do you consider yourself a feminist?

[That Zephyr Guy]

Crap comparison. Religion can't be compared to a social movement.

It wasn't a comparison to the movements as a whole but to how people treat outliers.


You also seem to misunderstand my entire point. My point is that because people spend so much time bickering about whether egalatiarianism = feminism or not, they're taking away from the entire idea both movements stand for as a whole.

Of course it doesn't matter which people actually side on, it's just going to end up being more detrimental having this argument every time a group of extremists ruins the image for everybody else. This is where it takes time away from the actual movement - because when these people pop up, a whole new movement has to be created to differentiate from the crazies.

Regardless, we more or less believe the same thing so who cares in the end.

 

[Romaki]

Yeah, people misusing the term and extremists don't change the original meaning and purpose.

 

[Reindeer]

oh and the wage gap is real, it's called the glass ceiling soz

The glass ceiling is also complete bull. Equality does not mean equality of outcome, it means equality of opportunity. In western society, women have the same opportunities as men, and the only things that affect the outcome is their choices.

The wage gap argument was disproven because of several factors: men are more likely to ask for a raise, men are more likely to stay at work than go home to care for family (like, say, during a time of illness), men take fewer days off, men work more overtime, and so on. In this research following up the argument of there being a wage gap, they also proved that this is what's "keeping women back" - it's nothing to do with men going "ew they're women those are icky", because that literally does not happen (and it's illegal). What it has to do with is the choices that women make in regards to work.
So when person #1 and person #2 with the same resume apply for the same higher position, but the boss knows that person #2 is more likely to take time off, more likely to leave work to care for family, and other such things, then in the interest of having the position held by a person that is willing to work hard in it, the boss is going to give it to person #1, regardless of the sexes of the two candidates. It's economical common sense.

The whole question of why there is a "wage gap" or a "glass ceiling" has already been answered: there is none. The only way the outcome of individuals is affected is by the choices that individuals make. Unless you are going to tell women to start acting more like men, or men to act more like women, this is the best that is possible.
But if you are going to fight for more female CEO's or politicians or whatever, even when those women don't work in the same way their male counterparts do (or even have the same interests/knowhow for that matter), then you are asking for women to get special treatment. Apart from that, it's sexist, because it's saying that women are unable to achieve and hold these positions of their own accord.

 

[mogyay]

The glass ceiling is also complete bull. Equality does not mean equality of outcome, it means equality of opportunity. In western society, women have the same opportunities as men, and the only things that affect the outcome is their choices.

The wage gap argument was disproven because of several factors: men are more likely to ask for a raise, men are more likely to stay at work than go home to care for family (like, say, during a time of illness), men take fewer days off, men work more overtime, and so on. In this research following up the argument of there being a wage gap, they also proved that this is what's "keeping women back" - it's nothing to do with men going "ew they're women those are icky", because that literally does not happen (and it's illegal). What it has to do with is the choices that women make in regards to work.
So when person #1 and person #2 with the same resume apply for the same higher position, but the boss knows that person #2 is more likely to take time off, more likely to leave work to care for family, and other such things, then in the interest of having the position held by a person that is willing to work hard in it, the boss is going to give it to person #1, regardless of the sexes of the two candidates. It's economical common sense.

The whole question of why there is a "wage gap" or a "glass ceiling" has already been answered: there is none. The only way the outcome of individuals is affected is by the choices that individuals make. Unless you are going to tell women to start acting more like men, or men to act more like women, this is the best that is possible.
But if you are going to fight for more female CEO's or politicians or whatever, even when those women don't work in the same way their male counterparts do (or even have the same interests/knowhow for that matter), then you are asking for women to get special treatment. Apart from that, it's sexist, because it's saying that women are unable to achieve and hold these positions of their own accord.

society works in a way against women and that's why there's a wage gap and it's so frustrating when people can't even acknowledge that. editing out anything else i said cause i can't even cope with talking about this subject lol, it's too rage inducing.

 

[Red Cat]

But if you are going to fight for more female CEO's or politicians or whatever, even when those women don't work in the same way their male counterparts do (or even have the same interests/knowhow for that matter), then you are asking for women to get special treatment. Apart from that, it's sexist, because it's saying that women are unable to achieve and hold these positions of their own accord.

I want to respond to this paragraph because it highlights why there is a wage gap. You talk about women not working the same way men do as if masculine traits are the "default" and feminine traits are inferior when it comes to business. Being aggressive, taking risks, and working tons of hours are not always good traits and being compassionate, being more careful, and maintaining a good work/life balance are not bad traits. The reason why the former traits are often considered good and the latter are considered bad is because most major institutions are dominated by men, so they have a preference to hire and promote people who have the same traits as they do which means they usually hire and promote other men which creates a vicious cycle. Working 80 hours a week and getting only 3 hours of sleep per night is not a sign of commitment to your job, it's a sign of stupidity. That's why we had the financial collapse in 2008 and why most male-dominated governments are dysfunctional. Maybe our institutions would be a lot better if men learned to work more like women. There's nothing wrong with taking family leave when you have a child or valuing stability and cooperation over cutthroat competition. Studies have shown that these things make workers more productive and businesses more successful over the long run.

I believe feminism should be about getting people to acknowledge the real gender disparities in social, political, and economic and institutions make conscious efforts to interview, hire, and promote candidates who they would not normally look at. If an organization is 75% male and 25% female, it's hard to believe the organization when it says that it was just hiring the best people. What that really means is that the organization chose to hire based on a very narrow set of criteria and that organization needs to diversify to expand the criteria which candidates are considered under. Diversity is ultimately better than group-think.

 

[Reindeer]

I want to respond to this paragraph because it highlights why there is a wage gap. You talk about women not working the same way men do as if masculine traits are the "default" and feminine traits are inferior when it comes to business. Being aggressive, taking risks, and working tons of hours are not always good traits and being compassionate, being more careful, and maintaining a good work/life balance are not bad traits. The reason why the former traits are often considered good and the latter are considered bad is because most major institutions are dominated by men, so they have a preference to hire and promote people who have the same traits as they do which means they usually hire and promote other men which creates a vicious cycle. Working 80 hours a week and getting only 3 hours of sleep per night is not a sign of commitment to your job, it's a sign of stupidity. That's why we had the financial collapse in 2008 and why most male-dominated governments are dysfunctional. Maybe our institutions would be a lot better if men learned to work more like women. There's nothing wrong with taking family leave when you have a child or valuing stability and cooperation over cutthroat competition. Studies have shown that these things make workers more productive and businesses more successful over the long run.

I believe feminism should be about getting people to acknowledge the real gender disparities in social, political, and economic and institutions make conscious efforts to interview, hire, and promote candidates who they would not normally look at. If an organization is 75% male and 25% female, it's hard to believe the organization when it says that it was just hiring the best people. What that really means is that the organization chose to hire based on a very narrow set of criteria and that organization needs to diversify to expand the criteria which candidates are considered under. Diversity is ultimately better than group-think.

Men are not women, and women aren't men, and there is nothing wrong with either of them. You got that part right, but then your logic went astray.

First off, your comments on work hours are so richly American that they aren't even things I thought about during the writing of my post. We have very strict laws regarding the amount of hours worked per week, so that kind of overworking is simply not possible. Yet the same "disparity" phenomenon occurs here, for the very same reasons.
Saying that men should work like women is foolhardy. Especially when these men are able to spend time and care for their children and family as much as women are able to. It's also implying that women aren't capable of a dedicated work ethic, even when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Men shouldn't have to work like women, and women shouldn't have to work like men. Both should just be dedicated, and take responsibility for it when they are not. In the end, the latter is what such a discussion is about: whether we should absolve women of the responsibility of their choices.

Second, I question your definition of diversity. You seem to be thinking of diversity of thought, as you put "diversity" in contrast with "group-think", yet before that you strongly imply that it's impossible for a workplace that consists of 75% men and 25% women to be diverse. If a company should have general criteria of what kind of people would be good to hire, their sex should not matter. A company with diverse hiring criteria can very well still end up with 75% men, because it's not about what genitalia they have, but rather about their applicable knowledge and dedication.
This is why there is such a large number of women in healthcare institutions. Because on average, more women decide to go in that direction than men. These places hire the best workers they can, and so they end up with a lot of women and few men.

Should you really want to move towards workplaces to be 50% men and 50% women, as much as it is possible, you are in fact putting many men and women at a disadvantage, which means that there will be more inequality. A strong workforce consists of those that are most capable, and that's how people are being hired nowadays.

 

[Reindeer]

I want to respond to this paragraph because it highlights why there is a wage gap. You talk about women not working the same way men do as if masculine traits are the "default" and feminine traits are inferior when it comes to business. Being aggressive, taking risks, and working tons of hours are not always good traits and being compassionate, being more careful, and maintaining a good work/life balance are not bad traits. The reason why the former traits are often considered good and the latter are considered bad is because most major institutions are dominated by men, so they have a preference to hire and promote people who have the same traits as they do which means they usually hire and promote other men which creates a vicious cycle. Working 80 hours a week and getting only 3 hours of sleep per night is not a sign of commitment to your job, it's a sign of stupidity. That's why we had the financial collapse in 2008 and why most male-dominated governments are dysfunctional. Maybe our institutions would be a lot better if men learned to work more like women. There's nothing wrong with taking family leave when you have a child or valuing stability and cooperation over cutthroat competition. Studies have shown that these things make workers more productive and businesses more successful over the long run.

I believe feminism should be about getting people to acknowledge the real gender disparities in social, political, and economic and institutions make conscious efforts to interview, hire, and promote candidates who they would not normally look at. If an organization is 75% male and 25% female, it's hard to believe the organization when it says that it was just hiring the best people. What that really means is that the organization chose to hire based on a very narrow set of criteria and that organization needs to diversify to expand the criteria which candidates are considered under. Diversity is ultimately better than group-think.

Men are not women, and women aren't men, and there is nothing wrong with either of them. You got that part right, but then your logic went astray.

First off, your comments on work hours are so richly American that they aren't even things I thought about during the writing of my post. We have very strict laws regarding the amount of hours worked per week, so that kind of overworking is simply not possible. Yet the same "disparity" phenomenon occurs here, for the very same reasons.
Saying that men should work like women is foolhardy. Especially when these men are able to spend time and care for their children and family as much as women are able to. It's also implying that women aren't capable of a dedicated work ethic, even when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Men shouldn't have to work like women, and women shouldn't have to work like men. Both should just be dedicated, and take responsibility for it when they are not. In the end, the latter is what such a discussion is about: whether we should absolve women of the responsibility of their choices.

Second, I question your definition of diversity. You seem to be thinking of diversity of thought, as you put "diversity" in contrast with "group-think", yet before that you strongly imply that it's impossible for a workplace that consists of 75% men and 25% women to be diverse. If a company should have general criteria of what kind of people would be good to hire, their sex should not matter. A company with diverse hiring criteria can very well still end up with 75% men, because it's not about what genitalia they have, but rather about their applicable knowledge and dedication.
This is why there is such a large number of women in healthcare institutions. Because on average, more women decide to go in that direction than men. These places hire the best workers they can, and so they end up with a lot of women and few men.

Should you really want to move towards workplaces to be 50% men and 50% women, as much as it is possible, you are in fact putting many men and women at a disadvantage, which means that there will be more inequality. A strong workforce consists of those that are most capable, and that's how people are being hired nowadays.

 

[Kristine015]

I don't know hi I think this is a far more complex issue/topic than it may actually seem. :-/ One thing for sure though you can't please everybody. I am just gotta stay neutral and say whatever float your boat

 

[oath2order]

I believe in equality between sexes but I don't call myself a feminist.

 

[Frostbite2002]

I believe fully in equality for both sexes, but I prefer not to call myself a feminist and yeah sure call me weak or whatever but it's because of all the extremists and of course, buzzfeed. I feel like feminism is treated more like a joke because of all the cringy videos that buzzfeed put up and because of tumblr. I would love to not act ashamed to be associated with the name but if the movement wants to be taken seriously and not just be laughed at, then all these extremists need to go, now. Also the misconception that men can't be feminists is silly, anyone who believes in equal rights for the sexes is allowed to be considered a feminist. This is a really complex and delicate subject so I'll just leave it there for now. In short, I would prefer not to use the term feminist for myself as it has mostly been turned into a joke, but if you would like to consider me as one, then I won't get mad or anything.

 

[hamster]

i'm not a feminist. it's not relevant anymore in western society. it feels like a wild ride of guilt tripping. "don't you believe in equality..?" "if you're not a feminist, that means you're sexist."

 

[Antonio]

I'm basically a egalitarian so no.

 

[kylie32123]

OH. MY. GOSH. LEAFY WHERE ARE YOU????

 

[nintendoanna]

OH. MY. GOSH. LEAFY WHERE ARE YOU????

leafy is still relevant?? yikes

 

[idiotdoomspiral]

yikes indeed


I wouldn't consider myself a feminist since I don't believe in many things they want to achieve since they rely on myths to get their way - they should take their concerns towards the Middle East. Feminism is cancer.

 

[seliph]

I'm not really sure.

I guess my beliefs are rather feminist and I think feminism is (mostly) a good thing, however I'd rather not call myself one. I don't really like calling myself anything political as it is but more importantly, my main reason I don't want the label is because of TERFs and how prominent white feminism is made to be over any other kind of feminism.

The abuse and bullying by TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, who are often also very homophobic/biphobic towards gay/bisexual men and to bisexual women for their attraction to men) that myself,a handful of close friends, and so many people in general have experienced makes me really reluctant to want to use the label "feminist" for myself.

Then there's the most popular form of feminism being white feminism, which is feminism which basically only benefits white middle-upper class women, usually from America. The type that are obsessed with the label "feminist" and tries to force people to use it rather than trying to actually help women and educate people on the good side of feminism. The type that thinks women wearing hijabs and burqas are "oppressed" and that showing your skin is the ultimate form of female empowerment. The type that sees women like Hillary Clinton and Lena Dunham as feminist icons. I'm not here for that.

So while sure I support feminism and have feminist ideals myself, and would I guess be technically feminist, I'd just really rather not use the term for myself.

 

[furbyq]

I consider myself a feminist in the most basic sense of what the word originally meant. Females being equal with males in every way. I haven't watched the buzzfeed videos but I've heard they were bad because they pander to the more extreme feminists who hate men. They're also usually TERFs and I hate TERFs.

 

[Buttonsy]

I definitely do consider myself one

I wouldn't judge feminism based on Buzzfeed since corporations pretty much are obligated to be marketable, what's good activism isn't always good clickbait y'know, like a lot of their feminism videos are good but some are flawed and in general, corporate feminism for profit shouldn't be compared to feminism out of passion

Also, as a non-binary person who is a feminist, on the whole clothes have no gender thing, they don't but there is such a hammering in of it in society that they do that it can be validating as a trans person to dress in the way expected of the gender you identify as, I don't specifically dress one way when I feel like a dude and one way when I feel like a girl buuuut I do kinda feel like dressing differently depending on my gender feelings. Clothes have no gender but when the toxic message that they do has been hammered into us for so long, it can still feel comforting and validating to dress the way associated our gender. Not only that, but a lot of trans people have been told so strongly to dress a certain way because of the gender that we are perceived as that it feels liberating to dress the exact opposite of that. At least that's my experience, there is no unanimous trans or non-binary experience.

And with reference to how no one can agree on anything, that's because there are so many different branches of feminism and so many different individuals in those branches, it's not like feminists are like... a big hivemind, we debate things a lot and some of us even hate other kinds of feminists, we all have different opinions and experiences and methods of trying to achieve equality.

 

[Limon]

I believe in equality in the sexes, but the current third way feminism I do not support. I guess I don't consider myself a feminist.

 

[zoetrope]

I absolutely consider myself a feminist.