Nobody honestly believes feminism=equality. There’s always the unspoken caveat “only women significantly face inequality”.
And suddenly it’s not so much “this concerns everyone” and more “this is not about you”.
The truth of the matter is in the word itself.
In my experience women who identify as “feminists” are a red flag even if not radicalized or only passingly familiar with the concept. They almost alway turn out either self involved or in the process of being radicalized.
Feminism as presented in medias and politics for the last ten years has been very masks off. Very teenage girl tantrums. People who identify with that are bad news.
Over the last few years I’ve learned self-love and stopped bending over backwards to accomodate my friends and started expecting to be treated fairly. The feminists have evaporated like dew in the sun, the actual friends are closer than ever.
Modern feminism appeals to the types who want to feel superior and/or make everything about themselves. At this point in my life I’m no longer willing to put up with that and so they selected themselves out of my life. I’m much better for it.
In my experience women who identify as “feminists” are a red flag even if not radicalized or only passingly familiar with the concept. They almost alway turn out either self involved or in the process of being radicalized.
Feminism as presented in medias and politics for the last ten years has been very masks off. Very teenage girl tantrums. People who identify with that are bad news.
Modern feminism appeals to the types who want to feel superior and/or make everything about themselves. At this point in my life I’m no longer willing to put up with that.
To date, I have only met one brainwashed feminist, a few engaged feminists, and way more passive feminists.
That’s how a trojan horse works. Most people who call themselves “feminists” have only passing awareness of what institutionnal feminism is up to, but they do support it anyway, imagining that feminism = equality, and therefore must be good.
Institutionnal feminists, the ones who matter, the ones who get laws passed, are horrible, terrible, no good people who have just last month legislated in my own country that it’s more of a problem if a woman gets killed than a man, even though 2/3 of murder victims are men, just like everywhere else. Now by law more ressources have to go into investigating “femicides” than other homicides, and “experts” (feminists) have to be involved, making criminal enquiries biased by law. Love for my son to grow up in that world.
So apologies, but a “non-brainwashed” feminist is to me exactly, and I do mean exactly, like a “non-brainwashed” nazi. Doubly evil. Once for supporting evil, a second time for being too lazy to inform themselves on what they are supporting.
I just saw Everything , everywhere, all at once, and was very pleasantly surprised that, even though it is centered on two female characters, it does not for a second use feminist talking points of “men did it”, and concludes in part that the hero is unsatisfied in life because she has failed too see how wonderful her husband is.
Pretty good!
Number 14 is a bit excessive. If you make a decision together with someone to have a child, you shouldn’t have the ability to back down when it’s too late to abort.
17 on the other hand doesn’t go far enough in my opinion.There should be a right to be informed of a pregnancy before the abortion delay is up.
Finally, there should be something about neutrality of child related services (social services, psych evalutaio experts…). They are overwhelimingly female, and in my experiences extremely biased.
About allegations and alienation: allgations of abuse are the nuclear weapon of parental alienation because of the necessary protection of children. If one parent is suspected of abuse, the child should rightfully be protected while light is made on the affair. That means a child cut off from the accused parent, znd left alone with the allegator. However, parental alienation being abuse, whenever such an accusation is made, the child should be protected as a precaution from both parents, since one is a potential abuser in whatever way was alleged, and the other being a potential abuser as the allgations may be false, and therefore alienation.
This would necessitate faster, more diligent proceedings and stronger, better funded child protection services, but that’s already much needed anyway.
deleted by creator
I wonder what’s going on. The sub is shown to have 0 member. That’s not private, that’s effectively deleted. Was the new head moderator a mole?
deleted by creator
Interesting that the front picture is that of the victim, and there is no photo of the abuser.
@Sewblon Honestly, all of that reads like hocus pocus wishful think the problems away.
There is zero evidence for this role model argument, and it’s frankly ridiculous. First because there are tons of role models of all kinds for boys. That’s one terrain where we are vastly advantaged. The vast majority of great historical figures and fictionnal or religious heroes are men. Charles Darwin, Jesus Christ, Socrates, Indiana Jones and Sheldon Cooper for example are all male heroes telling us about emotionnal intelligence and scholarly achievements. The reduction of our cultural environment to batman and iron man is almost comically ignorant.
Second because it doesn’t matter much. Children are raised by living humans, not by comic books and TV, and that’s where their socialisation and image of self come from. Your emotionnal management is mostly set before age 3, long before pop culture starts playing a significant role. Your view on academia will be influenced by your parents and teachers, not saturday morning cartoons with laser-shooting dinosaurs.
The obsession over models of representation is a gender studies/radical feminist/postmodern notion. They have never bothered to test wether it actually does what they say it does (They never do). What that way of thinking does however is easily sweep problems away by telling people: change you conscience you will change your life. It’s not much different from spiritual gurus’ law of attraction bullshit.
What we do know from actual science is that parents and teachers (and especially mothers and female teachers) enforce strict gender roles in what is valued and how emotions are dealt with. But dealing with that would imply taking a look in the mirror and take accountability, the post-marxist’s cryptonite (oh look a pop culture reference, I must be emotionnaly illiterate).
Edited for spelling.
I’ve had the same experience with female friends I had emotionnaly supported for years disappearing the second I manifested emotionnal needs, in some cases at their request.
One of them even did the same with her own brother before me when he transitionned. Dealing with the emotions of her depressive sister was ok but soon after the sister became a brother she told me she had enough of his whining. This was especially jarring coming from a person who had spent countless nights crying on my or my husband’s shoulder over some pointless drama.
I came to identify one red flag and one green flag for potential female friends (can be applied to men with some adjustments): Has “girl’s nights” where only women are welcome= doesn’t see men as fully human, red flag. Is “not like the other girls” = tries to distance herself from that mindset, green flag.
I know I know, “not like the other girls” has been oficially branded as mysoginy by the internet. Green flag.
This reads like rote repeat of standardised thought.
One thing sticks out though: the “no true scotsman fallacy”. It is unfair to generalize a social movement based on fringe elements, which is why saying feminism is about equality is unfair. As of today mainstream, politically influential feminist organisations are successfully pushing openly discriminatory policies, with success.
That’s how you have the special justice system in Spain where the right to a fair trial is essentially abolished if the alleged victim is a woman and the alleged perpetrator is a man. (Look it up!) That’s how Belgium is right now putting into law that killing a woman is a more severe crime than killing a man. (Look it up if you know dutch or french) That’s how homeless shelters across the world are reserved to women only by pretending that they’re about domestic violence and that only women suffer that (both untrue), even though most of the homeless are men. The list goes on.
I’m sure many people who identify as feminists do not agree with these horrific, dehumanizing policies, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are the direct result of the movement. All politicians who made those things happen had gone into politics through feminism. The policies made possible through feminism are more representative of the movement than any “definition” anyone likes to think is true based on their own preference.
If you believe in equality, stop calling yourself a feminist, it’s empowering very nefarious people.
This notion and many others in the feminist discourse is more a “history taken out of context” than an outright lie. We tend to imagine past societies as working essentially the same way ours do, just with different attributes (technology, culture, art).
The truth is, the whole structure of society was different. The state apparatus only became as developed as it is today in the course of the 20th century. Before that justice, police, civil servants played very little role in every day people’s lives. Nobody was going to arrest you for a brawl, beat up, or any other kind of petty violence among the lower classes (over 90% of the population).
This didn’t mean it was a free for all. Family structures took on a big part of the missions of today’s state. Beat up your wife and you will have to deal with her father and brothers. This is what a patriarchal society actually is: a system where the men of the family take on a role of making order and protecting rights through the use of private violence. Understand that and suddenly the notions that as a woman you could only marry with your parents’ approval, that you lived under your father (or if dead, brother’s) guardianship until mariage, that your patrimony was under the stewardship of your husband… make a lot more sense. They are the one who would have to put themselves on the line if things went wrong.
The feminist narrative is a form of revisionism: it only works by applying present day realities, where the protective role of the family has been taken over by the state, to the past. That’s why it’s entirely unattractive as an ideology outside of the world of economic privilege in first world nations or the elites of the rest of the world.