the UN.

                      It’s a two way street. I’ll never demand feminists be quiet. And yeah, I do think they throw around buzzwords and in many cases (although not all) I disagree with things they say.

                    • I know that egalitarianism isn’t a group. I just thought you might be starting one up. 😉

                      People establish and join groups because they find they can accomplish things in a group that they probably wouldn’t be able to individually, if they are passionate enough about what the group’s agenda is.

                      No, you don’t have to agree with feminism, and you’ve clearly proven you can criticize it. But you are criticizing them for something(not being vocal enough about FGM), when you don’t really seem that concerned by it except as a means to criticize feminism because you disagree with Sarkeesian’s attempt to silence her critics.

                      If feminism is designed to be a voice for women’s issues I’m not at all surprised that you disagree with things they say.

                      I realize that, as a writer, I will and have gotten criticism(SOM is never short on it). None of the criticism I have received has ever reached the level of threats of rape, bodily harm, or death. I hope it never comes to that. If it does, I hope I’m protected under the law. In the case of Quinn, though, we find out how difficult that can be. Frankly, no one should be threatening anyone like that.

                    • We completely agree on threats of violence not being okay.

                      No, I talked about other parts besides FGM in the post. Like the religious-like talk, buzzwords, saying that white women were an issue etc. I could do more but length prevents me. I don’t like making posts super long. But I’ll tackle whatever. Do you have a suggestion?

                      Are you implying that because they are voicing women’s issues and since Im a man I’ll not agree? Because that’s not true. I disagree on things because of their merits and how persuasive I find their arguments. It has nothing to do with whether a male or female says it.

                      Like I said, I don’t do groups. I fund causes. I don’t like being lumped in with a group and tend not to identify as a label.

                    • Regarding the threats of violence. I do see violence threatened toward men. But it’s typically not women doing the threatening. And I don’t ever see men threating to rape or wishing rape upon men. You sited an example of the male prison population. You can post the stats or not, but we both know that kind of skews the numbers. Men rape other men in prison because they are a) exhibiting their dominance over the other men and b)there aren’t any women to rape. We both know that rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power. And we both know that in the general population men raping other men isn’t the norm. The sheer fact that there are more men in all male prisons doesn’t change the nature of those men.

                      No, I talked about other parts besides FGM in the post. Like the religious-like talk, buzzwords, saying that white women were an issue etc.

                      I went to the article you linked. That looks like an article from one woman’s perspective and, frankly, I didn’t agree with everything in that article. I’ve come from a super religious organization so I tend to avoid anything that sounds religious-like. I googled ‘Feminism Now’ and couldn’t find a link to an actual organization called that. All the links I posted in reply to you are what I found.

                      I’m white and I’m a woman. I can acknowledge that I have privilege. I do not feel guilty for being white or for having that privilege. I’ve never thought anyone was trying to make me feel guilty over that. I’ve always understood that people who aren’t white would like to enjoy those same privileges. I don’t begrudge them that. I would like for them to enjoy those privileges, too. I’d have to be blind not to see that these things exist.

                      No, I’m not implying that because they are voicing women’s issues and you’re a man that you won’t agree. You will agree with what you agree with. I’m simply saying that, women experience some issues that because you are a man you might not understand, like the pink tax. You might think that’s a ridiculous notion(I’m not saying you do). And I think that we all have biases.

                      Of course there are always going to be things that certain people or groups argue for that seem petty. Within feminism there are all sorts of opinions and disagreements about what even constitutes feminism. So, a man is definitely not going to agree with everything he hears or sees coming out of Feminsim as a Movement.

        • Ruth,

          If your supervisors were abusive to you, a woman, you can bet they were abusive to their male employees also.

          A$$holes are A$$holes.

          It’s a unisex thing, don’t you know.

          Fortunately, for women, sexual harassment is against the law.

          Men on the other hand, just have to fend for themselves.

    • You think women don’t do that to men either?

      I’m the only man in my agency where I live and believe me they do.

      Men are also conditioned to compete with other males.

      Mysoginy exists usually on sn individual level here. It’s sanctioned by law some places.

      I’m not saying we can’t work on unequal treatment here and abroad but there is very little being done abroad and the movement looks more cult like by the day.

    • Ruth, you will always come across this type of man. This is because man is a predator in animalistic terms and control of this behaviour is more difficult for some men. Society tells men it is wrong and most of them comply by these rules, however you will always find a devil in a nunnery

      • If it’s natural why are you putting it in air quotes?

        Women don’t “naturally” decide they want to look like Victoria’s Secret models. The want to look like that because that’s what they believe men want. In every culture and in every era there have been cultural norms of what men found attractive. Women are conditioned such that being a wife and a mother are the things that make her valuable, thus she needs to be attractive in order to accomplish that. Men are similarly conditioned that they need to be strong and be providers. That is the the thing that gives them value.

        Let me be VERY clear. I’m not saying that men are bad. I’m saying that we operate under a cultural system of gender norms that were established way, way, way before any of us were ever even born. That’s not saying that men are bad, bad, bad. That’s saying that the only way to change that system is to buck against it. But if men and women just keep on saying, “That’s just the way it naturally is,” nothing changes. And the fact of the matter is, some people don’t want that change. They’re perfectly happy with the status quo. They go about their business never even thinking about it, or assuming it’s only natural. It isn’t.

            • That was interesting.

              I think he ignores how gender norms hurts women as well. They can be brutal to each other and he dismisses this to target male norms.

              I think there are norms on both sides that are harmful.

              Anecdotally, I think he’s wrong about services to help boys. There are far more that help young women. Trying to find shelter or help for a male is significantly harder than for a female when I worked with teens.

              He doesn’t really offer a solution though. Does he think we should all adopt female norms? Or what norms specifically does he want to change and how does he propose doing it?

              Thanks for the link!

              • I don’t think he was ignoring how gender norms hurt women. That issue is pretty much front and center of the feminist movement. I think he was attempting to address a specific topic because the ways that gender norms are harmful to men don’t get as much attention and aren’t fleshed out as loudly as the ways it is harmful to women.

                I didn’t read him to say that there are bucket loads of services to help boys, just the feminist movement has been instrumental and invaluable in establishing what services there are to help boys. And the work’s not done. I’m pretty sure he made that point.

                I thought he was pretty clear about the solution he was proposing. Reconstructing what masculinity even means. No, he wasn’t suggesting at.all. that men should adopt female norms. He was suggesting that there What the hell is normal, anyway?

                I’m not sure about you, but when I was growing up boys were told not to cry when they were hurt. “Walk it off,” “Shake it off,” “Be a big boy, now.” Boys are discouraged from playing with dolls, the color pink, basically anything that is traditionally considered girly. Boys are ridiculed for showing emotion. They are admonished to “man up”. The opposite is true for girls. We are conditioned from an early age what things are for boys/men and what things are for girls/women. What if we just let kids be kids?

                As Ark mentioned before, men who enter certain professions – hairdresser, interior design, nursing – or who display tenderness are viewed as effeminate and called that as pejorative. As if being “like a girl” is somehow the most horrific thing. The opposite is true of women. Women who enter traditionally male professions, especially manual labor – equipment operators, mechanics, electrician, plumbing – are called “butch”. As if there is something fundamentally wrong with her.

                Identifying patriarchy is absolutely not an effort to lay blame nor to cast victimhood. Feminism isn’t about being a whiny baby who is perpetually victimized. Feminism is about identifying a problem and addressing it. If anything, I was a victim before I identified with feminism. Feminism has given women AND men the framework and the means by which to effect change.

                • “I don’t think he was ignoring how gender norms hurt women.”

                  Just read it again and he doesn’t mention any norms that are specifically female. Just men. The title specifically just mentions masculinity and ignores femininity altogether. So I think it fair to say that he attacks masculine gender roles and ignores female gender roles.

                  In fact he says: Let’s call a spade a spade: As it currently exists, masculinity is fundamentally an expression of patriarchal oppression.

                  And ignores female gender roles. In fact, he’s basically saying all men by their very nature are helping to oppress all women, painting all men to be the bad guy and all women to be the victim, which just isn’t true.

                  His entire article is based around changing what it ‘means’ to be a man.

                  ” I think he was attempting to address a specific topic because the ways that gender norms are harmful to men don’t get as much attention and aren’t fleshed out as loudly”

                  Ruth, you can’t be serious. There are thousands upon thousands of links to patriarchy theory and how men are violent and how societal norms are part of the problem. Feminism is partly responsible for this and since modern feminism is largely based on the patriarchy theory of men oppressing women, who do you think they are going to focus much of their time trying to change? Does the oppressed have to change the oppressor or would the oppressor sit around trying to think of ways to change the oppressed?

                  An oppressor by the very power dynamic you’re describing, wouldn’t need to change.

                  “I didn’t read him to say that there are bucket loads of services to help boys, just the feminist movement has been instrumental and invaluable in establishing what services there are to help boys.”

                  No. How do you know this? Why would an organization that views men as oppressors help boys over girls? Why do you suppose only feminists could help create shelters and services that help young people?

                  “I thought he was pretty clear about the solution he was proposing. Reconstructing what masculinity even means.”

                  But how? He never says.

                  I do agree that some of those norms are harmful to men.

                  “As if being “like a girl” is somehow the most horrific thing. The opposite is true of women. Women who enter traditionally male professions, especially manual labor – equipment operators, mechanics, electrician, plumbing – are called “butch”.

                  Exactly. It’s the same either way. That’s equality and it highlights how humans are prone to tribalism.

                  I’m in one such profession and in fact, some people won’t let a man work with certain clients because they are men. I work with a lady who has never had a male worker because her mother never allowed it and she’s in her 50’s, but through hard work and showing people that just because I was a man didn’t mean I was a monster, I now work with her. It’s these kinds of boundaries equality of opportunity help break down.

                  “Identifying patriarchy is absolutely not an effort to lay blame nor to cast victimhood. Feminism isn’t about being a whiny baby who is perpetually victimized.”

                  Absolutely it is. In a society where you legally have the same opportunities as a man, but that paints men as an overriding oppressor, which makes women necessary victims to be oppressed and who are oppressed whether they know it or not, you’re saying you’re a victim and perpetually victimized.

                  “Feminism has given women AND men the framework and the means by which to effect change. ”

                  With no goals or direction and the movement labels anyone who brings up an issue contrary to their agenda as haters or MRA’s or rape apologists and so forth. Honestly I’m not even sure why being interested in men’s rights issues is bad, since feminism is the same thing but focused on women, which is why I think focusing on equality is more important than gender politics.

                  Sort of like the ‘we believe survivors campaign’. When people point out (rightly) that we have a fairly good justice system (not perfect by any means) that is fundamentally based on innocent until proven guilty, some feminists go absolutely crazy and start calling them rape apologists. Imagine a system that you’re guilty until proven innocent. Justice would be incidental.

                  • Either I can’t speak plain English or you can’t read plain English. Nothing in your rebuttals even is remotely close to anything I said. And our understandings of the patriarchal system and feminism are completely different. And I don’t think there’s anything I could say to mitigate that.

                    I don’t really care if you call yourself a feminist or not. But you seemed pretty confident in your position that feminism is obsolete and that it shouldn’t even exist anymore.

                    Tell me, other than you flawed view that feminism is about blaming men and creating perpetual victims, how does feminism oppress you?

                    • I quoted everything you said and replied directly to what you said.

                      What is your version of patriarchy?

                      I do think it’s dying out but that remains to be seen. I think people are waking up to the SJW agenda in particular, and feminism just happens to be a sing of it.

                      I mentioned how it attempted to oppress with gamergate and the UN. There’s two examples.

                      Gender politics are oppressive in my opinion because it places value on arbitrary things such as gender. We saw that in Canada recently. We see male suicide rates skyrocketing and people shamed if they bring it up or any ‘male’ issue. We see people shamed constantly by feminists and SJWs because they disagree with their ideology etc.

                    • For example, here’s Bell Hooks’ definition of patriarchy in her own words:

                      Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the
                      right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.

                      How do you read that and not see that males are portrayed (she doesn’t say individual males but males in general and we all know how generalizations go) as the oppressor and females as the oppressed victim class?

                      This is what is being touted about by feminists today as truth.

                      “Tell me, other than you flawed view that feminism is about blaming men and creating perpetual victims”

                      Flawed how? It’s right there in Bell Hooks’ words. She blames men and a system created and continually perpetuated by men. How can that be construed as anything other than blaming men?

          • I was short on time when replying to you before so I dropped an article in about Coco Chanel. Chanel is still a brand, regardless of Coco’s death, and her impact is long and lasting.

            So here goes:

            A) The very article you linked to does not say that Donatella Versace is in the top two fashion designers in the world. It lists a top 50. She’s number 5.

            Given that:

            -most of the fashion in the world is directed at women, wouldn’t you think that there would be more than sixteen women represented in the top 50?

            Now, you ask the question, “wouldn’t it be more productive to request their help in promoting the changes you desire?”

            What changes is it you think I desire? Donna Karan, who calls herself a feminine humanist, has served feminism well. She had an ad campaign in the 90’s that featured a woman in a power suit being sworn in as president of the United States. In the 90’s it was a joke to even think a woman might be president.

            Furthermore, feminism as a movement does seek to influence cultural norms up to and including fashion. What is it that you think the feminist movement does? Of course they are enlisting the help of fashion designers. Here’s an article published just this month discussing and/or debating whether fashion can ever truly be feminist. Influencing fashion design is not something I could ever even hope to do on my own as an individual. A group, however, provides leverage, which is why most people join a group.

            The thing is, fashion isn’t just about clothes. It’s about style and it’s about attitude.

            Contrary to, what seems to be, popular opinion, feminists do not wish to become men or be like men in any other way except value. We want to have equal value with men. We are not trying to turn men into women, either.

            What we seek is for both sexes to be able to give full expression to who they are.

            • To my knowledge, there is no artificial barrier to the fashion design industry. If you’re deemed good, you rise to the top, as evidenced by the women who have done just that.

              I asked because you wrote:

              “Women don’t ‘naturally’ decide they want to look like Victoria’s Secret models. The want to look like that because that’s what they believe men want.”

              …which may very well be true. But who is propagating those beliefs? Isn’t it the fashion and beauty magazines staffed by women? And more importantly, who is forcing women to act upon those beliefs?

              • Patriarchy isn’t a ‘who’; it’s a what… placing some measure of importance on gender as if that is an important distinction. That is what we are steeped in: assuming gender matters where it shouldn’t.

                The right question isn’t who exercises expressions of patriarchy; it’s why is gender still an important distinction in our culture? The culture – including women’s fashion magazines and all those who see them – is steeped in unnecessary gender divisions and all of us are subject to its presence and effects from birth. Language itself is a primary meme transfer machine for patriarchy. That means all of us partake in patriarchy when we act on the assumption that gender actually matters, actually carries with it certain connotations based on these assumptions, that gender is a legitimate factor when good reasons for the distinction are absent or insufficient, in activities and areas where gender has no good reason to be a tilting consideration… but is utilized by assuming it does matter. This is what needs dismantling: a systemic change based on challenging that assumption where present and a change that each of us helps to bring about at the personal level.

                • “That means all of us partake in patriarchy when we act on the assumption that gender actually matters”

                  I agree with this! Well…besides the patriarchy part but I agree with the sentiment, which is that placing value on something arbitrary and not the fault of the individual is wrong. Just like placing worth on someones skin color is wrong. It’s an arbitrary value much like gender.

                  Yet you argued that appointing people based on genitalia (an arbitrary value that shouldn’t be a consideration by your very own words here) is a good thing and continue to support a movement that by it’s very name supports gender division.

                  Do you not see the clash between what you’re saying here and what you actually want?

                • How can there be no ‘who’? Ideas by themselves possess no substance or agency; their actualization requires human actors. To fight oppression you must first identify your oppressor,and in many cases the greatest taskmaster is one’s own self.

                  “No power in society, no hardship in your condition can depress you, keep you down, in knowledge, power, virtue, influence, but by your own consent.”~William Ellery Channing

                  • You asked who was propagating those beliefs. I said it’s a ‘what’ in that patriarchy is systemic in things and not people… things like language, or a cabinet – a ‘what’ and not a ‘who’. The ‘who’ is all of us… especially true for those of us who go along with these imbalances and pretend addressing them concretely and imposing fairness is itself sexist. I know. Hard to imagine but there really are people like that! .

                    And only by becoming alerted and made aware – a job undertaken by those who claim membership with feminist ideals of establishing equality of opportunity – to a common expression of patriarchy – a gender imbalance as revealed by disparate rates (such as the significantly lower rate of women candidates running for public office) – can we then respond system wide with policies to address the particular systemic imbalance (like appointed gender parity for cabinet).

                    Of course, the move to gender parity is going to be attacked and demeaned by those who see their gender privilege as something worth defending.

                    • Your in group and out group tactics are amazing to behold. I love how you veil your remarks as if they aren’t about me. Lol.

                      Believe me. I have no gender privledge when it comes to cabinet. I’ll never be appointed and could care less who is there based on sex. If 80% were women, I couldn’t give a shit as long as they got there on merit not because they are a particular sex.

                      Only you are obsessed with arbitrary characteristics like gender and discrinating based on it.

  2. Just wanted to add that prominent feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian are actively trying to censor the internet. They literally went to the UN and said this:

    She defined this as not just the violence that the group has formed to combat, but also the “day-to-day grind of ‘You’re a liar,’ ‘You suck’ … making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos.”

    So because people voiced their displeasure over her content, she wants to shut them all up. This is what the modern feminism movement is wasting their time on.

    Yeah, if you post your opinions online, some people are going to say you suck or that you’re lying. That’s the nature of the internet and the free market of ideas.

  3. Patriarchy is very deeply entrenched in Western culture and throughout every institution of our societies. Combating it and making corrections is a Herculean task… not least of which is this practice of pointing out patriarchy in action is itself condemned as some version of sexism… but to not mention the ‘right’ abuses supposedly demonstrates sexist thinking. The blame for this operational double standard is not applied to those who benefit from patriarchy; it’s thrown at feminism as if it’s responsible!

    Damned if you do, damned it you don’t. That is merely one of the pernicious means by which feminism is undermined by those wide-eyed innocents claiming to support equality between the sexes.

    Gee, thanks for that ‘support’.

    This is what I’m inferring you’re doing from your post. For example, should I cast aspersions at your version of egalitarianism because you ‘failed’ to mention male genital mutilation? Should I hold your criticism as lacking merit because of this overt ‘failure’? Are your reasons for egalitarianism somehow now in question? See what I mean? It’s easy to shoot at stationary targets; it’s much more difficult to justify why you are targeting the movement of feminism when it is so obviously needed to identify and counterbalance systemic patriarchy in action.

    The world of men and the world of women are two very different worlds. They are not equal. They are not the same. From the moment of waking to the moment of falling asleep, men and women inhabit different worlds with different rules, different opportunities, different challenges, different threats, different treatment… but worlds that fundamentally privileges the male in both power and prestige. Seeing this fact is very difficult for most of us toddling along in our own concerns… a necessary insight made even more difficult when someone who points out an example of patriarchy is then vilified in some way for ‘doin-it rong’.

    Correcting at a minimum this misguided urge to vilify the characters or motives of the more vocal critics of patriarchy and, instead, listening to the raised voices in order to bear witness to them – while withholding judgement already skewed by patriarchal influences – is itself a very difficult first step.

    I know you’ll take great exception to me with this criticism, but I think your claim to prefer egalitarianism while shutting down the means for you to get there is hardly an auspicious beginning.

    • No man. I’m open to criticism and I don’t take exception to you for holding a different opinion than my own.

      I’ve in fact written about male circumcision on this blog as well. I’m not in favor. This also isn’t an egalitarian blog focused on that. If it were, I would definitely have wording in my goals section about both female and male circumcision. However, you will notice it missing from a site expressly made to protect female rights.

      Second, you spew buzzwords like patriarchy about but never say what this is. You then say that if I disagree with your throwing that wird around, I’m being influenced by this patriarchy and so can never understand.

      Sounds religious to me. Like dogma that shields itself from criticism. The same as god believers will tell me that proof of their deity is all around me and I can’t understand it because I’ve not been blessed by a holy spirit.

      Point me towards systemic patriarchy – one that is systemic in the West. I can think of only one and that’s maternity leave in the US. Other Western countries have maternity leave but that could be argued to be a systemic oppression of women rooted in the system of laws.

      It should also be modernized.

      Other than that, what is there?

        • Fear from sexual assault is codified in law and promoted by our system making it systemic in nature?

          Don’t think so.

          If you count prison populations, more men than women are raped annually. Think they fear sexual assault or are they cool with it?

          Pretty much everyone fears sexual assault. Hell, I don’t want to be assaulted either.

          • Well, it is systemic in that neither the law nor any institution has tackled this problem but the opposite: they have helped to promote and maintain systemic fear from sexual assault. Put another way, would men tolerate a sexual predator environment and all its avenues of maintaining it if they were the prey? Would men tolerate so many judges blaming them for ‘enticing’ sexual assault or would they demand that the law against such assaults be systemically enforced?

            I don’t think so. But check it out for yourself: ask a woman how she feels walking down a street, any street any time of day. Now ask a man. Those two answers are worlds apart. And they are apart because somehow it’s okay and ‘natural’ for a woman to have to always be aware of her personal security against sexual assault. In contrast, you almost never have to even think about it.

            Do you think about sexual assault every time you get dressed or undressed? Does the horror genre kill of men every time they have sex in the plot?

            Do you automatically evaluate all others on their potential of assaulting you in a sexual nature – at home when you answer the door, at work when you enter a room, at a restaurant or theater or store? Do you try to park your car according to your (not your car’s) physical security, choose your exercise paths running or biking based on staying in sight of others in public places… I mean the list is freaking endless so pervasive is the attention to personal security from sexual assault every woman has to live by.

            Are you whistled at most times you walk down a street, accosted by cat calls on a hot day if you’re wearing something ‘revealing’, women asking you for sexual access most time you venture into public, women you don’t know and in public places inappropriately touching you, invading your personal space in sexually suggestive ways, inappropriately reminding you that you are a male and worth their unwanted sexual attention… and then insulted if you demur?

            This is not your world and you know almost nothing about it except in a generic sense. Have more than half of your male friends been sexually assaulted? Do other men give you advice on avoiding attracting the ‘wrong’ kind of aggressive female? Do other men criticize your hair and makeup for its effect on women?

            You – like most men – knwo very little about what it’s like to be immersed in such a sexualized world every moment of every day of your life where you are held equally accountable by laws that supposedly ‘protect’ you for the unwanted sexual attention and actions of others as you are criticized for not being attractive enough, not doing more to make yourself both more and less attractive all the time, shown in every media why you are a sexual person first and everything else after. This is not your world. But it is one small part of the patriarchy world, a world that exists and from which you are privileged simply by the nature of your gender not to have to live in.

        • @Tildeb

          Absolutely. The experience in society of women and men are so drastically different.

          Look at Kelly Oxford’s twitter feed – a million women sharing their stories of sexual assault.

          This is what rape culture is, this is what patriarchy does to women. Not ‘seeing’ rape culture is a choice – similar to the blinders the climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, and of course the religiously deluded share.

          • Yes, it’s the same method employed to protect a preferred belief – especially used for denialism – from having to account for a body of correlated contrary data, as in… “I can use this one particular example that fits my belief to show I’m being reasonable discarding and denying all rate data contrary to it.”

            The evidence for disparity between a belief and reality is revealed by the unexplained rates of disparity and not the cherry picked particulars.

            And the hardest part is to get the denier to see what it is they are doing, for no matter how much rate evidence is brought to bear , the disparity is relegated to be less convincing then the one particular that fits the belief.

            This tactic is a failure of epistemology – because the particulars never address why the rate of disparity is central to the issue – and it is the smoking gun feature to identifying denialism in action.

            GC is exercising denialism about why feminism is a justified movement in need of further support: because there are still rates of gender disparity. That claim of being a denialist in and of itself should be shocking to GC and initiate a complete do-over in approach to the issue. But I suspect – like most denialists – the problem is with those who ‘mistakenly’ empower feminism because he believes there’s no need because of this particular and that one. In the vernacular, he thinks the lipstick of the particulars is sufficient to change the nature of the rate disparity pig.

      • @Godless Cranium

        “Second, you spew buzzwords like patriarchy about but never say what this is.”

        Well a few places to start would be the quick patriarchy primer available at The Nation, and of course bell hooks work – Understanding Patriarchy.

        The definition of patriarchy from the second link – “Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the
        right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”

        “You then say that if I disagree with your throwing that wird around, I’m being influenced by this patriarchy and so can never understand.”

        Were you there for the evolution from single celled organisms to slimemold (gross simplification)? Ah-ha! you can’t see it, therefore it didn’t happen! Checkmate atheist!

        Well, as a reasonable atheist, one might parlay that particular argumentative dead end by pointing to the various results, effects, and evidence to the contrary that supports the idea that evolution is a fact (as best we know) and that first hand knowledge, although not possible, isn’t necessary for a statement to be true.

        In this thread, you have Ruth describing what is life is like for females under patriarchy. This stuff isn’t directly happening to you, but because it isn’t, does it make it less valid?

        “Sounds religious to me. Like dogma that shields itself from criticism. The same as god believers will tell me that proof of their deity is all around me and I can’t understand it because I’ve not been blessed by a holy spirit.”

        What this sounds like is the olde story of a person searching for his keys inside the illuminated boundaries of a streetlight. Said person is most definitely sure that there are no keys to be found within the limits of his perception. Is it wise to conclude that since the keys are not within the lighted boundary, they must be lost forever?

        Your current position on patriarchy resembles the aforementioned story. Patriarchy is the air we breathe, the toxic soup we swim in as a society. Precisely because it is so normalized in society it can be hard to see to those who are not being damaged directly by it. Consider the analog of race – in many North American societies it is easier to exist in society for possessing a particular colour of skin. People who benefit, indirectly or directly from this discrepancy, are often unaware of how the system favours them.

        bell hooks does a much better job of explaining patriarchy than, further to that point, reading her article would be most beneficial in understanding what patriarchy is and how it affects us all.

  4. Pingback: Answering The Criticism On My Feminism Post: Part 1 | Godless Cranium

  5. Dead on! Me as a woman still argue that I see no wage gap! I ask men and women give me a case! One that has all the same variables….grrr. I could cover all your points and give kudos for each! Well done great read!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s