Is feminism inherently negative?

[Shaihulud]

Show me the data.
Last time I saw the statistics, both sexes were equally good.
Of course, that is discounting such pages as "End Violence Against Women" and "Men's Liberation Movement".

Since you have decided to call me out. Heres some statistic from the U.S Department of Justice You will see that victim is usually the female, by a large margin. Just a cursory look at the facts, a deeper search would turn up more infromation.

 

[Brighteye]

Well, despite feminism, its still a "mans" world out there. Look at the corporate world, its men who rule the roost. Men dominate the political world...

If it really is a man's world, why is it surprising that men dominate it?
The competitive nature of the corporate (especially banking) world suits some people more than others, and it so happens that these people happen to be men far more than women.
Yes, it means that men earn more and dominate these areas. It also means that women can safely say that they, as a group, do not tend to have the unpleasant characteristics that make some men so good at these jobs.

It's a cut-throat, smarmy, networking world.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The more I read about this ideology, the more I come to the conclusion that feminism is, at least today, inherently negativist, based on negation and not affirmation, and in general anti-life. A devout feminist is incapable of a normal relationship with a man, or with her society, and is incompatible with the family unit.

I have to agree.

Feminism was once a force for good. There was even a time when men joined feminist movements because it was thought that it would liberate everyone from their constricted gender roles, including men. Since about 1970, when nearly all of feminism's original goals were achieved in the US, it's degenerated into granting women priviledges above that of men, rather than equality with men. The catch-phrase now is to "have it all", which means to have your cake and eat it too. Ironically, none of men's traditional gender roles have been removed. Men are still expected to be providers and the active partners in relationships, but women are not expected to give anything in return, as had been in the past. Even the application of the law has shifted to account for women as victimized, even though their opportunities are no worse than men's, and possibly better.

 

[Civrules]

If there was a book called "Women are Easy"...

Quite the difference, eh?

 

[mdwh]

I don't think there is anything wrong with feminism - the problem is a minority of women who use "feminism" to push their viewpoints which often have nothing to do with equal rights, and anyone who opposes them is branded as "hating women" or "supporting the patriarchy".

There seems to be an inability by them to distinguish between "it's wrong if women are expected/forced to do this" and "women should never do this". So it's not just that a woman being expected to look after the kids is wrong (which I'd agree is wrong), it's that it's wrong *even if she chooses to do it*.

This applies in other areas too - mostly notably porn (it's wrong, and women shouldn't be allowed to choose to be in it, gay porn is wrong because it still "supports the male-dominant role with another man taking on the female role", and some even hate private images that are never published), as well as other things like BDSM (obviously a woman could never choose to be submissive, and if a woman is the dominant one, she's only forced into it by the submissive man, and gay relationships are still bad). I also dislike the transphobic attitude that some have (male-to-female transsexuals are men pretending to be women, whilst female-to-male transsexuals are somehow betraying their gender or are supporting the patriarchy).

It's sad that these extremist attitudes give feminism and the issue of women's rights as a whole a bad name.

There are however plenty of feminists who oppose these attitudes - but even they get accused of "supporting the patriarchy" and "hating women", and told they can't possibly be feminists! One of my feminist friends is currently receiving all sorts of abuse for running a workshop discussing BDSM and porn - it's quite scary to see how extremist and vicious their hatred is...

 

[Grisu]

I get the feeling that I live in a parallel universe from many of you. I for one can't see where us poor men are opressed because we have to do it all, while women get all the nice things.

the vast majority of feminists I know are very reasonable people who just want to remove the remains of sexual inequality. Sure there are always a few rabid, foaming at the mouth, man-hating extremists, but we just notice them because they are so vocal, not because they're a sizeable portion of the feminist movement.

The catch-phrase now is to "have it all", which means to have your cake and eat it too. Ironically, none of men's traditional gender roles have been removed. Men are still expected to be providers and the active partners in relationships, but women are not expected to give anything in return, as had been in the past.

where is that the case? I never noticed that I'm expected to be the provider in a relationship. Furthermore, studies show that even today, the majority of housekeeping is done by the women, even in relationships where both are working.

so to conclude, no I don't think that feminism is something inherently negative, au contraire, it's something mainly positive, that in a few misguided elements has become something negative.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Equality doesn't exist, so why do they strive for it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because it doesn't exist.

 

[silver 2039]

Things were better back when you could ride into a village carry off a woman on your horse and make her marry you. A pity those days have gone by.....

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

where is that the case? I never noticed that I'm expected to be the provider in a relationship. Furthermore, studies show that even today, the majority of housekeeping is done by the women, even in relationships where both are working.

That's what it's become in the U.S.. Women have gained the sense of entitlement that a man will come along to set them up for life, and they will not have to contribute in any way, or even treat their husbands well. Even in divorce, the wife will nearly always get 50% of a man's wealth, regardless of what she contributed to it, or whether she behaved disreputably during the marriage (ie. cheated, abused drugs, neglected children, etc). Culturally, men are portrayed on TV and film as fools who need a woman to rescue them. At the same time, there is a pervasive mentality that women are always the victims of a man's predation, even when a woman does wrong.

Let's face it: in the US these days, women are given a pass on so many things. I can't speak for Switzerland.

 

[Civrules]

Another bit of itneresting (actualy very interesting) information:

Research (see Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz - from 1978) indicates that men are abused at least as much by their wives. However it could actually be higher because men are afraid to call this stuff out.

Interesting, no? I was kind of shocked when I learned this.

 

[Grisu]

That's what it's become in the U.S.. Women have gained the sense of entitlement that a man will come along to set them up for life, and they will not have to contribute in any way, or even treat their husbands well. Even in divorce, the wife will nearly always get 50% of a man's wealth, regardless of what she contributed to it, or whether she behaved disreputably during the marriage (ie. cheated, abused drugs, neglected children, etc). Culturally, men are portrayed on TV and film as fools who need a woman to rescue them. At the same time, there is a pervasive mentality that women are always the victims of a man's predation, even when a woman does wrong.

Let's face it: in the US these days, women are given a pass on so many things. I can't speak for Switzerland.

that's not the impression I'm getting, granted I don't know the US society up close, but since you mentioned TV, we get the same shows as you got sure often women are displayed as the victims, but just as often they're displayed as a manipulating bastardette

as for the divorce, the same certainly isn't the case in Switzerland, usually (if you have no prenup), you get half of what he earned during marriage, while getting none of his pre-marriage wealth

Men are not expected to provide for their girls anymore, in fact today women are usually expected to be able to provide for themselves (one achievement of feminism, btw).

 

[Brighteye]

Culturally, men are portrayed on TV and film as fools who need a woman to rescue them. At the same time, there is a pervasive mentality that women are always the victims of a man's predation, even when a woman does wrong.

Let's face it: in the US these days, women are given a pass on so many things. I can't speak for Switzerland.

It's this that annoys me most: the growing stereotype of men as bumbling fools who need women to tell them what to do. At least when women are on adverts they get to be intelligent or beautiful, or both.
I was talking to some American girls a week or so ago, and they had been moaning about how all the English men at a bar had been dancing with each other rather than buying them drinks.
I mentioned that I had actually had girls buy me a drink at that bar (a good memory!), and they were shocked and outraged.
Do I detect a faint whiff of double standards?
No: it's a vile stench.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

that's not the impression I'm getting, granted I don't know the US society up close, but since you mentioned TV, we get the same shows as you got sure often women are displayed as the victims, but just as often they're displayed as a manipulating bastardette

This sort of attitude is reflected in society at large. Men can no longer act with moxy without being called bastards or a--holes.

as for the divorce, the same certainly isn't the case in Switzerland, usually (if you have no prenup), you get half of what he earned during marriage, while getting none of his pre-marriage wealth

That's exactly the same as in the U.S.. So you've just proven my point.

Statistics indicate that more than 70% of divorces are initiated by the wife, and the cause is not what you would think. It's not abuse, adultery, or spousal neglect. The cause is boredom, and it is most certainly the husband's fault.

Men are not expected to provide for their girls anymore, in fact today women are usually expected to be able to provide for themselves (one achievement of feminism, btw).

That's what's popularly stated, but it simply isn't the case. The reality is that American women are less inclined to work for themselves than a generation ago, knowing that they will snag a man who will do it for them. It seems all you do is repeat what you hear, without knowing first-hand. The last paragraph demonstrates your ignorance.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I was talking to some American girls a week or so ago, and they had been moaning about how all the English men at a bar had been dancing with each other rather than buying them drinks.
I mentioned that I had actually had girls buy me a drink at that bar (a good memory!), and they were shocked and outraged.
Do I detect a faint whiff of double standards?
No: it's a vile stench.

That's what you have to do these days. If you do things for a woman, she'll just take you for a sucker.

This goes back to what I said about traditional gender roles. Women are liberated from these roles but men never had a masculism movement (although some say it's coming). All the same obligations that we had 100 years ago are still with us today, but they are anachronisms because women don't have the obligations they had 100 years ago.

 

[Grisu]

This sort of attitude is reflected in society at large. Men can no longer act with moxy without being called bastards or a--holes.

of course we can't and I think that's a good thing.

That's exactly the same as in the U.S.. So you've just proven my point.

I most certainly did not. you said she gets half of his wealth, which is not the case. she only gets half of the wealth generated during the marriage, while getting none of his pre-marriage wealth, so marrying a rich guy won't benefit her directly. Personally I think it's fair that she gets half of what is generated during the marriage, since marriage is supposed to be a union of two people. Btw, it works the same way the other way around, the man gets half of the wealth the woman generated. so how are women treated better there?

That's what's popularly stated, but it simply isn't the case. The reality is that American women are less inclined to work for themselves than a generation ago, knowing that they will snag a man who will do it for them. It seems all you do is repeat what you hear, without knowing first-hand. The last paragraph demonstrates your ignorance.

Great way of debating, calling people who disagree with your world-view ignorant. I do know first hand, at least what concerns swiss society, and I seriously doubt that our societies are that different in this regard. Men certainly are not expected to provide for the women here. If, however, what you write in the last paragraph really is true (which I'm not quite prepared to accept), then it would be more proof that you guys just messed up your society, not feminism per se. Look at 'stereotypical' feminist societies like Sweden. They have probably the largest percentage of working women in the world.

 

[LucyDuke]

That's what's popularly stated, but it simply isn't the case. The reality is that American women are less inclined to work for themselves than a generation ago, knowing that they will snag a man who will do it for them. It seems all you do is repeat what you hear, without knowing first-hand. The last paragraph demonstrates your ignorance.

What reality is this that you're talking about? And what do you know first-hand? I really think you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[aussieboy]

The problem with this so-called 'feminism' is that it wants to stay there for all time. The leaders of the most extremist movements are like little Napoleons - they want to be remembered forever. Thus, even when their original goal has been practically fulfilled, they still want to be on the pedestal.

 

[Yuri2356]

I most certainly did not. you said she gets half of his wealth, which is not the case. she only gets half of the wealth generated during the marriage, while getting none of his pre-marriage wealth, so marrying a rich guy won't benefit her directly. Personally I think it's fair that she gets half of what is generated during the marriage, since marriage is supposed to be a union of two people. Btw, it works the same way the other way around, the man gets half of the wealth the woman generated. so how are women treated better there?

And suppose one of the partners generates no wealth during the marriage? Would they come out of a divorce with 0 loss?

 

[Grisu]

And suppose one of the partners generates no wealth during the marriage? Would they come out of a divorce with 0 loss?

I don't quite get what you're trying to say here. what is done is that the generated wealth is summed up and then halved. so if one generates nothing, he/she just gets half of the generated wealth of the other partner.