# Women and girls of SAS, do you consider yourselves feminists?



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

I'm curious. Please explain your position on this topic if you want.

It's not an ''argumentative'' thread, so I posted it here.

Wanted to share with you a video of a woman who, if she were alive today, would probably say ''O mon Dieu, I can't believe I wrote this book 70 years ago and they live like it was never popular or written at all. I don't have faith in humanity anymore.'' in a more sophisticated manner, obviously.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

Nope.


----------



## roxslide (Apr 12, 2011)

No. I once was though. In short, I don't agree with the idea that male oppression is derivative of female oppression (or doesn't even exist). 

I think that in some countries still, they could probably benefit from traditional feminism where there is a clear and huge power difference from women and men but in western culture the lens the feminism puts on the male/female inequality is too simplified and not something I can agree with anymore. Especially now as the lines between gender get more and more blurred. Not only do I disagree with in a ideological sense but I often don't agree with the actions or statements that prominent feminists of today come out with. I don't feel inclined to associate with certain people over the years that have waved the "feminist" flag.

So yeah, no. But just because I'm not a feminist doesn't mean I don't believe there are still female/male inequalities in the west or that I don't stand for women. I can relate and still agree with feminists on some issues. I'm like that with most political/social ideologies, honestly. I don't like to call myself a liberal either, even though I might strike someone that way. I don't get why feminism is different, in the sense that in some crowds if I say "I'm not a feminist" I'm basically saying "I'm a misogynist" in their eyes.


----------



## 0589471 (Apr 21, 2012)

roxslide said:


> No. I once was though. In short, I don't agree with the idea that male oppression is derivative of female oppression (or doesn't even exist).
> 
> I think that in some countries still, they could probably benefit from traditional feminism where there is a clear and huge power difference from women and men but in western culture the lens the feminism puts on the male/female inequality is too simplified and not something I can agree with anymore. Especially now as the lines between gender get more and more blurred. Not only do I disagree with in a ideological sense but I often don't agree with the actions or statements that prominent feminists of today come out with. I don't feel inclined to associate with certain people over the years that have waved the "feminist" flag.
> 
> So yeah, no. *But just because I'm not a feminist doesn't mean I don't believe there are still female/male inequalities in the west or that I don't stand for women.* I can relate and still agree with feminists on *some* issues. I'm like that with most political/social ideologies, honestly. I don't like to call myself a liberal either, even though I might strike someone that way.


That's pretty much word for word how I feel/identify as well. I'm not a feminist. I bolded the part that people seem to miss about that. 


> I don't get why feminism is different, in the sense that in some crowds if I say "I'm not a feminist" I'm basically saying "I'm a misogynist" in their eyes.


 Yeah I never understood that either...but I guess the definition varies for some people. It's similar to me having any say regarding women having rights at all makes me an "evil feminist" by some...but then you have to question that kind of thinking _(as in how is a woman having rights/wanting to be humanized evil? lol)._

That kind of connotation is just as annoying as being considered misogynistic for not identifying as a feminist. I have been accused of both :stu I guess it boils down to black and white definitions of you're either anti-male or anti-female. Like, you're either with us or against us mentality. Some people just don't believe you can be _for_ both.


----------



## roxslide (Apr 12, 2011)

A Toxic Butterfly said:


> Yeah I never understood that either...but I guess the definition varies for some people. It's similar to me having any say regarding women having rights at all makes me an "evil feminist" by some...but then you have to question that kind of thinking _(as in how is a woman having rights/wanting to be humanized evil? lol)._
> 
> That kind of connotation is just as annoying as being considered misogynistic for not identifying as a feminist. I have been accused of both :stu I guess it boils down to black and white definitions of you're either anti-male or anti-female. Like, you're either with us or against us mentality. Some people just don't believe you can be _for_ both.


Yeah I was thinking that too after I wrote it but I was too lazy to edit it lol. I think adhering to any kind of label (or in this case rejecting it) will result in some kind judgement either way. That's how humans work I guess... Maybe I was trying to say I think it's weird that usually adhering to a label incurs judgment but in this case saying you're not a certain label still incurs in judgement. Idek. i'm tired lol.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

My current gf is a feminist. We have near argued before about "the patriarchy", because I find it particularly infuriating such an intelligent woman would so easily subscribe to such a ropey construct.

1. You can't adequately determine "when things are now equal enough", so "the patriarchy" is non falsifiable as a viable construct
2. It totally shuts down any kind of discourse, or searching for solutions, its a nuclear option in a debate (a bit like nihilism). e.g. bringing up the patriarchy as "the cause" to inequalities towards men (see lack of support networks, higher suicide rates) totally shuts down even the possibility of finding solutions, as the solution to those things is hardly crudely throwing more resources at women's issues.
3. It's very lazy and allows feminists to just not bother being critical, and just plop out "patriarchy" for everything.
4. If I dare to bring this up, apparently, I hate the idea of equal rights for women (it leads to fallacious thinking).

For example, I have an ex friend who married a lady originally from Zimbabwe. She had one child before they met. She constantly goes on to him about earning more money (he works in the police, earns a good wage, works his arse off). She mentioned to my current GF how "they probably won't be together by Christmas". Now, people split up for lots of reasons, and no doubt there are reasons why they will split up that are his responsibility (he sucks at communication, etc). But here is what will likely happen.

1. They will split up, she will get half the house
2. He will have to pay child support for his two children with her, and the one previously (she is pressuring him to legally adopt her, no surprises why)
3. She will move back to Zimbabwe, taking their children, which he practically speaking will no longer get to see, and he will have to still pay child support (and the one she pressured him into adopting).

In no way, is the response "it's the patriarchy" a valid, or useful explanation for this situation. 

I just have a big dislike for the way it shuts down critical thinking and promotes laziness, feminism that is.


----------



## 0589471 (Apr 21, 2012)

roxslide said:


> but in western culture the lens the feminism puts on the male/female inequality is too simplified and not something I can agree with anymore. Especially now as the lines between gender get more and more blurred. Not only do I disagree with in a ideological sense but I often don't agree with the actions or statements that prominent feminists of today come out with.


I wanted to add as far as issues in the western world go now, I would lower the women concern and raise transphobia, homophobia and racism as a more pressing concern.


roxslide said:


> I think adhering to any kind of label (or in this case rejecting it) will result in some kind judgement either way. That's how humans work I guess...


Yeah pretty much =/


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

I know I don't _technically_ qualify as a woman, but will add this...

I get really twitchy when people take on a set of beliefs as an _identity_. It shuts down critical reasoning. Indeed, the above women who have dared (and it kinda is daring) to say "I am not a feminist" will probably be met with "don't you believe in equal rights?... blah". "I am a feminist" means, "I am a set of beliefs" and once you take that on as an identity, then any criticism of those beliefs becomes a personal criticism.

It's for this reason I don't like taking on labels.


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

I identify as a feminist, and here, folks, is the definition of feminism from Encyclopedia Brittanica: *"*the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes". My (male) partner identifies as a feminist too.

People whom I met in my life who specifically did *not* identify as feminists, turned out not to believe in equal rights, or believed in some bizarre ideas that had latched themselves onto feminism (i.e. 'feminists get angry if a man lets them through the door first'), or couldn't tell the difference between a feminist and a feminazi, or just feared that their feminism would be repulsive to men.

Just like PETA does not represent vegetarians, feminazis do not represent feminism. But it's a convenient way for people who do not believe in gender equality to tarnish the concept in the eyes of the easily manipulated. Education is a wonderful thing.


----------



## bad baby (Jun 10, 2013)

The problem with femnazis and PETA is not so much the extremity of their beliefs, rather that they push their own agendas at the expense of other people's comfort. They could choose to explain to people in a nice and reasonable way why they shouldn't wear fur or hold the door open. Instead they choose to harass them in the streets and throw a tantrum over nothing.

On the flipside there are loads of people out there exploiting this kind of rapport psychology to their benefit and successfully selling all sorts of scams and toxic beliefs that are frankly much worse than women's/animal rights.

I also believe in personal responsibility within the limits of one's own abilities. Feminism is not only society-focused, it's self-focused as well.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

rabidfoxes said:


> I identify as a feminist, and here, folks, is the definition of feminism from Encyclopedia Brittanica: *"*the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes". My (male) partner identifies as a feminist too.
> 
> People whom I met in my life who specifically did *not* identify as feminists, turned out not to believe in equal rights, or believed in some bizarre ideas that had latched themselves onto feminism (i.e. 'feminists get angry if a man lets them through the door first'), or couldn't tell the difference between a feminist and a feminazi, or just feared that their feminism would be repulsive to men.
> 
> Just like PETA does not represent vegetarians, feminazis do not represent feminism. But it's a convenient way for people who do not believe in gender equality to tarnish the concept in the eyes of the easily manipulated. Education is a wonderful thing.


That definition of equality is pretty broad though right? What does equal mean in this respect? I believe that men and women should have the same opportunities in life, as far as that is possible (a man who wants to get pregnant is going to struggle, for example), but obviously I don't believe things like wealth and income should be perfectly equal between men and women, in a global sense. I would believe that men and women should be paid the same for comparable output. But again, that is impossible (male models for example, get paid vastly less than their female counterparts as a necessity of market forces), its impossible to equal that out without profound economic consequences. I believe that men should have as good a support network as women, but that isn't going to happen, and I believe that abused men should be treated the same way as abused women (that could happen and should happen, but it probably wont).

I also feel suggesting all people (men and women) who don't identify as feminists as simply not believing in gender equality to be a very big assumption. It may be, for example, your interpretation of gender equality is impossible to live up to without being a feminist (and that makes it circular as to why non feminists can't believe in gender equality). I would hope that_ I_ believe in gender equality (and consider myself to), but do you think I don't?

I wouldn't label myself as a feminist, for the very same reason I wouldn't label myself as a liberal, I am not a set of opinions, and I wouldn't allow myself to become compromised by identifying as such. If I identified as a liberal for example, it would be difficult for me to take on board more utilitarian arguments (such as re economics) that would contradict with my identity. Similarly I am not a utilitarian, etc etc.

Not having a go here, btw, just curious .


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

SplendidBob said:


> That definition of equality is pretty broad though right? What does equal mean in this respect? I believe that men and women should have the same opportunities in life, as far as that is possible (a man who wants to get pregnant is going to struggle, for example), but obviously I don't believe things like wealth and income should be perfectly equal between men and women, in a global sense. I would believe that men and women should be paid the same for comparable output. But again, that is impossible (male models for example, get paid vastly less than their female counterparts as a necessity of market forces), its impossible to equal that out without profound economic consequences. I believe that men should have as good a support network as women, but that isn't going to happen, and I believe that abused men should be treated the same way as abused women (that could happen and should happen, but it probably wont).
> 
> I also feel suggesting all people (men and women) who don't identify as feminists as simply not believing in gender equality to be a very big assumption. It may be, for example, your interpretation of gender equality is impossible to live up to without being a feminist (and that makes it circular as to why non feminists can't believe in gender equality). I would hope that_ I_ believe in gender equality (and consider myself to), but do you think I don't?
> 
> ...


No, of course not, I'd expect we can keep the discussion civil : )

I think of equality as equal opportunities (because saying that men and women are equal is not the same as saying they are 'the same'). It's more often the case that the balance of power tips in favour of men, but in some areas it is the other way round, and to my mind, there is no feminism without real equality - that is, addressing both sides. We absolutely need to change attitudes towards male abuse victims and public services should not have a sexist slant. The current model, or 'patriarchy' if you will, hurts both men and women.

Economics take us into a bit of a different discussion, and you can have different feminists having different views on how equality can / cannot be achieved. Personally, I think that we live on slave labour, and changing that (even if you don't take a particularly gendered approach) would have extreme consequences. And yet it's worth doing, because the world economies are built on an exploitation model, which is downright nasty. But that's my view.

You will always have people arguing over definitions, including that of equality. Even if we agree on that definition, I constantly question what is and isn't feminist behaviour. That's healthy. Nobody owns the term 'feminist'. It's just a helpful concept that allows people to pool resources and stand up to oppresion, or to recognise someone who migth be a friend and an ally. If you look back to my initial post, I _did not _suggest that everyone who doesn't identify as a feminist doesn't believe in equality. I listed a few possible reasons.

You, for example, think that you would have to 'represent' some set of ideas if you identified as a feminist, a set of ideas which is owned by someone else. I think it's a false thinking, because the idea of 'feminism' only relies on the central idea of gender equality, and the rest is for you to work out and define for yourself. Not even women own the idea of feminism and there is no 'authority' on feminism unless you accept it as such. We are very good at building hierarchies even in concepts that are supposed to liberate.

(I identify as an anarchist as well, and whoever tries to tell me that it means I support mob violence, can go to hell)


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

rabidfoxes said:


> I identify as a feminist, and here, folks, is the definition of feminism from Encyclopedia Brittanica: *"*the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes". My (male) partner identifies as a feminist too.
> 
> People whom I met in my life who specifically did *not* identify as feminists, turned out not to believe in equal rights, or believed in some bizarre ideas that had latched themselves onto feminism (i.e. 'feminists get angry if a man lets them through the door first'), or couldn't tell the difference between a feminist and a feminazi, or just feared that their feminism would be repulsive to men.
> 
> Just like PETA does not represent vegetarians, feminazis do not represent feminism. But it's a convenient way for people who do not believe in gender equality to tarnish the concept in the eyes of the easily manipulated. Education is a wonderful thing.


Wiki definition is not something you read and immediately start knowing about feminism. When you accept that definition then it simply means you have modern political views because it's something almost everyone already _believes_ in except if they're conservative, I would even say ultra and extremely conservative.

I noticed that the vast majority of people are only familiar with that definition and barely anything else (sometimes ''feminazi cringe videos'' on youtube/memes or other peoples' opinions on them, but that doesn't make sense when you don't even know what those ''feminazis'' are talking or not talking about and all your ''critique'' ends on the fact that their views and behaviour are unconventional). They don't know the history of feminist movement (I mean in short, they don't have to be experts in it) and what feminists of certain eras were fighting for, what their claims were etc. They just think of something extremely vague that doesn't go beyond or further that simple wiki definition again.

I've always considered myself one, then I found feminist communities on social media then I read this book and I think I fully realized what feminism is starting from that point of reading ''The Second Sex'' by the woman in the interview video I posted. It's like people who are anti-capitalists or are just ''curious'' about it read Marx's ''Das Capital'' at least at some point, but preferably at the beginning to introduce themselves to that.

I'm saying this despite the fact I've always been having certain 2nd wave and radfem views because I've always had issues with ''male and female professions'', gender norms, stereotypes, certain aspects of femininity, violence against women and objectification of them. Because it's important not to invent a bicycle, but to become familiar with already existing works and claims.

So yeah, it's interesting why feminism is so simplified. But then there's a whole one hour video about it and I guess it answers my question 




Oh yeah and the ''fear that their feminism would be repulsive to men''. I don't know if it could get any more ironic and demonstrative of female socialization and condition.


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

roxslide said:


> So yeah, no. But just because I'm not a feminist doesn't mean I don't believe there are still female/male inequalities in the west or that I don't stand for women. I can relate and still agree with feminists on some issues. I'm like that with most political/social ideologies, honestly. I don't like to call myself a liberal either, even though I might strike someone that way. I don't get why feminism is different, in the sense that in some crowds if I say "I'm not a feminist" I'm basically saying "I'm a misogynist" in their eyes.





A Toxic Butterfly said:


> That's pretty much word for word how I feel/identify as well. I'm not a feminist. I bolded the part that people seem to miss about that.
> 
> Yeah I never understood that either...but I guess the definition varies for some people. It's similar to me having any say regarding women having rights at all makes me an "evil feminist" by some...but then you have to question that kind of thinking _(as in how is a woman having rights/wanting to be humanized evil? lol)._
> 
> That kind of connotation is just as annoying as being considered misogynistic for not identifying as a feminist. I have been accused of both :stu I guess it boils down to black and white definitions of you're either anti-male or anti-female. Like, you're either with us or against us mentality. Some people just don't believe you can be _for_ both.


It's strange you got called misogynists just for saying you're not a feminist or that you disagree with feminism or have issues with it. Of course, it's not true.


----------



## CNikki (Aug 9, 2013)

Third-wave/modern day feminist, no. Feminism from second-wave and back at least fought for women and other groups (to an extent) in order to represent based on their merit. Today's feminism is segregated to the point people feel they need to bring others down and have the representations 'now' in order to make a point.

Of course what I'm talking about may be the 'extreme' section, but it's them who are most outspoken on the media and end up taking the narrative and make those who go by the 'true definition' look bad.


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

SorryForMyEnglish said:


> Wiki definition is not something you read and immediately start knowing about feminism. When you accept that definition then it simply means you have modern political views because it's something almost everyone already _believes_ in except if they're conservative, I would even say ultra and extremely conservative.
> 
> I noticed that the vast majority of people are only familiar with that definition and barely anything else (sometimes ''feminazi cringe videos'' on youtube/memes or other peoples' opinions on them, but that doesn't make sense when you don't even know what those ''feminazis'' are talking or not talking about and all your ''critique'' ends on the fact that their views and behaviour are unconventional). They don't know the history of feminist movement (I mean in short, they don't have to be experts in it) and what feminists of certain eras were fighting for, what their claims were etc. They just think of something extremely vague that doesn't go beyond or further that simple wiki definition again.
> 
> ...


I don't think you need to have read anything to be a feminist. Unless you're aiming for a 'feminist academic', which is quite a different thing. Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't necessarily need to be able to 'explain' or 'prove' it by examining charts about the evolution of our digestive tract. I mean, all of that is interesting if you want to go deep, but it's counterproductive and possibly patronising to say to women that they need to graduate in women's studies so they could 'understand' the fight for gender equality (note, I'm not saying 'history of gender equality'). You can be an ideological feminist and not necessarily have feminist studies as an interest. It's alright. All are welcome.

It's true that to 'accept' the definition is not the same as to live it. I've met countless women who identify as feminists but have internalised patriarchical values so deeply that their 'feminism' is purely theoretical and not reflected in their day-to-day living. And education helps to understand what's what, of course. But you don't necessarily have to read Simone de Beauvoir (and you can fatally skewer your views by stumbling upon someone like Germaine Greer, who is one of the most celebrated feminist writers and a hateful transphobic hag). I'm an anti-capitalist who's never read Das Kapital and a feminist who has never read The Second Sex.

So if I had to say why feminism is simple, it's because it's a fundamental, universal concept. As such, it is accessible to all women - even those you can't read at all.

(but I am interested, and probably will read that book at some point)


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

rabidfoxes said:


> No, of course not, I'd expect we can keep the discussion civil : )


 always respected you and your posts, so assumed so.



rabidfoxes said:


> I think of equality as equal opportunities (because saying that men and women are equal is not the same as saying they are 'the same'). It's more often the case that the balance of power tips in favour of men, but in some areas it is the other way round, and to my mind, there is no feminism without real equality - that is, addressing both sides. We absolutely need to change attitudes towards male abuse victims and public services should not have a sexist slant. The current model, or 'patriarchy' if you will, hurts both men and women.


I agree, and I appreciate feminism represents both men and women, and (I assume) that is the intended meaning. I guess my issue here is more in practical outcomes of using the term "patriarchy", and in those contexts, say (for example) we are talking about men's increased suicide rates, and someone attributes that to "the patriarchy", as it hurts men as much as women, then that assigns a very broad cause (which isn't actually very useful). The increased suicide rates among men appear to be in a certain age bracket (40-60), which may be due to certain expectations of men within that age bracket, which may be due to something "patriarchy like", but when "the patriarchy" is used as an explanation, its resolution is simply too low to provide any kind of useful meaning. There isn't any point in drilling down into the actual causes, or getting a better resolution, and working out how to better target resources, because if "the patriarchy" is the cause, then that means inequality between the sexes is the cause, and since most inequality is (I agree) towards women, then those men _won't ever get the support they need_. I just consider it a term so broad to have no practical use (in fact, negative practical use, because people will just stop at that point assuming the "cause" has been found). To a lesser extent its why I don't really get on too well with feminism also representing mens rights, although certainly, the defined meaning does include that, because the public perception of the term is in terms of helping womens rights, then almost necessarily including mens rights in there will likely put those rights below those of women (in terms of the pot of inequalities that needs fixing), and increased suicides among men needs resources, and its necessarily very important. If that goes under the feminism umbrella then sure, it might technically fit within the definition, but those men aren't going to be helped any time soon. If the cause is "the patriarchy" then they aren't getting helped ever (because they designed the system). If it's a group within society that has a higher suicide rate as a standalone thing, then it gets dealt with as a priority (as it should be).

Not sure if that makes sense, but its more the practical repurcussions of these terms, rather than the actual defined meanings.



rabidfoxes said:


> Economics take us into a bit of a different discussion, and you can have different feminists having different views on how equality can / cannot be achieved. Personally, I think that we live on slave labour, and changing that (even if you don't take a particularly gendered approach) would have extreme consequences. And yet it's worth doing, because the world economies are built on an exploitation model, which is downright nasty. But that's my view.


Again, here I tend towards a utilitarian view, working with the system we have (because nobody has the ability or capacities to design a better system, though thats slightly circular, based on the tenets of economics hah), but yeh, in principle I tend to accept that sometimes the best outcome for the majority is a very long way from perfect. That isn't to mean things can't be improved (I favour a lot of government interventions where there is market failure, and market failure happens all the time), but my economic views are basically practical realism > idealism every time. Idealistically I would be very left wing, but practically speaking, limited resources and so on, I have to move towards the right in terms of economics.



rabidfoxes said:


> You will always have people arguing over definitions, including that of equality. Even if we agree on that definition, I constantly question what is and isn't feminist behaviour. That's healthy. Nobody owns the term 'feminist'. It's just a helpful concept that allows people to pool resources and stand up to oppresion, or to recognise someone who migth be a friend and an ally. If you look back to my initial post, I _did not _suggest that everyone who doesn't identify as a feminist doesn't believe in equality. I listed a few possible reasons.


Ok, apologies for misinterpreting .



rabidfoxes said:


> You, for example, think that you would have to 'represent' some set of ideas if you identified as a feminist, a set of ideas which is owned by someone else. I think it's a false thinking, because the idea of 'feminism' only relies on the central idea of gender equality, and the rest is for you to work out and define for yourself. Not even women own the idea of feminism and there is no 'authority' on feminism unless you accept it as such. We are very good at building hierarchies even in concepts that are supposed to liberate.
> 
> (I identify as an anarchist as well, and whoever tries to tell me that it means I support mob violence, can go to hell)


I think my point there comes from my recent studies in psychology, and the impact of identity. As behavioural influences go, personal identity is definitely pretty strong w.r.t. behaviour (it has a strong component for example in why successful vegans would be able to maintain the more difficult restrictive diet), and those processes aren't conscious ones, so identifying as something, especially a set of beliefs, gets me, personally very nervous. I just don't feel identifying is in any way necessary for me to have a particular set of opinions, and the motivations for why someone would want to identify as something are important (what is gained from identifying as a liberal, or a conservative, for example?). That sense of belonging must act against being critical towards those opinions, and when one identifies as something then certainly one must feel slightly criticised when that something is criticised. So it's more re the idea of unnecessary identification itself. Isn't saying anything against feminist argument, more about identifying as a feminist. Why? What are the benefits of that identification and how do they affect critical judgement?


----------



## andy0128 (Dec 19, 2003)

SplendidBob said:


> I would believe that men and women should be paid the same for comparable output. But again, that is impossible (male models for example, get paid vastly less than their female counterparts as a necessity of market forces), its impossible to equal that out without profound economic consequences. I


If your average male model probably earns less than the female equivalent than I suppose that is partly down to the shelf lufe of men being longer in the industry.

At the high end those obscene wages arise not so much market forces but exploitation of low paid garment workers in any big name fashion brand.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world-cup-2018-football-shirt-nike-adidas-workers-poverty-wages/

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/One-...olice-during-garment-sector-strike-45917.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.3440ff1dbc91


----------



## Fun Spirit (Mar 5, 2014)

No I'm not a feminist.


----------



## The Linux Guy (Jul 11, 2013)

A Toxic Butterfly said:


> That kind of connotation is just as annoying as being considered misogynistic for not identifying as a feminist. I have been accused of both :stu I guess it boils down to black and white definitions of you're either anti-male or anti-female. Like, you're either with us or against us mentality. Some people just don't believe you can be _for_ both.


I think we got to be for both men and women. It takes both working together to make society function.


----------



## Suchness (Aug 13, 2011)

Fun Spirit said:


> No I'm not a feminist.


You're a funimist.


----------



## Fun Spirit (Mar 5, 2014)

Suchness said:


> You're a funimist.


.


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

rabidfoxes said:


> I don't think you need to have read anything to be a feminist. Unless you're aiming for a 'feminist academic', which is quite a different thing. Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't necessarily need to be able to 'explain' or 'prove' it by examining charts about the evolution of our digestive tract. I mean, all of that is interesting if you want to go deep, but it's counterproductive and possibly patronising to say to women that they need to graduate in women's studies so they could 'understand' the fight for gender equality (note, I'm not saying 'history of gender equality'). You can be an ideological feminist and not necessarily have feminist studies as an interest. It's alright. All are welcome.
> 
> It's true that to 'accept' the definition is not the same as to live it. I've met countless women who identify as feminists but have internalised patriarchical values so deeply that their 'feminism' is purely theoretical and not reflected in their day-to-day living. And education helps to understand what's what, of course. But you don't necessarily have to read Simone de Beauvoir (and you can fatally skewer your views by stumbling upon someone like Germaine Greer, who is one of the most celebrated feminist writers and a hateful transphobic hag). I'm an anti-capitalist who's never read Das Kapital and a feminist who has never read The Second Sex.
> 
> ...


But you'll have to read or learn about something at some point. Otherwise you'll get stuck in your own loop. Just like it is with any other movement, women come in feminism for different reasons. But they need to get familiar with other issues, with somethin they didn't think about on their own. And the analogy you made about learning about digestive tracts doesn't suit here much. And I'm not saying that ''women are not welcome in feminism or feminist communities if they haven't read feminist works''. And this exaggeration with ''women's studies'' is just putting your own words into my mouth based on your distorted caricaturistic impression of me. I'm just saying that some self-education is important. Or there are reading groups and lectures and other stuff feminists do, at least in my country. *That doesn't mean that if you don't do that you're excluded from feminism* just to make sure you understand I don't mean it.

What is counter productive is when everyone has *only* their own personal understanding of things and they stop on that. Or they just listen to what everybody says and repeat this stuff. It works like a broken telephone (watered down feminism and some problems in feminist communities are the proof of that). Feminism is not hierarchal and there's freedom to disagree with something and to discuss and argue about the different issues feminism talks about. But in order to argue about them you firstly need to have a basic understanding of these issues you're discussing and not to try to invent a bicycle which actually is counterproductive.

I'm not saying that one have to necessarily start with Simone de Beauvoir. I'm talking about her because I think ''The Second Sex'' is a fundamental work that explores so many aspects at once. And it's something most feminists would agree with and consider fundamental, no matter what branch of feminism they agree with the most. Except for watered down media ''feminism'' perhaps. But the fact that most women don't ever read feminist stuff and don't really educate themselves about it much is probably the reason why that kind of ''feminism'' gets accepted on such a wide scale (it's also plausible and not challenging). So I just think one would rather start with ''The Second Sex'' than with, let's say, Andrea Dworkin or Judith Butler or someone else because they're more specific. Although women of color would most likely find Angela Davis much closer. And everyone can start with whatever book or author or material. It's just a suggestion.



> and you can fatally skewer your views by stumbling upon someone like Germaine Greer, who is one of the most celebrated feminist writers and a hateful transphobic hag


Well, firstly how can you ''skewer'' your views if you're already confident about them? Do you agree with every book you read? Secondly, she's most celebrated by whom exactly? How did you come to this conclusion that she's the most celebtared? I don't agree with quite a few things she says and she has lots of unique opinions on lots of issues (btw her opinion on transgenderism is aligned with more feminists than her other opinions). But I also don't find myself 100% agreeing with anyone on everything they say and I think it's great that there's a pluralism and when different women can freely express their opinions within feminism because it's not something dogmatic. I think it's great that Germaine Greer exists and shares her views. I also don't think she's ''transphobic''. And, excuse me, if you call her transphobic then how am I supposed to call you when you use a word ''hag''? Misogynistic?


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

Pretty much everything rabidfoxes and cnikki said without actually identifying with the label. I believe in equal rights period across the board, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Labeling gets very sticky very quickly. As soon as I state "I am a X(in this case a feminist,)" in order to be neatly labeled for another's understanding, it puts me into a place of defending all the other bs others with that same label have stated as feminist beliefs and that gets tiring. So I'd rather state what I believe rather than taking on a label that essentially forces me to begin listing what I don't believe.


----------



## Not Human (Apr 1, 2018)

Can you not be a male and a feminist?


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I was going to avoid posting in this thread since I don't exclusively identify as a woman and don't like posting in threads that start with 'men/women of sas' but seeing as some men posted anyway lol....

I tend not to agree with liberal feminists because their primary focus seem to be some neoliberal thing and their solutions often seem like bandaids 'make all the women CEOs and artificially equalise pay gaps,' I agree with radical feminists on some things, MRAs on some things, most groups on some issues. Like they all have a point in various areas even if I don't agree with their solutions on how to solve the underlying complaints they have. I'm not going to identify with one specific group though because I don't get why all the maladjusted outcasts are at war with each other seems like a distraction to me...

Anyway if I had to go with a label I'd go with postgenderist probably because I'm mostly focused on things that seem like they could, eventually, be changeable with technology.


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

> Can you not be a male and a feminist?


You can or you can be ''pro-feminist'' because some feminists only use this term to describe male allies. But this thread is called this way cause I was interested to know how women feel about feminism. Men's opinions about it don't interest me  Especially because they voice their opinions on feminism all the time and every day so I know already what they think about it. *We* all know, thanks. Women don't do that despite the fact that feminism is about them and their rights. So I wanted to encourage them to share their opinions because I was curious. Hence the name of the thread.


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

SplendidBob said:


> always respected you and your posts, so assumed so.
> 
> I agree, and I appreciate feminism represents both men and women, and (I assume) that is the intended meaning. I guess my issue here is more in practical outcomes of using the term "patriarchy", and in those contexts, say (for example) we are talking about men's increased suicide rates, and someone attributes that to "the patriarchy", as it hurts men as much as women, then that assigns a very broad cause (which isn't actually very useful). The increased suicide rates among men appear to be in a certain age bracket (40-60), which may be due to certain expectations of men within that age bracket, which may be due to something "patriarchy like", but when "the patriarchy" is used as an explanation, its resolution is simply too low to provide any kind of useful meaning. There isn't any point in drilling down into the actual causes, or getting a better resolution, and working out how to better target resources, because if "the patriarchy" is the cause, then that means inequality between the sexes is the cause, and since most inequality is (I agree) towards women, then those men _won't ever get the support they need_. I just consider it a term so broad to have no practical use (in fact, negative practical use, because people will just stop at that point assuming the "cause" has been found). To a lesser extent its why I don't really get on too well with feminism also representing mens rights, although certainly, the defined meaning does include that, because the public perception of the term is in terms of helping womens rights, then almost necessarily including mens rights in there will likely put those rights below those of women (in terms of the pot of inequalities that needs fixing), and increased suicides among men needs resources, and its necessarily very important. If that goes under the feminism umbrella then sure, it might technically fit within the definition, but those men aren't going to be helped any time soon. If the cause is "the patriarchy" then they aren't getting helped ever (because they designed the system). If it's a group within society that has a higher suicide rate as a standalone thing, then it gets dealt with as a priority (as it should be).
> 
> ...


I can return the compliment! But do read on, your respect might evaporate still 

It's true that the term "patriarchy" is often used as an end-all: "...because patriarchy". Which is annoying, because it dilutes the meaning. I often try to opt for alternatives ("unequal society" and similar) just not to allow a discussion degenerate into a shxtstorm. However, we do live in a patriarchy and that's what it is (a society dominated by men). I also don't want to forget it or play it down. There is a power in naming bad behaviours.

It does bother me when sexism towards men is tolerated under the 'feminist' umbrella, because then you have women perpetuating the same oppresive behaviours that they were on the receiving end of. I don't know what causes the high suicide rates in that particular group of men, but feminism is not why the support isn't there. It's redressive behaviour, which I don't agree with, but I don't think feminist terminology is to answer for that. Feminism only argues for support for all who need it, irrespective of gender. The more we speak about gender issues, the closer we move to equality, the more interest and understanding there will be about what equality actually means. I would blame the lack of support targeting suicidal men on: 1) It not being the political 'flavour of the month'; 2) General cuts to services; 3) Lack of understanding of the problem.

I suppose in respect to the whole of the society, there are risks to assuming an identity. For example, that same identity could be manipulated, or commercialised. But I also trust myself and I'm aware that I haven't quite signed up to a cult. Like all big ideas, feminism is pluralistic - there are enough different voices for you to choose what you agree with and what you don't. A Jewish person doesn't have to stop identifying as such for fear of becoming anti-Palestine. The main benefits of assuming an identity are that it "allows people to pool resources and stand up to oppresion, or to recognise someone who might be a friend and an ally" (I feel a bit stupid quoting myself, but nvm).

My ideal future is one where the matters of race/gender/sexuality/etc are not split up into different camps with separate identity markers and a 'minority hierarchy' (this is a topic for a different rant, but what I mean is that thing where the person with the most minority points gets to speak, and the one with the least is silenced). Where you just have a camp of people who work towards equality for all. Will we ever get there? Maybe not, but one can dream. In the mean time, the terminology helps us get together and work towards a shared goal, and keep gender issues a part of the public debate.


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

SorryForMyEnglish said:


> But you'll have to read or learn about something at some point. Otherwise you'll get stuck in your own loop. Just like it is with any other movement, women come in feminism for different reasons. But they need to get familiar with other issues, with somethin they didn't think about on their own. And the analogy you made about learning about digestive tracts doesn't suit here much. And I'm not saying that ''women are not welcome in feminism or feminist communities if they haven't read feminist works''. And this exaggeration with ''women's studies'' is just putting your own words into my mouth based on your distorted caricaturistic impression of me. I'm just saying that some self-education is important. Or there are reading groups and lectures and other stuff feminists do, at least in my country. *That doesn't mean that if you don't do that you're excluded from feminism* just to make sure you understand I don't mean it.
> 
> What is counter productive is when everyone has *only* their own personal understanding of things and they stop on that. Or they just listen to what everybody says and repeat this stuff. It works like a broken telephone (watered down feminism and some problems in feminist communities are the proof of that). Feminism is not hierarchal and there's freedom to disagree with something and to discuss and argue about the different issues feminism talks about. But in order to argue about them you firstly need to have a basic understanding of these issues you're discussing and not to try to invent a bicycle which actually is counterproductive.
> 
> ...


I don't know how I embroiled myself in such a lengthy discussion. Broadly speaking, we don't disagree, and there really is no need for us to peck at each other. I'm glad you've read on the subject widely and it would be good for me to educate myself too. But I've also got to educate myself on law, seo, container gardening, guitar playing and what not, and I only have so many hours in the day. Feminism theory and history will have to wait. It doesn't disqualify me from the discussion, even if I annoy you with my 'Wikipedia understanding' and attempts to reinvent a bicycle.

I do think Germaine Greer is a transphobic hag, though. If it makes the matters better, I can call some man a hag as well. Pierce Morgan is a total hag, for example. Greer just overstepped the line - you can't fight for the rights of a disenfranchised group and then not allow equality to another minority group. It makes you somewhat of a hypocrite.


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

rabidfoxes said:


> I don't know how I embroiled myself in such a lengthy discussion. Broadly speaking, we don't disagree, and there really is no need for us to peck at each other. I'm glad you've read on the subject widely and it would be good for me to educate myself too. But I've also got to educate myself on law, seo, container gardening, guitar playing and what not, and I only have so many hours in the day. Feminism theory and history will have to wait. It doesn't disqualify me from the discussion, even if I annoy you with my 'Wikipedia understanding' and attempts to reinvent a bicycle.
> 
> I do think Germaine Greer is a transphobic hag, though. If it makes the matters better, I can call some man a hag as well. Pierce Morgan is a total hag, for example. Greer just overstepped the line - you can't fight for the rights of a disenfranchised group and then not allow equality to another minority group. It makes you somewhat of a hypocrite.


Well I understand. I'm not super educated on feminism either and I haven't read tonns upon tonns of books either. It's another wrong impression. I also need to educate myself on my other interests and I also have a limited time. I mean it's not something mandatory and of course everybody reads such stuff whenever they feel like reading it and whenever they have a desire for that and if they have emotional resources and time for that.

I didn't mean to ''disqualify'' you from discussion in any way. Moreover, I made the thread specifically to find out about others' opinions.

As for Germaine Greer, doesn't she talk about the fact that gender is not biological and it's something that we all are subjected to from a very early age so if you're socialized in a certain way that's what makes you experience ''womanhood'' if there's such a thing? It's a difficult topic. But I haven't heard her talking against rights of transgender people.


----------



## rabidfoxes (Apr 17, 2016)

@SorryForMyEnglish > I'm glad we made peace not war! Re Greer - it's pretty shocking stuff - essentially she said that post-op transgendered women were not 'real women'. Article here.


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)

opcorn


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

a great thing from feminism (and anti-racism etc) is that we should never entertain a discussion which excludes a gender without some reasonable explanation of why. the collection of statistics by race or by gender is done all the time without giving any reason for it which is disgusting. it just creates the illusion of these groupings being real. men are this, women are that. no. of course there are and have been times when its perfectly relevant due to actual sexism. but there comes a point where you are just monitoring it for no good reason and recreating the belief in differences which don't exist anymore. we must defend women from men. we must defend women from men. collect the evidence. monitor the statistics. men are a danger.



so obviously the exclusionary title "Women and girls of SAS," is problematic if this is meant to be a non-trivial discussion. why in this case are men's opinions not of value?



generally, it is no defense to say you want to right past wrongs, etc. eg. statistically many black people/women/whatever people are poorer, etc so we should help those groups specifically. but obviously some of them are not poor, and giving them extra resources is idiotic. to find poor people, measure their wealth. duh. find what the relevant criteria are and use that. instead people leverage things like white/male guilt in order to get more. historical reasons for statistical differences are not reasons for stupid actions now. this is more from a legal/institutional standpoint. we tend to call it egalitarian or utilitarian etc rather than feminism. i guess feminism is more personal like incel, red pill, etc identities. pretty much everyone here in NZ would say they are a feminist (and i would say i am in the context here), and they mean in a slight way (seemingly slight because everyone is that way), just this that they are generally egalitarian (within limits). less so that they identify with the old guard feminists etc.



the more personal points of view are many and varied. identity. disagree that holding an identity is just holding onto ideas beyond the merits of the ideas. identity = behaving as if the things you know to be true are true. which yeah can be **** if the ideas are **** (shootings etc). but it leads to authentic behavior rather than a disconnect between facts and actions. imo there are other facts which are currently more important. but it is difficult to create some kind of shared rational scheme/hierarchy of values. to be against feminism at a personal level is to be against the many and varied identities, whereas to just accept disagreement would seem to be the better option. social group dynamics function very differently to logic/reason, and the mechanisms of how the world really works. must accept that yes, feminists do catch out innumerable douche bags that might otherwise go undetected and unaccounted for. the whole movement has been a great improvement to our culture (subjective).


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

When I saw this thread last night I automatically assumed, based on my prior experience with proselytizing feminists*, that my opinion wasn't wanted, so I didn't vote. I don't generally go where I'm not invited. But now it looks like that's shot to hell anyway.

I used to identify as a feminist; I have read quite a few feminists, including Beauvoir and Greer**; and I use feminist arguments myself when I find them useful and appropriate. But I will never go back to using the label. I've just had too many bad experiences with the community.

I'm opposed to any kind of hierarchy. Including the hierarchy that says feminists are better than other people.

* ie. not all feminists

** I've been riding this Bronco since the early 90s


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

truant said:


> When I saw this thread last night I automatically assumed, based on my prior experience with proselytizing feminists*, that my opinion wasn't wanted, so I didn't vote. I don't generally go where I'm not invited. But now it looks like that's shot to hell anyway.


Your opinion is welcome. So is PersephoneTheDread's opinion 



truant said:


> I used to identify as a feminist; I have read quite a few feminists, including Beauvoir and Greer**; and I use feminist arguments myself when I find them useful and appropriate. But I will never go back to using the label. I've just had too many bad experiences with the community.


I also don't like what's going on within some feminist communities. Actually it's not so rare when women stop associating themselves with feminism because of such experiences and that's such a shame. But I'm trying to be rational and to always think about how damaged and limited us humans are so I associate feminism with the feminists I find great and whose work(s) I like especially (although I never agree with someone on everything they say) and with the cause which is the most important. But if you feel the pressure then it is better to leave that particular community. I think the problem with them is the lack of boundaries. That's why I don't like the word ''sister(s)'' because this feminist ''sisterhood'' is actually a double-edged sword.



truant said:


> I'm opposed to any kind of hierarchy. Including* the hierarchy that says feminists are better than other people*.


Who says so?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Yes, of course.


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

More no's than yes's. Interesting. I guess feminism has gotten a bad rap in popular sentiment?


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

SorryForMyEnglish said:


> I also don't like what's going on within some feminist communities. Actually it's not so rare when women stop associating themselves with feminism because of such experiences and that's such a shame. But I'm trying to be rational and to always think about how damaged and limited us humans are so I associate feminism with the feminists I find great and whose work(s) I like especially (although I never agree with someone on everything they say) and with the cause which is the most important. But if you feel the pressure then it is better to leave that particular community. I think the problem with them is the lack of boundaries. That's why I don't like the word ''sister(s)'' because this feminist ''sisterhood'' is actually a double-edged sword.


Ofc we should evaluate a community in light of its achievements, not its failings. I have not rejected feminist thinking simply because I no longer self-identify as a feminist. It's irrelevant to me whether or not a person identifies as a feminist; I'm only interested in the quality of a person's arguments and evidence. I do not need to be a member of a community to read and evaluate the arguments of one of its members.

It's fine if you can move through feminist communities with relatively little friction; but, for me, that seems to be impossible. I am not better treated, on average, by feminists than anyone else; often, I am treated a good deal worse. Feminism, for me, is not a shelter; but, like the rest of the world, a battleground.



SorryForMyEnglish said:


> Who says so?


People don't usually come out and say they think they're better than other people. But many feminists obviously do consider themselves to be so. For example, when they assume that anyone who is not a feminist is a benighted fool. Or worse, ipso facto, misogynistic.


----------



## Ai (Oct 13, 2012)

Yes. Intersectional, to be specific.

Even though that apparently makes me naive and incapable of critical thought... :banana


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

truant said:


> Ofc we should evaluate a community in light of its achievements, not its failings. I have not rejected feminist thinking simply because I no longer self-identify as a feminist. It's irrelevant to me whether or not a person identifies as a feminist; I'm only interested in the quality of a person's arguments and evidence. I do not need to be a member of a community to read and evaluate the arguments of one of its members.


Fair enough.



truant said:


> It's fine if you can move through feminist communities with relatively little friction; but, for me, that seems to be impossible. I am not better treated, on average, by feminists than anyone else; often, I am treated a good deal worse. Feminism, for me, is not a shelter; but, like the rest of the world, a battleground.


I don't have such an opportunity either, tbh. There's only a small portion of feminists where I live. Sorry you have to go through that  
Well yeah socially it's not a shelter for me either. I think it would be unproductive and delusional to consider it shelter, but then many do and maybe they're getting something out of it psychologically which is good for them.



truant said:


> People don't usually come out and say they think they're better than other people. But many feminists obviously do consider themselves to be so. For example, when they assume that anyone who is not a feminist is a benighted fool. Or worse, ipso facto, misogynistic.


Well personally I (since I consider myself a feminist) don't think so. I think some feminists are benighted fools. Although I don't despise them or anything. 'Misogynistic' is too strong of a word, especially based on the fact that someone just doesn't call themselves a feminist. So probably #notallfeminists.



Karsten said:


> More no's than yes's. Interesting. I guess feminism has gotten a bad rap in popular sentiment?


I'm not surprised. I don't think it was that popular. And I know most women don't really consider themselves feminists or that they don't bother with it much. Cause even Simone de Beauvoir wrote in 1949 and then said in 1975 that women think of themselves as totally separate individuals and they don't have any group solidarity and she was damn right.



Ai said:


> Yes. Intersectional, to be specific.
> 
> Even though that apparently makes me naive and incapable of critical thought... :banana


Haven't seen you in a long time on SAS :O


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

Ai said:


> Yes. Intersectional, to be specific.
> 
> Even though that apparently makes me naive and incapable of critical thought... :banana


Why does that make you naive?


----------



## Ai (Oct 13, 2012)

SorryForMyEnglish said:


> Haven't seen you in a long time on SAS :O


Yeah. Took a little bit of a break.



Karsten said:


> Why does that make you naive?


Har har...


----------



## Sabk (Jun 15, 2017)

Not at all.

I'm for individuality and the moment you either lump yourself and/or others in with a group, there's a high chance of losing that. 

That's how I see feminism (in spite of the ideals), as a socio-political group. From there, it's a slippery slope towards how one should be, should think, feel and act as a feminist. I don't like that. 

Additionally, I don't appreciate having someone's back because they happen to have a vagina. If I see inequality, I'll call it as I see it. Whether it's directed toward a man or woman. Doesn't matter to me. If the woman is at fault, that's how I see it and if I feel compelled to say it, that's what I'll say. 

Sent from my SM-A605F using Tapatalk


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

I don't even want to be subtle anymore. If I could I'd love to give out copies of ''The Second Sex'' to any woman who says same old stuff to which there's an answer in this book. To all the women who haven't read it actually. And it's literally the basics of the basics and written in 1949.

Here we go:

Free PDF: https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1949_simone-de-beauvoir-the-second-sex.pdf

Physical books: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=82ABXY3VKN3W6X8W8AAY https://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex...0P3YR3YSPQ5&psc=1&refRID=3EBVT7YWF0P3YR3YSPQ5 etc

Also about something that I personally consider most important because it's the most overlooked issue and ignored even by many feminists but it has a tremendous power in our today's society. Prostitution, *pornography* and violence against women, misogyny:

Gail Dines, a sociologist with a PhD, a radical feminist: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gail+dines

Her book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pornland-How-Porn-Hijacked-Sexuality/dp/0807001546/

Andrea Dworkin <3<3<3: https://www.feministes-radicales.or...n-Hating-A-Radical-Look-at-Sexuality-1974.pdf (especially consider reading a chapter about Chinese footbinding and its connection to what we're socialized to)

I don't even want to do a damage control and say that #notallfeminists agree with the above because I'm so tired of that all and of the lack of action about it. Personally my eyes were fully opened about this issue when I found out about sex trafficking and read Victok Malarek's book ''the Natashas''. He's a Ukrainian-born Canadian journalist who was investigating this issue (but about Eastern European women in particular). I would recommend to read it with a trigger warning though. After I read it the world was never the same for me because I couldn't even imagine something like that was happening in the world. The scarriest thing was that to trafficked women in particular it was happening because of the fact that they were women.


----------



## Shadowweaver (Apr 26, 2013)

It seems to be a matter of terminology. If "feminism" is to be defined as the desire for equality between men and women, then almost all of my female friends/acquaintances are feminists. If, on the other hand, it is to be defined as the struggle against the "patriarchal society", then I doubt any of them will subscribe to this. "Patriarchal societies" exist in such countries as Saudi Arabia or Iran. They do not exist on the West, and while there are certainly a lot of inequalities favoring one or the other gender, they seem to mostly be a consequence of either biological differences, or the remnants of the inequalities of the past.

I also see it as wrong in the first place to consider a situation from a perspective of only one gender. We should be moving towards unity through diversity, not diversity through self-segregation. Things like "feminist studies" should be replaced with "human rights studies" or something like that, that considers all instances of inequality, rather than only those that disadvantage one gender.

I am an immigrant in the US, and there is a lot of rights most Americans have that I don't due to my current status. For one, I cannot earn money from my own business, even though I've had this reselling business idea in mind for a while and wanted to try it out. I, however, do not ask for "immigrant studies" to become a valid field of study; I'd rather see my issues tackled along with the issues all other groups face. And I also don't want to participate in any pro-immigrant movements. I may be an immigrant, but I see myself as American, and every American has problems, so why should mine be given any preference?


----------



## SorryForMyEnglish (Oct 9, 2014)

:roll:roll:roll....
They don't get it.


----------

