• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is Modern Feminism about?

What is Modern Feminism


  • Total voters
    35
Let's hope so, Auntie. I've never known a person of quality who wanted any other than the same shot at success as everybody else.
 
One more thing. Rights movements have always been wrongheaded. Rights are simply rights and when one fights for rights they should do so universally. There is no reason for a womans right movement, LBGT movement, a civil rights movement, or even a mens rights movement. Fight for rights universally and forget this nonsense.
 
Feminism is not monlithic. There are lots of wildly differing people who all fit under the 'feminist' label, even if they violently disagree with one another. Some shout louder than others, but that doesn't indicate that they are representative of the whole.

Just off the top of my head...

Queer feminism, TERFs/RadFems (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminism), sex-positive feminists, anti-porn feminists, 'cupcake feminists'... and then most of you and me, who are (probably) feminist even if some of use reject the label.

The general collective link is a goal of equality between genders, which (I think undeniably) does not yet exist. But the range and extent of methods to tackle that problem is huge - from those who think the law is fine as it is and are content to leave things lie, to the RadFems who (ironically?) disagree with the notion of transgenderism because they see it as enforcing gender roles. Personally, I'd probably fall somewhere inbetween the two :p
 
One more thing. Rights movements have always been wrongheaded. Rights are simply rights and when one fights for rights they should do so universally. There is no reason for a womans right movement, LBGT movement, a civil rights movement, or even a mens rights movement. Fight for rights universally and forget this nonsense.

Umm no.

Just because someone supports gender rights [etc] doesn't mean they MUST encompass another issue that's related to things like sexual orientation or even religion and marriage. Someone is permitted to form views that influence one but at the same time don't believe some other element has the same 'rights' [etc].
 
Umm no.

Just because someone supports gender rights [etc] doesn't mean they MUST encompass another issue that's related to things like sexual orientation or even religion and marriage. Someone is permitted to form views that influence one but at the same time don't believe some other element has the same 'rights' [etc].

Ok. Fair enough. I think rights need a sound foundation to be fought from and people should focus their efforts on human rights, not womans rights, men's rights, trans rights, blacks rights, etc, etc, as it divides the issue needlessly. If your foundation is sound the same rules can be applied to all. If not, well, your application of your beliefs will be problematic.

I think the feminist movement, the lbgt movement, the civil rights movement, and the mens rights movement have a lot of flawed notions on what are rights and as a result I think they will continue to have problems that their ideas create.

Just my two cents.
 
So what does everyone think about Modern Feminism?

I personally think it is not about about equal rights for women but more a movement to bring down men and make women superior to men in the eyes of the law.
It's my impression that the feminist movement is going through an identity crisis right now. However, that identity crisis is due to fact that the sexism feminism is meant to address manifests itself differently for women of different classes, races, sexual orientations and gender identities. Because sexism is different for each group of women (whereas in the past women could unite over things like a universally denied right to vote), rifts have formed between "mainstream feminists" (usually White, upper class, straight, non-trans women) and women who belong to marginalized groups, feminism has started to become irrelevant to a lot of women.

I've also noticed that some (usually young) women think that men and women have achieved full social and economic equality so they reject feminism because they think that equality has already been achieved and that feminism is useless.

The notion that feminism is about "bringing down men" and making women "superior" to men is just a myth. There are some "radical feminists" (they actually call themselves that) who believe this, but I've only ever seen "mainstream" feminists criticize their point of view.
 
Why would I move? Just be responsible and pay for the services you want. It's ghastly stuff to pay for your own way in life. I hear parents are evil for not paying for the stuff their twenty year old wants. They're evil people I tell ya.


Yeah, yeah, yeah....stop telling how you hate paying for other peoples stuff. Unless you're in the top 10% of taxpayers...then you're not getting wacked for a hell of a lot. Wonder how many of the folks in DP are 10 percenters and above?

When I continuously hear people rant on about "them, they and it raping the nation". It's caused by anger. And way more often than not that anger is caused by their own shortcomings or failures - and in their own minds they become perpetual victims.
 
I don't know what modern feminism is all about. I'm not a feminist. I'm equal to men in a lot of ways. I'm not equal to them in some ways. Men and women aren't completely the same.
 
Well modern feminism is not just equality for men and women but for all genders, there are still many economic and social issues of equality that need to be dealt with.

I like the other genders.
 
I don't know what modern feminism is all about. I'm not a feminist. I'm equal to men in a lot of ways. I'm not equal to them in some ways. Men and women aren't completely the same.

Every female on debate politics is a feminist even if they don't want to identify with the term [understandable - because of the connotations and other issues].

I have a hard time believing you oppose your right to vote - etc. The basic elements that go into it.

But if it's the social and emotional 'anti-male' and 'anti-family' as well as the 'anti-mother' and 'anti-feminine' elements that bother you, I'm right there with you. I'm a stay at home feminist - apparently that just just peeves people off on both sides of the line. lol
 
Every female on debate politics is a feminist even if they don't want to identify with the term [understandable - because of the connotations and other issues].

I have a hard time believing you oppose your right to vote - etc. The basic elements that go into it.

But if it's the social and emotional 'anti-male' and 'anti-family' as well as the 'anti-mother' and 'anti-feminine' elements that bother you, I'm right there with you. I'm a stay at home feminist - apparently that just just peeves people off on both sides of the line. lol

I don't recall saying I oppose my right to vote. In fact, I don't recall saying I oppose my right to anything.
 
Lesbians are fun to watch.

Only on the interwebz. In real life they tend to be very slothy and unattractive.
 
It would be interesting to recognize that mothers being favored in the courts regarding custody and children's issues is based on tradition in the Western world, not feminism.

And it's worth noting the trend in the courts towards taking father's rights more into consideration regarding those same issues....as they are recognizing the same thing and attempting to rectify things 'despite' feminism and in favor of men. Equality there is recognized goal.

Courts can only interpret various family laws, not make them. If legislatures are changing those laws to lessen the burdens they impose on men, well and good.

You acknowledge that there is an effort to "rectify things . . . in favor of men," and that the goal is equality. But how could this reform be taking place despite feminism, unless feminists favored the existing bias against men? If they were for equality between the sexes, they would support reforming family laws--even if they had played no part in making those laws.
 
So single women shouldnt vote? Or women 18 before marriage? Do these single women need to own property first too?

(Gonna be fun with mail in votes...whoever picks up the mail that day votes! Or does it have to be the male's signature?)

Yes, I would like to see all that backed up by facts and data.

I don't think any single people should be able to vote, men or women. By the way, that includes me, since I'm not married.

Democracy was never meant to be a free-for-all. Restricting who can vote has a long precedent in the United States, and I believe in having all sorts of restrictions as the common man doesn't really understand politics or know the candidates.

As for the facts and data, just look at how the following things have been affected since the women's lib movement: Divorce rates (WAY UP), out-of-wedlock births (WAY UP) and entitlement spending (WAY UP).

Feminism, seen one way, is an attack on the traditional nuclear family. The traditional nuclear family is the best known model for providing stability and a good nurturing environment for the next generation. For this reason, feminism has done more harm than good.

It's not as if women were oppressed before. Women have always been women, cunning and able to get what they want.
 
Equal rights for women which spills into equal rights for both genders and a better world in terms of gender equality.

Still, it's been hijacked by ****ing morons on the internet, whiny pseudo-intellectuals, and radfems as of late, it's embarrassing. As a result, the word isn't even taken seriously anymore.

For the feminists who are the real deal, more power to you, keep on keeping on.
 
Courts can only interpret various family laws, not make them. If legislatures are changing those laws to lessen the burdens they impose on men, well and good.

You acknowledge that there is an effort to "rectify things . . . in favor of men," and that the goal is equality. But how could this reform be taking place despite feminism, unless feminists favored the existing bias against men? If they were for equality between the sexes, they would support reforming family laws--even if they had played no part in making those laws.

*Individuals* generally favor laws that are biased towards them. That is common and that is not justice.

And your comment seems to imply that women in general support that bias. Ask around...here, elsewhere. Many do not and a "feminist" could not say she supported that bias.
 
I don't think any single people should be able to vote, men or women. By the way, that includes me, since I'm not married.

Democracy was never meant to be a free-for-all. Restricting who can vote has a long precedent in the United States, and I believe in having all sorts of restrictions as the common man doesn't really understand politics or know the candidates.

As for the facts and data, just look at how the following things have been affected since the women's lib movement: Divorce rates (WAY UP), out-of-wedlock births (WAY UP) and entitlement spending (WAY UP).

Feminism, seen one way, is an attack on the traditional nuclear family. The traditional nuclear family is the best known model for providing stability and a good nurturing environment for the next generation. For this reason, feminism has done more harm than good.

It's not as if women were oppressed before. Women have always been women, cunning and able to get what they want.

I read your response.

That is all I'll have to say to you on the subject; my time is better spent elsewhere.
 
Every female on debate politics is a feminist even if they don't want to identify with the term [understandable - because of the connotations and other issues].

If you define "feminist" broadly enough to include all women, then you are right. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing whether every woman who posts on this site is a feminist. I've known some very intelligent, successful women who loathed feminism for a number of reasons. One I remember adored men, including her father and brother, and felt feminists were bitter women who disliked men and wanted to beat up on them. Another woman I knew disliked the negative influence she felt feminism had had on the way boys were being raised. She also felt it had worked against romance by stirring up negative feelings between men and women.

I have a hard time believing you oppose your right to vote - etc. The basic elements that go into it.

The only person of either sex I have ever heard call for repealing women's right to vote was Ann Coulter. I doubt she was serious, but the basis for her argument was that but for women voters, the country never would have been plagued with Clinton or Obama. It's ironic that any woman would have voted for a degenerate like Clinton--a chronic adulterer who sexually harassed women and may even have committed rape.

But if it's the social and emotional 'anti-male' and 'anti-family' as well as the 'anti-mother' and 'anti-feminine' elements that bother you, I'm right there with you. I'm a stay at home feminist - apparently that just just peeves people off on both sides of the line. lol

I would hope those aspects of feminism would bother most women. No normal, self-respecting man would want anything to do with a woman who had a low opinion of men, families, motherhood, and femininity. I assume women who feel that way are probably homosexual.
 
I read your response.

That is all I'll have to say to you on the subject; my time is better spent elsewhere.

That's you're choice.

If my facts are incorrect, you or anyone else are more than welcome to call me out on them. However, I believe them to be correct.

1. There is a precedent in limiting who is able to vote. This goes back to our founding fathers. FACT

2. Since the feminist movement began, divorce rates are way up, out-of wedlock births are way up, and entitlement spending is way up. FACT

If you or others are unwilling or unable to dispute those facts, then they speak for themselves.
 
*Individuals* generally favor laws that are biased towards them. That is common and that is not justice.

And your comment seems to imply that women in general support that bias. Ask around...here, elsewhere. Many do not and a "feminist" could not say she supported that bias.

As if women who wanted laws and policies that discriminated against men while favoring them would be likely to admit it. Next you'll be telling us that black applicants to graduate programs in state universities would probably admit they support discrimination against whites--even though that is the necessary result of admissions policies that favor blacks. If a person gladly accepts discrimination that favors them, their denial that they support that discrimination is not credible.
 
I don't recall saying I oppose my right to vote. In fact, I don't recall saying I oppose my right to anything.

Exactly. So - you just oppose the social and other connotations that go with the term 'feminism'.
 
As if women who wanted laws and policies that discriminated against men while favoring them would be likely to admit it. Next you'll be telling us that black applicants to graduate programs in state universities would probably admit they support discrimination against whites--even though that is the necessary result of admissions policies that favor blacks. If a person gladly accepts discrimination that favors them, their denial that they support that discrimination is not credible.

I was discussing the bias towards women in the family court system.

And yes, many women and blacks spoke/speak out against affirmative action, as well as there were those that were happy to take advantage of that program.

And this thread is an obvious example of men doing the exact same thing....demonstrating that men clearly enjoyed their status where most laws favored them and didnt speak out against them because they worked to their benefit. If that was not the case, there would have been/be no feminist movement or women working towards equality.
 
Exactly. So - you just oppose the social and other connotations that go with the term 'feminism'.

I don't oppose or support them, although to the point you're making, yes there are some connotation that I don't like.

I don't think we're the same as men or equal to, and that's what feminism assumes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get the same rights or opportunities as men.
 
Back
Top Bottom