I don’t think there’s much ground to disagree or misunderstand on my first statement - feminism, by its very name and definition, is a movement of women (fem-) against gendered oppression of women (misogyny, a form of sexism). The umbrella term is antisexism, which covers all kinds of sexism and includes feminism, masculism and, arguably, movements for the rights of nonbinary people. As per personal opinions, I strongly prefer a united antisexist front that could tackle the issues from both sides, and find the rest highly unproductive and divisive.
rather specific point of view
Exactly. And a very narrow one at that. Feminism is a movement driven by women, and, first and foremost, it takes into account the experiences of women. Trying to solve two-sided gendered issues only from the feminist angle is like taking masculist theory and trying to explain everything stemming from experiences of men.
Feminists do critique uneven pay, which I did mention. They do care about financial independence. However, they do not actively combat the issue beyond this point - it’s not a feminist problem when a man is still expected to provide a higher income, even when a woman is able to pay for herself. By essentially omitting this angle, feminists miss out on one of the key pieces behind why men are more likely to get a higher office. This very expectation of needing to spend more drives more men into high-earning careers, and, on the other end, in some cases they are more likely to be promoted exactly because they are commonly seen as main providers, and so it is recognized they need it more.
My problem is that feminism here is wrapped in a foil that disguises it for some sort of men’s movement, which might be enticing for some and gets some people engaged into genuinely believing feminism is the ultimate answer to sexism, for men and women. I have witnessed some of the more aggressive overtakings of the Internet spaces by some of the feminists, and believe this is one of the ultimate manifestations of a broken antisexist movement. The result? Men have little to no say in the wider antisexist movement that is now almost unilaterally feminist, and many of those silenced turn to patriarchy instead. Good job.
I’m searching for someone who, like me, still believes in that an antisexist movement should be united. I am feminist in the sense of “women should get all the practical and real rights men have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”, and I am masculist in the sense of “men should get all the practical and real rights women have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”. And I don’t believe either is worth a dime without the other.
I don’t think there’s much ground to disagree or misunderstand on my first statement - feminism, by its very name and definition, is a movement of women (fem-) against gendered oppression of women (misogyny, a form of sexism). The umbrella term is antisexism, which covers all kinds of sexism and includes feminism, masculism and, arguably, movements for the rights of nonbinary people. As per personal opinions, I strongly prefer a united antisexist front that could tackle the issues from both sides, and find the rest highly unproductive and divisive.
Exactly. And a very narrow one at that. Feminism is a movement driven by women, and, first and foremost, it takes into account the experiences of women. Trying to solve two-sided gendered issues only from the feminist angle is like taking masculist theory and trying to explain everything stemming from experiences of men.
Feminists do critique uneven pay, which I did mention. They do care about financial independence. However, they do not actively combat the issue beyond this point - it’s not a feminist problem when a man is still expected to provide a higher income, even when a woman is able to pay for herself. By essentially omitting this angle, feminists miss out on one of the key pieces behind why men are more likely to get a higher office. This very expectation of needing to spend more drives more men into high-earning careers, and, on the other end, in some cases they are more likely to be promoted exactly because they are commonly seen as main providers, and so it is recognized they need it more.
My problem is that feminism here is wrapped in a foil that disguises it for some sort of men’s movement, which might be enticing for some and gets some people engaged into genuinely believing feminism is the ultimate answer to sexism, for men and women. I have witnessed some of the more aggressive overtakings of the Internet spaces by some of the feminists, and believe this is one of the ultimate manifestations of a broken antisexist movement. The result? Men have little to no say in the wider antisexist movement that is now almost unilaterally feminist, and many of those silenced turn to patriarchy instead. Good job.
I’m searching for someone who, like me, still believes in that an antisexist movement should be united. I am feminist in the sense of “women should get all the practical and real rights men have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”, and I am masculist in the sense of “men should get all the practical and real rights women have, and should get a say in all spheres of life”. And I don’t believe either is worth a dime without the other.