We hear about it all the time - marches, rallies, the gender pay gap, fighting stereotypes, women, men - you know the drill.
That's why I don't wish to associate myself with 'feminism' - I don't want to give the impression that I want to empower women and condemn men.
Furthermore, why call it 'feminism', when liberal feminism is literally just equality? The title 'feminism' immediately gives people the impression that the movement only empowers women - if you used the title 'equality' instead, I'm sure that many more women and men would be inspired to join the movement, and the fight for gender equality would be moving forward at a faster rate.
Here's a scenario:
You're a male school leaver, 16, and are looking for an apprenticeship in engineering - for example, at Rolls Royce. You achieved all A's and B's at GCSE, and are hard-working and passionate about engineering.
But then comes along another candidate: a female school leaver, 16, with an average of C's and D's at GCSE.
Who gets the job?
Answer: the female.
Why? Because she's a girl.
I believe that more girls should be in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) careers, but I also believe that we are prioritising gender over academia and dedication - this is not solving sexism, per se, but simply denying the chance for truly passionate, capable male students in all STEM and male-dominated fields to access these opportunities. Seems counterproductive, right?
If your argument is that women don't get the opportunities, then create them, but don't lower your expectations or requirements to accommodate them - this itself implies that you think that women are not capable of those higher grades in Science and Maths subjects, which is most definitely not the case.
Feminists, both radical and liberal, often talk about the fact that women are equal to men from a physical perspective. However, this is incorrect - biologically, men are stronger, due to evolution; cavemen hunted, and cavewomen worked. (Men only hunted because they were (and still are) stupidly brave; males' frontal lobes don't fully develop until about 25, so, women are actually mentally more mature).
I'm sure that feminists are actually aware of this completely logical, biological explanation which suggests that women are the physically weaker sex, but just refuse to accept it, because some people find it hard to swallow the truth unless it benefits them in some way. Don't worry - one day you'll get there.
But what is Feminism, really?
A Brief Introduction to Feminism
There are two main 'types' of feminists: liberals & radicals.
Liberal feminists focus on equality between both genders:
Please note the phrase, 'equal to men'.
Radical feminists, however:
Bit wordy, but basically, radicalism goes against the whole idea of equality, which is what feminism is 'meant to be about.' Instead, it focuses on downgrading men, and creating a society where women reign superior (something like a reverse-Gilead, I'd imagine).
Liberal feminists focus on equality between both genders:
Please note the phrase, 'equal to men'.
Radical feminists, however:
Bit wordy, but basically, radicalism goes against the whole idea of equality, which is what feminism is 'meant to be about.' Instead, it focuses on downgrading men, and creating a society where women reign superior (something like a reverse-Gilead, I'd imagine).
What type of feminist are you?
Why I don't support Feminism
Firstly, there are so many radical feminists, aka feminazis, who are not going against sexism, but turning it back on men. I've seen countless posts by supposed 'feminists' that are outright discriminative - it seems that, to some, misogyny is a sickening violation of women's rights and a hate crime that should be punished, but misandry is perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even encouraged.That's why I don't wish to associate myself with 'feminism' - I don't want to give the impression that I want to empower women and condemn men.
Furthermore, why call it 'feminism', when liberal feminism is literally just equality? The title 'feminism' immediately gives people the impression that the movement only empowers women - if you used the title 'equality' instead, I'm sure that many more women and men would be inspired to join the movement, and the fight for gender equality would be moving forward at a faster rate.
Here's a scenario:
You're a male school leaver, 16, and are looking for an apprenticeship in engineering - for example, at Rolls Royce. You achieved all A's and B's at GCSE, and are hard-working and passionate about engineering.
But then comes along another candidate: a female school leaver, 16, with an average of C's and D's at GCSE.
Who gets the job?
Answer: the female.
Why? Because she's a girl.
I believe that more girls should be in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) careers, but I also believe that we are prioritising gender over academia and dedication - this is not solving sexism, per se, but simply denying the chance for truly passionate, capable male students in all STEM and male-dominated fields to access these opportunities. Seems counterproductive, right?
If your argument is that women don't get the opportunities, then create them, but don't lower your expectations or requirements to accommodate them - this itself implies that you think that women are not capable of those higher grades in Science and Maths subjects, which is most definitely not the case.
 |
| It shouldn't matter who does it, it should matter why they do it. |
Feminists, both radical and liberal, often talk about the fact that women are equal to men from a physical perspective. However, this is incorrect - biologically, men are stronger, due to evolution; cavemen hunted, and cavewomen worked. (Men only hunted because they were (and still are) stupidly brave; males' frontal lobes don't fully develop until about 25, so, women are actually mentally more mature).
I'm sure that feminists are actually aware of this completely logical, biological explanation which suggests that women are the physically weaker sex, but just refuse to accept it, because some people find it hard to swallow the truth unless it benefits them in some way. Don't worry - one day you'll get there.
The Bottom Line
Feminism can be discriminative towards males - why don't we just use the term equality for those who aren't discriminating again men, and leave the radicals and feminazis to give feminism a bad name?
My logical, egalitarian brain supports the idea of liberal feminism, where men and women can live together in perfect harmony.
But then, my hormonal, psychopathic brain wants a reverse-Gilead-style society, where women are dominant and readily abuse their power to make men suffer...
But then, my hormonal, psychopathic brain wants a reverse-Gilead-style society, where women are dominant and readily abuse their power to make men suffer...
~~~
Feminism is such a broad topic for discussion, and I'm sure I haven't even covered half of it - what do you think? Is feminism a good thing or a bad thing? And whilst it aims to empower women, does it denounce men at the same time?
- R
i love how u base your opinion on the topic after researching in every area possible. ur points are REALLY relevant and actually make me stop what im doing and actually think for a second.
ReplyDeletetbh, i never really knew that there was more than one type of feminism. i always just thought that everyone just wanted to live as equals. well, that's what i want- to live in a world where NOBODY would be judged, whether its because ur race, gender, beliefs or sexuality. i don't think that anyone should really suffer for anything, so i dont really agree with the idea of Radical Feminism. but thats just my opinion.
-H
i love this! this is exactly how i feel about femenism! whenever i try explaining it, someone always comes at me: 'what about all the girls raped every year' and 'the job inequality'. and i do care about that stuff (duh) because i might be faced with these same problems one day. but not alot of people get me.
ReplyDeletealso i love your ending ��. these damn hormones...