Feminism & Rape Culture 2014: My Post is Up Here Guys

[bobjr]

If you're going to use a source don't use the Amazing Atheist. His rap sheet alone should get him banned from the internet.

 

[Lolsgod]

If you're going to use a source don't use the Amazing Atheist. His rap sheet alone should get him banned from the internet.

No, I'll use him if I want. Address the argument not the one giving it.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

No, I'll use him if I want. Address the argument not the one giving it.

Since I don't feel like spending 30 minutes listening to inanity I think I'll just hit one or two points. Regarding the D&G ad. Clearly he has no idea about how to interpret ads. First of all lets get one thing clear. This ad is trying to sell you something (actually not exactly, it's a little bit more nuanced than that, but for the purposes of this conversation it's close enough). To do that it has to make you think it's product will fulfill certain needs.

Now the ad has no text so all this is conveyed through imagery. What is the imagery? A man straddling a woman while he holds her down and other men watch. This is CLEARLY a message about power. How is holding someone down not about power? Ironically enough, he brought up that people like to do that in sex, which is really ironic for two reasons. 1) He's probably refering to BDSM culture, which is all about power play. 2) That actually leads me to the next point. The sexualization of this violence.

Here in the ad we see the woman arching her back and her legs are bent in a way that makes them look long, attractive, and lets us see the heels. The men are in various states of undress, and all of them appear to be oiled up. Also note how the color scheme is a cool blue which contrasts and highlights the uncovered skin and (especially) red lipstick of the model. This all ads up to a very sexualized atmosphere.

Always, always, ALWAYS remember: Ads a carefully constructed messages. Nothing in them is in there "just because". If anything in the ad is there just because, and it doesn't add anything, it's a poorly constructed ad (this is from an advertiser's perspective, not a feminist perspective)

Regarding women's control over their bodies: First of all, women's bodily autonomy is constantly under attack (I mean, just look at Hobby Lobby), now, considering that feminism is basically a social movement focusing on advocacy of women's rights, then yes. One thing certainly has to do with the other.

Regarding GQ: Uuuummm... he literally asks how the women on the cover of GQ are sexualized. They're half naked and in suggestive poses. Is he seriously insinuating that these pictures weren't purposely crafted to be sexually appealing? Because the two options are: either he's right and the people incharge of making the cover for GQ Magazine really REALLY suck at their jobs or he's extremely wrong and extremely ignorant.

Also he argues that the pictures on the cover are no different than women dressing scantily out on the street. Uuuuummm.... First of all, How many women have you ever seen walking down the street dressed like that? And no hyperbole, please. Secondly, how many women walk down the street like that AND pose like that in public? Lastly there is a BIG difference between a woman dressing herself in revealing clothing which men find attractive and women going to a photoshoot, being dressed and posed in a way to specifically stimulate male sexual desires.

Why is it bad for men or women to be sexy? Men are sexualized according to their own terms. That is to say, men are largely in control of the media and choose how to portray men as sexy. Women are sexualized according to men's terms. Which is to say, men are largely in control of the media and choose how to portray women as sexy. These two things are not alike, nor are they equal.

I'll leave it at those three because 1) I really have no desire to keep listening to him spouting easily disected nonsense. 2) This post is long enough as it is.

 

[Lolsgod]

Since I don't feel like spending 30 minutes listening to inanity I think I'll just hit one or two points. Regarding the D&G ad. Clearly he has no idea about how to interpret ads. First of all lets get one thing clear. This ad is trying to sell you something (actually not exactly, it's a little bit more nuanced than that, but for the purposes of this conversation it's close enough). To do that it has to make you think it's product will fulfill certain needs.

Now the ad has no text so all this is conveyed through imagery. What is the imagery? A man straddling a woman while he holds her down and other men watch. This is CLEARLY a message about power. How is holding someone down not about power? Ironically enough, he brought up that people like to do that in sex, which is really ironic for two reasons. 1) He's probably refering to BDSM culture, which is all about power play. 2) That actually leads me to the next point. The sexualization of this violence.

Here in the ad we see the woman arching her back and her legs are bent in a way that makes them look long, attractive, and lets us see the heels. The men are in various states of undress, and all of them appear to be oiled up. Also note how the color scheme is a cool blue which contrasts and highlights the uncovered skin and (especially) red lipstick of the model. This all ads up to a very sexualized atmosphere.

Always, always, ALWAYS remember: Ads a carefully constructed messages. Nothing in them is in there "just because". If anything in the ad is there just because, and it doesn't add anything, it's a poorly constructed ad (this is from an advertiser's perspective, not a feminist perspective)

Regarding women's control over their bodies: First of all, women's bodily autonomy is constantly under attack (I mean, just look at Hobby Lobby), now, considering that feminism is basically a social movement focusing on advocacy of women's rights, then yes. One thing certainly has to do with the other.

Regarding GQ: Uuuummm... he literally asks how the women on the cover of GQ are sexualized. They're half naked and in suggestive poses. Is he seriously insinuating that these pictures weren't purposely crafted to be sexually appealing? Because the two options are: either he's right and the people incharge of making the cover for GQ Magazine really REALLY suck at their jobs or he's extremely wrong and extremely ignorant.

Also he argues that the pictures on the cover are no different than women dressing scantily out on the street. Uuuuummm.... First of all, How many women have you ever seen walking down the street dressed like that? And no hyperbole, please. Secondly, how many women walk down the street like that AND pose like that in public? Lastly there is a BIG difference between a woman dressing herself in revealing clothing which men find attractive and women going to a photoshoot, being dressed and posed in a way to specifically stimulate male sexual desires.

Why is it bad for men or women to be sexy? Men are sexualized according to their own terms. That is to say, men are largely in control of the media and choose how to portray men as sexy. Women are sexualized according to men's terms. Which is to say, men are largely in control of the media and choose how to portray women as sexy. These two things are not alike, nor are they equal.

I'll leave it at those three because 1) I really have no desire to keep listening to him spouting easily disected nonsense. 2) This post is long enough as it is.

Firstly, if you do not watch the entire video will miss him address a lot of the things being said in this specific forum.

Secondly, I do not understand the contention that he does not deserved to be heard out, that is the main problem I have with most people who argue in favor of feminism, they refuse to hear anyone else's opinions.

Thirdly, when it comes to ads, are you not aware that people are paid to do this job? It is not like we tie up girls we find on the streets and subject them to being in ads, this is something they've agreed to and are being paid to be apart of.

Fourth, you cannot say that he does not know how to interpret an ad. There are many ways to interpret the same thing, just because it does not line up with your way of thinking does not mean it is incorrect.

Not everything in media is meant to offend someone but that's often how it is interpreted. Just because something does not agree with your core values does not make it wrong. No one said anywhere that is is wrong for anyone to be sexy.

I encourage you to at least hear out what he has to say, instead of clapping your hands over your ears and proving my point.

Edit: it is also Ironic to see you here shutting down interpretation here, yet arguing for it on another forum...

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

Firstly, if you do not watch the entire video will miss him address a lot of the things being said in this specific forum.

Secondly, I do not understand the contention that he does not deserved to be heard out, that is the main problem I have with most people who argue in favor of feminism, they refuse to hear anyone else's opinions.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. The problem is you don't understand where *we're* coming from. Anyone involved in feminists debates with frequency has already heard the same exact arguments time and time and time again. Sure, he might be saying something new that we haven't heard before, but realistically he's not. I can guarantee you anything he brings up has been hashed out time and time and time again.

Thirdly, when it comes to ads, are you not aware that people are paid to do this job? It is not like we tie up girls we find on the streets and subject them to being in ads, this is something they've agreed to and are being paid to be apart of.

Here's the thing. Yes, individual women do agree to get paid to do this. HOWEVER, we have to be conscious that first of all, these women are being hired, most likely by men, working in ads produced most likely by men, and these specific ads are targeted specifically to men. We also have to be conscious that these ads (or rather media in general that is similar to this) has an effect on how people view women. Just because you can find someone of x group to participate in the demeaning of group doesn't mean you should do it.

Also, it's incredibly naive to say "well the woman chose to be in the ad." Because what are the circumstances of the woman in the ad? I don't know much about modeling, but one could assume that that ad was a job you don't turn down because it pays good money, it could be a chance to make connections/make a name for yourself, it could damage your reputation (read ability to get other gigs later on) turning down this job, ect, ect, ect.

Fourth, you cannot say that he does not know how to interpret an ad. There are many ways to interpret the same thing, just because it does not line up with your way of thinking does not mean it is incorrect.

I gave my interpretation of the ad, with clear reasoning for what I deduced. He said there could be other interpretations for the ad. Yet no other * reasonable* interpretation has been offered.

Also, I'd like to point out that I got a degree in advertising. I haven't done a lot of work in the field, but I think I know enough to talk about the basics with some sort of authority. Saying that the ad could be interpreted in many different ways is being willfully obtuse.

Not everything in media is meant to offend someone but that's often how it is interpreted. Just because something does not agree with your core values does not make it wrong. No one said anywhere that is is wrong for anyone to be sexy.

Whether or not something is meant to be offensive or not is irrelevant. Sexism and all the other isms are defined by what the effect is, not by intent.

There is nothing wrong with a person owning their sexuality and expressing it how they see fit. (i.e. Women wearing revealing clothing)

There is definitely something wrong with exploiting someone else's sexuality for your own benefit (i.e. GQ covers or the D&G ad)

I encourage you to at least hear out what he has to say, instead of clapping your hands over your ears and proving my point.

Let me put it this way. (For the sake of this example I'm assuming you're not a creationist, if you are, then switch the example around so it makes sense to you)

Imagine if I came up to you one day and said "Oh, wow, the catholic church wrote a paper refuting evolution! It makes some really good points! You should totally read it, it'll change your perspective!"

Edit: it is also Ironic to see you here shutting down interpretation here, yet arguing for it on another forum...

I'm assuming you're reffering to the religion thread.

Hmmm..., let's see...

One is a religion based on interpretation of a book that was written hundreds of years ago in a culture vastly different from ours and translated several times

The other is an ad relying purely on modern day visual symbolism....

I'm pretty sure you can infer what my response is going to be.

 

[Lolsgod]

these women are being hired, most likely by men

That's an assumption, you cannot prove nor can you make this claim.

Also, it's incredibly naive to say "well the woman chose to be in the ad." Because what are the circumstances of the woman in the ad?

http://www.shmoop.com/careers/model/salary.html
Models are by no means subjected or cheated. You're also saying you know models minds and feelings better than anyone else, another assumption. Also if anything being a model is an honor it means you are VERY good looking and should be taken as a complement.

I gave my interpretation of the ad, with clear reasoning for what I deduced. He said there could be other interpretations for the ad. Yet no other * reasonable* interpretation has been offered.

Reasonable is a subjective term, I could consider your interpretation as unreasonable but that doesn't make it so.

I got a degree in advertising.

Due to the anonymous nature of the internet I find it hard to take this on face value. You may and I'm sorry if that's insult but its hard for me to believe it.

Saying that the ad could be interpreted in many different ways is being willfully obtuse.

How? How is asking for a different interpretation in anyway me being difficult? This is supposed to be a debate where any opinion should be shared. Saying that me questioning any ideal or belief is being difficult is hardly fair.

Also that whole section of your post and the one before it again assumes that all the people in power are all the same mindset, which is the one you predetermined. You CANNOT assume anything about anyone and then carry it on as fact.

Whether or not something is meant to be offensive or not is irrelevant. Sexism and all the other isms are defined by what the effect is, not by intent.

There is nothing wrong with a person owning their sexuality and expressing it how they see fit. (i.e. Women wearing revealing clothing)

There is definitely something wrong with exploiting someone else's sexuality for your own benefit (i.e. GQ covers or the D&G ad)

This contradicts everything you've said thus far, you are saying that people like you and me can do as we please and feel free of judgement, but someone who agrees to it for payment and is used for promotion is not allowed to do so?

Again, models are not exploited. I can find more information on model salary if it will make you happy.

Imagine if I came up to you one day and said "Oh, wow, the catholic church wrote a paper refuting evolution! It makes some really good points! You should totally read it, it'll change your perspective!"

I'd read it, chew it over and either choose to agree or disagree with it...? I'm allowed to read things that I don't agree with to at least chew them over or analyse them.

This isn't the same as the argument we are having, you're discussing a debate about religion vs the theory of evolution, against this debate which leans more towards a clash of opinions of how certain people should carry themselves. To be blunt, you are discussing a case that has already been proven by facts (the theory of evolution) and we are discussing a subject dealing with human nature which is unpredictable and the nuances that come with it.

One is a religion based on interpretation of a book that was written hundreds of years ago in a culture vastly different from ours and translated several times

The other is an ad relying purely on modern day visual symbolism....

Symbolism is a form of interpretation.


Overall I see where you're coming from but you are addressing these ideas and feelings as if they are straightforward, nothing that involves human psychology is ever straight forward, you can't make assumptions about how people think and say it is true.

 

[bobjr]

No, I'll use him if I want. Address the argument not the one giving it.

I'm not going to accept a source that has called women "Cackling c*nts" posted pictures of himself putting hot sauce on his tiny junk online for everyone to see, and for being such a vile misanthrope if he died tomorrow I would just go "Welp".

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

That's an assumption, you cannot prove nor can you make this claim.

That the people in charge of the D&G ad were male? No, I can't prove that, but that wasn't exactly my point. You're looking at it at an individual level, whereas I'm looking at it in an institutional level. The reality of it is that most corporate fields (including advertising) are male dominated. Most of the people in charge of making ads are male. To say that doesn't have an effect on how women are portrayed in the media is ridiculous. ESPECIALLY if in the next breath you're (not you specifically) going to argue that you're OBVS going to display women sexually for men because that's what grabs their attention.

BTW, this isn't just speculation. 3% of Creative Directors (the people in charge of the brand's image) are women.

From that article:

“We all scratch our heads and say how can this be the case in an industry focused on communicating effectively to the public,” says Gina Grillo, president and CEO of the Advertising Club of New York. “Women are challenged with balance in a way that our male counterparts are not,” she adds.

Now, to give you the context. She's talking about the fact that 90% of women in a study feel that brands don't understand them. But I bolded a part to make a point. What advertising is trying to do is communicate effectively. This means that I am trying to get a message across as clearly as possible. If the meaning of the ad can be "interpreted" in different ways, then it's a BAD AD and I am doing my job incorrectly.

http://www.shmoop.com/careers/model/salary.html
Models are by no means subjected or cheated. You're also saying you know models minds and feelings better than anyone else, another assumption. Also if anything being a model is an honor it means you are VERY good looking and should be taken as a complement.

Pointing out that models can have different motivations for accepting what could be seen as an objectionable thing is not assuming I know what the models think. It is rather quite the contrary. Considering I pointed to different reasons such as a particular gig being good money (that is to say very lucrative), a chance to make connections (that is to say a chance to get their break) or avoiding damage to their reputation (so that they can keep on making money). I don't even know what being a model being a compliment has to do with the conversation, unless you think that since being a model is equivalent to a compliment than it possibly can't ever be a sexist environment, in which case, hoooo boy...

How? How is asking for a different interpretation in anyway me being difficult? This is supposed to be a debate where any opinion should be shared. Saying that me questioning any ideal or belief is being difficult is hardly fair.

Basically there some suppositions involved in your stance:
1) Advertising is not meant to have a specific interpretation.
2) No visual imagery has a culturally agreed upon connotation.

These suppositions are pretty wrong. By refusing to acknowledge that those two premises are wrong, you are being willfully obtuse.

Also that whole section of your post and the one before it again assumes that all the people in power are all the same mindset, which is the one you predetermined. You CANNOT assume anything about anyone and then carry it on as fact.

I'm not entirely sure what mindset you think I'm assuming them to be in.

Again, models are not exploited. I can find more information on model salary if it will make you happy.

You're confused with the terminology I used. There is a difference between exploiting a person and exploiting a person's sexuality (and just to clarify, I am making a distinction right now between those two and sexual exploitation, i.e. forced prostitution.)

Also, just to simplify down why we're not accepting your source. There is a concept called "credible sources". The amazing atheist has basically shown himself to be an extremely biased source who misrepresents issues, and doesn't tackle the subject with any sort of intellectual integrity(I mean seriously, his response to one of statements was a jerk off motion.) Remember, not all sources are created equal.

 

[Lolsgod]

I'm not going to accept a source that has called women "Cackling c*nts" posted pictures of himself putting hot sauce on his tiny junk online for everyone to see, and for being such a vile misanthrope if he died tomorrow I would just go "Welp".

Lol, he called those women that name in response the hypocritical behavior set by their show. They constantly claim that men cannot make sexist jokes or claims yet were making fun of a man who's genitals were mutilated. But since you're unwilling to be open-minded you probably wouldn't understand what context is.

 

[Peter Quill]

Lol, he called those women that name in response the hypocritical behavior set by their show. They constantly claim that men cannot make sexist jokes or claims yet were making fun of a man who's genitals were mutilated. But since you're unwilling to be open-minded you probably wouldn't understand what context is.

I watched the video

Do you seriously think that calling women "cackling ****s" while he's trying to prove that misandry is a real issue in our society is at all productive and/or acceptable?

 

[Lolsgod]

I watched the video

Do you seriously think that calling women "cackling ****s" while he's trying to prove that misandry is a real issue in our society is at all productive and/or acceptable?

To be honest, the amazing atheist doesn't really have a goal or a side he says and does things to either be a devils advocate or create shock value, that being said I do not think it was productive but in some ways I find it acceptable but I do not understand why we are now analyzing his video career and not his comments on the subject.

Edit: thanks for watching the video though! And I'm not using the amazing atheist as a source if you read my first post, I'm using him to state opinions in a better manner than I or others could in text. There's nothing wrong with that

 

[bobjr]

Using the Amazing Atheist is like using the KKK leader as a source for race equality. They've discredited themselves so much that they can't be proven reliable or morally responsible enough to be a credible source.

 

[junkieloser]

AmazingAtheist is a ****ing joke of a human being. him and his "left wing when it allows me to be arrogant" politics can die in a hole for all I care.

two of his videos (the one about the talk show hosts joking about a man's junk being mutilated and a group of teenage girls sexually harassing a young boy) are good at their core- pointing out some horrible **** that people do. problem is he brings it further and tries to create some bull about how women are excused from being sexist which is a JOKE. a random dude with a camera should not be your source of "well reasoned arguments." political youtube bloggers are not valid in any serious discourse.

 

[Kiruria]

Using the Amazing Atheist is like using the KKK leader as a source for race equality. They've discredited themselves so much that they can't be proven reliable or morally responsible enough to be a credible source.

AmazingAtheist is a ****ing joke of a human being. him and his "left wing when it allows me to be arrogant" politics can die in a hole for all I care.

two of his videos (the one about the talk show hosts joking about a man's junk being mutilated and a group of teenage girls sexually harassing a young boy) are good at their core- pointing out some horrible **** that people do. problem is he brings it further and tries to create some bull about how women are excused from being sexist which is a JOKE. a random dude with a camera should not be your source of "well reasoned arguments." political youtube bloggers are not valid in any serious discourse.

I hate to be the devil's advocate here, but you two do realize that Lolsgod wasn't even trying to make much of a point in the first place, do you? He was just posting the video as food for thought, evidenced by how he didn't seem to make any other arguments alongside it. He even gave a warning about it being vulgar. Sure, he could have posted the video somewhere outside the debate forum, but that's no reason to go bashing someone for not really trying to debate anything.

Lolsgod also makes a point about videos like this in general - even if they may not be entirely credible, or if the creator has done questionable things outside the video, the video itself can still provide some reasonable info. This would kind of be like refusing to trust anything Bill Clinton says about sexuality because he lied openly about having an affair.

I'm not trying to make any real points with regards to this debate for now - just offering some advice for dealing with some of the less-credible "sources" presented here, and advising people to drop all this Amazing Atheist hate and get back on topic.

 

[bobjr]

The issue is that the Amazing Atheist presents himself as a credible logical source when he's far from it. He's literally MRA hate given form. We've had issues with people posting bad and biased sources in the past, and instead of trying to deal with them on their own ground we're just not dealing with them.

 

[AmyTheOddball]

My thoughts about feminism in one paragraph:

I define as an egalitarian. I don't put gender issues above racial issues or sexuality issues etc. Basically, I want equality for everyone. Modern day 'tumblr' feminism is often a load of bull. A lot of the statistics are false and there have been people who have these stories about the 'patriarchy' and they've been proved false - they've lied just to try and prove a point. They don't take into account the sexism towards men, or more often than not, men get raped and abused too. Sexism does exist, and things still need to be improved, but from what I've seen, feminism in first world countries is turning into more of a hate group. Feminism is needed in places where all women still can't get the vote.

 

[junkieloser]

My thoughts about feminism in one paragraph:

I define as an egalitarian. I don't put gender issues above racial issues or sexuality issues etc. Basically, I want equality for everyone. Modern day 'tumblr' feminism is often a load of bull. A lot of the statistics are false and there have been people who have these stories about the 'patriarchy' and they've been proved false - they've lied just to try and prove a point. They don't take into account the sexism towards men, or more often than not, men get raped and abused too. Sexism does exist, and things still need to be improved, but from what I've seen, feminism in first world countries is turning into more of a hate group. Feminism is needed in places where all women still can't get the vote.

i feel this is a narrow and dismissive way of looking at an issue.

ignoring the bit where you talk about "false statistics", "stories about the patriarchy proved false", etc (ignoring because you don't offer any real examples which is exactly what you're criticizing and because literally EVERY political movement has people that do this) this feels like a way of saying "well i saw a few people i don't like so i'm going to dismiss the whole movement." you're simplifying a complex issue into "tumblr peoples are bad" which is dismissive, reactionary and if i'm going to be 100% blunt seems rather ignorant.

racial issues and sexuality issues and etc often tie into feminism- while you can call it a poor choice of word for the movement (i won't disagree) modern feminism is an egalitarian movement which ties into social inequality as a whole. it's a sweeping term.

calling it a "hate group" without any backing isn't anything new either. feminism has been commonly dismissed as "man hating" and etc and you've provided no reasoning for thinking of it this way so this is an empty statement.

"more often than not, men get raped and abused too." what does 'more often than not' even mean in this context? that more men are raped and abused than there are men that are not? that men are more commonly victims than woman? because neither of those are true.. to tie into this, feminism aims to remove a lot of the issues that cause men to be abused and not speak up about it- patriarchy is the cause that men will potentially be perceived as "weak" if they're abused, because by definition in that culture men are meant to be the ones in power. and because of this illusion of power, men won't come forward. feminism aims to destroy that lasting bit of patriarchy that exists in our culture which benefits men because they will not be looked down upon for showing apparent "weakness."

"feminism is needed in places where all women still can't get to vote." true. but that's still simplifying and ignoring the various issues that are much more subtle in our society in terms of sexualization/objectification, disrespect of woman in authority, abuse, etc and WHY these things still exist, which is if you haven't caught on with my line of thinking, is still directly tied to our lingering past of patriarchy.

 

[AmyTheOddball]

^ The reason why I didn't go into depth is because I haven't the time for long responses and research into my views. I tried to sum up what I wanted to say quickly, and if you want evidence I'll create a document or something when I can. There are over things I want to discuss if I end up making a longer post, especially the #YesAllMen and the recent trend of me seeing people use the hashtag #die-cis-scum on tumblr and 'hating' people who define as the gender they were born as, a lot of these people define as feminists too.

First of all, I don't want you to think that this is my opinion of all feminists. This is my opinion of the majority of tumblr feminists that live in the first world (I am a member of tumblr and I socialise with people from all different areas and fandoms of the site).

'more often than not, men get raped and abused too." what does 'more often than not' even mean in this context? that more men are raped and abused than there are men that are not? that men are more commonly victims than woman?' - I used the wrong wording for that, so I apologise, but the point I wanted to make is that ithappens. Feminists (not all) kind of ignore that, and I thought feminism is meant to be about gender equality, where issues of both genders would be discussed.

'sexualization/objectification, disrespect of woman in authority, abuse' Look, I know these things exist. Like I said, I realise sexism takes place in the first world through these things. Heck, I'm furious that in the UK, only 22% of all MPs are female! I know patriarchy still exists, and maybe we do need feminism, but not the majority feminism we have now.

 

[Cipher]

I define as an egalitarian. I don't put gender issues above racial issues or sexuality issues etc. Basically, I want equality for everyone. Modern day 'tumblr' feminism is often a load of bull. A lot of the statistics are false and there have been people who have these stories about the 'patriarchy' and they've been proved false - they've lied just to try and prove a point. They don't take into account the sexism towards men, or more often than not, men get raped and abused too. Sexism does exist, and things still need to be improved, but from what I've seen, feminism in first world countries is turning into more of a hate group. Feminism is needed in places where all women still can't get the vote.

As someone who used to hold the same opinion, qualms over phrasing really miss the bigger issue. Feminism is the focus on gender disparity in promotion of equality. The reason it takes its name from the feminine is because that's historically, and still is, the "Other" of the gender binary. It's the lesser. Even gender issues which negatively impact men stem from the same notions of roles and binaries that diminish women in other areas.

Sexism does exist, and things still need to be improved, but from what I've seen, feminism in first world countries is turning into more of a hate group.

That's an extremely narrow way of looking at it. I don't think I've talked to a single feminist who hates men. There are myopic people with any number of believes, but by and large that's not the case here. Nor should anyone you encounter with those beliefs discredit a very real and very necessary movement and lens through which to view the world.

If feminism has outlived its usefulness in first-world countries, I don't know what to make of things like the recent Hobby Lobby case, which removed access to certain forms of birth control specifically from its female employees with impunity granted by a mostly male Supreme Court.

 

[The Admiral]

That's an extremely narrow way of looking at it. I don't think I've talked to a single feminist who hates men. There are myopic people with any number of believes, but by and large that's not the case here. Nor should anyone you encounter with those beliefs discredit a very real and very necessary movement and lens through which to view the world.

If feminism has outlived its usefulness in first-world countries, I don't know what to make of things like the recent Hobby Lobby case, which removed access to certain forms of birth control specifically from its female employees with impunity granted by a mostly male Supreme Court.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this person has probably not met a feminist in real life, since the bulk of that post refers to Tumblr feminists -- people whom I have good reason to assume do not even begin to make up the entirety of the feminist movement, even if excluding the phonies who exclude certain groups, like trans women.