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.
Interesting that the front picture is that of the victim, and there is no photo of the abuser.
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.