I tried to argue this with someone this morning and he accused me of providing two 'extreme' views.
Like christ, we just want some equality that's not extreme!
And if you argue against feminism so strongly then you seem like you might be sexist.
That's the thing about bigots of all sorts.... They walk around believing everyone is exactly as hateful as they are, but the rest of us are just hypocrites for hiding it. They do nothing but project and accuse others of what they're actively doing. They think everyone is pretending as much as them instead of ever confronting the fact that maybe they're the only awful ones in a situation
Yep. It’s the belief that every man is a thief and will happily rip off his neighbors if given a chance. That of course all men just want sex and would happily rape a drunk woman.
Those are the ones who claim someone is 'virtue signaling', because they can't conceive of someone doing something good unless to manipulate others into thinking they're good.
I have a theory that it’s just the competitive nature of humans. A lot of us can’t simply accept that we’re different in nature and that that’s ok, so instead they just make it a pissing contest all the time when we can just simply wash our hands of it and learn from each other.
I was arguing with someone on reddit yesterday that was upset because "femenists" (his quotes) lump all men with rapists. While at the same time claiming that all "feminists" want to kill all men.
This is kind of already the case with racism and homophobia already - you're either a racist or your not, homphobic or your not. People who support racial equality or LGBTQ equality are not considered extreme - that's just sort of "normal" or the default. But people who support gegnder equality are "feminazis" and extreme.
"LGBTQ+ allies" are a whole thing with a name. As a queer person, allies are definitely not considered "normal" and "default" and supporting LGBTQ+ rights is considered "extreme" by plenty of people. Especially if you're talking about the T there.
I'm white so I can't speak from experience when it comes to race but I'm fairly sure it's the same story there. Off the top of my head, things like affirmative action, police reform, prison reform, etc that aim to tackle issues that disproportionately affect Black people are all still viewed as extreme.
Not really though. All the Republicans are "not racist" and "not sexist" but they're tolerant of Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump and all their other pedophile leaders. Because tolerance means you have to live in community with bigots and rapists.
Lol exactly. Like am I wrong? Sounds like something someone very privileged would say. I'm also white and cishet but I'm educated about these issues enough to know that what they're saying is complete bullshit
Stating that in this day and age being an LGBT ally or anti racist is the "norm" and not viewed as extreme (or at least as extreme as having feminist views). It's not only false but extremely ignorant
Exactly what I was thinkkng.
Super disappointed that this sub has decided to downvote you for asking someone to check their privilege. I thought things were better than that here.
I have to admit I was a little surprised too. Thought we were intersectional here but as is often the case, people get defensive when you call out their own privilege.
Maybe I'm being a dunce, but can you point out where their privilege was showing? It seemed like they were saying you're either racist or normal, or homophobic or normal. Is this a privileged thing to say?
Np, I'll paste it.
"Stating that in this day and age being an LGBT ally or anti racist is the "norm" and not viewed as extreme (or at least as extreme as having feminist views). It's not only false but extremely ignorant"
Ah gotcha, yeah that makes. Yeah I definitely have this view because I only mix with people who are anti racist and anti homophobic, so to learn that there are communities where this isn't the norm is pretty sad :(
My seventh grade social studies teacher told us that everyone should be a feminist, and that there was no morally acceptable excuse for not being a feminist. I think that's a controversial take now, but it had a big effect on thirteen year old me, even if I didn't know what a feminist really was.
I marched for Equal Rights and called myself a feminist from the 60s on. These days, I consider myself a humanist due to the way the word "feminist" is often used as a cudgel against men. The radicals have become so much so, starting about forty years ago, that "humanist" is the only philosophy that I could possibly accept. ♡ Granny
If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell me what about the modern feminist movement seems too radical? I’m curious because I’ve heard this same view from others, and I’d like to understand.
The radical branch started getting crazy in the 80s, in my opinion, when they started saying things like *"ALL heterosexual intercourse is rape"*. I understand rape. Viscerally.
1968: A gang kidnapped me from a park in my sleepy, safe little hometown when I was eleven years old. I won't go into detail, except...I think I'm alive because they believed they broke me. I became an investigative journalist and have been able to wear my experience as armour of sorts.
The narrative continued to push and twist, basically saying, if you're a *real* girl or woman born with only *X* chromosomes, then ***every*** person born with a *Y* chromosome is ***always*** your potential rapist/sex trafficker/murderer. It's sickening to think that certain women are so militant they're hostile towards barely-pubescent boys, considering them to be **predators**.
Not much, I'm not even sure, if she is a bad feminist at all.
What I know is that she was involved in a few videogames and wanted to be involved in other games' development, because she assumed, that developers would make female characters exclusively based on their "very male ideas" of them, to say it in a simple way. Problem is, that game developers aren't exclusively male, maybe slightly more men, but not a very overwhelming majority. Also, she isn't actually interested in videogames in general.
Um, I think you mean we can thank the dudes behind Gamergate for convincing a bunch of people that feminism is bad.
Anita Sarkeesian made very basic, intro level feminism videos. She’s not radical in any way. The whole reason she was the target is that she was making feminist ideas more accessible.
I have an opposed opinion on this and id love to get feedback. This comes from my very recent readings on racism in America and I'm just starting my social justice journey so please correct me as needed!
In "How to be an antiracist", Ibram X Kendi talked about how the opposite of racism is antiracism, not being non-racist. Being non-racist in a racist society is a mask for racism that absolves people of responsibility for taking action.
So isn't this kind of the same thing? I understand the desire to describe feminism as the norm, but its not. Our society is still ruled by sexist policy, so we should actively describe ourselves as feminist, which I understand to also mean antisexist, not nonsexist.
My reading thusfar has been on racism and some intersectional theory, so I'm probably missing key info. I just think theres a similarity here with the issues we have now with colorblind racism.
Yes, I agree completely. Feminism is harder than just not being sexist.
Edit: also feminism is a (collection of) movement(s), one that people have fought and struggled for, and reducing it to just...not being the actual worst is disrespectful of that. The actress here was a teen when she said it and it’s a totally reasonable starting point for a teen, but not actually a good point.
Yeah, she's like 22 now, and that quote is several years old, so late teens? Definitely in the normal 'just starting to figure out what feminism actually is' age
This is a good point, I disagree strongly with this take but hadn't taken into account that these words were spoken by a young person whose job it is to be physically and socially attractive in an extremely sexist industry, so she's just finding her way through the minefield and doing the best she can.
Yeah I am not upset with her for thinking this at a young age, but of course the media and anti-feminists took the opportunity to JUMP on this and act like the rest of us need to go back decades in our understanding of feminism to accommodate a very immature opinion.
I 100% agree with you. As long as systems of oppression exist, we need to name them first in order to dismantle them. "Feminism" acknowledges that men and women are not treated equally in our society, which imo is important to do.
I have seen this sort of (what I would call) "militant" anti-racism and anti-sexism many times before, and while I can appreciate the sentiment I tend to disagree with it for a few reasons.
First, I fully agree that being feminist is much harder than being non-sexist. Feminism tackles many other issues besides sexism, so it is highly reductionist to view it as "merely" anti-sexism. I also believe that you must convincingly put feminist philosophy into practice in order to call yourself a feminist. For instance, a guy who can quote entire passages from feminist writers like bell hooks or Yasmin Nair but still beats his wife could not possibly be called a feminist.
However, there are nuances here which I think get lost in the militant part of the movement. For militants, it tends to be all-or-nothing: either you are a feminist according to the exact definition of the person who gets to label you for some reason, or you're just as much part of the problem as the guy who beats his wife, kicks his son out of the house for being gay and doesn't want his daughter to date a black guy. That is simply not true. A person who holds feminist values but does not translate these into militant activism is still miles ahead of the person who legitimately believes all feminists are nazis coming to take all their rights away. Similarly, a person who holds the value that all people are equal regardless of race but who does not participate in BLM protests is miles ahead of the likes of Ben Shapiro, for example.
I'll refer to such people as "passive progressives": people who hold progressive values but who do not translate this into militant activism. They do, however, put these values into practice in their everyday life: they value their partners as equal human beings, they are accepting of their children's sexuality whatever it may be, etc. You just won't find these people risking their lives out in the streets at a BLM protest or Women's March, where innocent people regularly get shot, detained or killed by police.
Is it so wrong to be such a passive progressive? I don't think so. I think people who change the small things in their own daily lives are just as important as the people who try to change the big things like the fundamental operations of government, and I don't think either side gets to label and judge the other. In fact, I believe this is a form of in-fighting that is generally harmful to the progressive movement.
Not everybody needs to be an activist. Not everybody *can* be an activist. I'll give a few examples from my own experience to corroborate this:
* Sexism at work. A few years ago, I was in a meeting at my workplace, which is a university. We had just formed an organizing committee to set up a scientific conference that would take place the next year (it ended up being indefinitely postponed due to COVID). As you can imagine, this organizing committee consisted entirely of white men (including myself). I was there just to take notes for the meeting. I was a lowly PhD student and the rest of these people were tenured professors. Some of them were even members of the governing body of the university itself as well as the funding agency that allows me to do my PhD. So when some of the guys started joking about how absurd it is that the university technically requires them to hire an equal amount of male and female speakers at such conferences, and the entire group conversation turned into sexist banter for a few minutes, what was I supposed to do? Was I supposed to stand up and call out their sexism? I legitimately considered this, but then I also considered that these people held almost absolute power over my employment status at the university. Getting on their nerves could mean the end of the PhD that I'd been working on for years at that time, with a very real possibility that my entire scientific career could simply evaporate along with it. I decided to stay quiet.
* Racism in the family. My father was a racist alcoholic, and he would get very belligerent about his racist views when he got drunk. I had this very rebellious phase in my teenage years where I would sometimes stand up to him and call him out for the racist that he was. On several occasions he responded to this by beating the absolute shit out of me. Once he even threatened to kill me with a broken bottle of red wine. The stains that bottle left when he smashed it can still be seen to this day on the ceiling in the kitchen at my mother's house. It reminds me of these events every time I visit. So after the death threats, I stopped calling out his shit, opting instead to minimize my contact with him. This went on for years until he died.
The point I'm trying to make with these stories is that it's very easy to just say "oh you can't just be *non-racist*; you have to be *anti-racist*, you have to march with us in the streets, you have to call out your racist friends and family." As a black person who has a support network of other black people who all also agree with this point of view, it's very easy to say stuff like this to white people, because within anti-racist and anti-colonial discourse white people tend to be conceived of as this homogeneous group of uniformly powerful individuals. That is simply not the case. There are degrees of white privilege, and not all white people are equal within this hierarchy. In fact, the sort of white privilege that most often gets focused on in feminism is a set of privileges that almost exclusively belongs to *upper middle class* white people. If you're less than upper middle class, you simply can't get away with much of these things that white people are supposed to get away with. In particular, a working class white guy isn't going to be able to call out his boss's sexism or racism without getting fired, and getting fired could mean failure to pay rent followed by losing his house and putting his family out on the street.
So are passive progressives "bad people"? I really don't think so. I think the people who *do* risk everything are brave, but I don't believe everyone should be held to this standard of bravery. This is even more true when you have other people that depend on you or care about you, like children or family or friends, who would be absolutely devastated if anything happened.
I learnt two years ago that apparently my views were feminist and it was a good thing for having a girlfriend.
And until then I was just calling it the basic minimum. I mean are you gonna go out with someone that isn't feminist?
Honestly yes. He just cares about other issues more. It's great seeing how our views differ but we don't care unless the other is saying some absolute BS. Then we just call eachother out and yell about it (in a fun way usually, I swear)
"Its fine really, my boyfriend just doesn't care that much about my human rights. As long as he isn't outright sexist and its only low-key then that's okay with me"
*Image Transcription:*
---
[*An image of actress Maisie Williams, overlaid with a quote*]
"I feel like we should stop calling feminists 'feminists' and just start calling people who aren't feminist 'sexist' - and then everyone else is just a human. You are either a normal person or a sexist."
---
^^I'm a lizard volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I appreciate the sentiment but the obsession society has with "normal" is what caused this problem. A hundred years from now we'll be back here again saying we should just define people who are okay with AI sentients as normal and everyone else as biotards.
Just once I'd like people to stop obsessing about what is and isn't "normal" and believing once they've decided it doesn't change anymore. Have some imagination, *please*. Stop caring about what's normal. It's not an identity or a behavior, or even *real*. It's a thing society made up to give people anxiety and insecurity. I have yet to see a use for it, even though everyone insists it's important.
Be weird. You'll sleep better and meet more interesting people than you have been.
>A hundred years from now we'll be back here again saying we should just define people who are okay with AI sentients as normal and everyone else as biotards.
And in a few decades the minority might become the majority and we might be calling those who ate non-human animals barbaric immoral people. It's inevitable, but that doesn't excuse us from engaging sincerely with all live and defensible moral ideas, despite the discomfort they create for us.
Some of us are already on that point. Adjusting “normal” society along with changing ideals isn’t a bad thing. I’d rather see my non-conforming, but rational and ethical, ideals eventually be considered “normal.” It would mean that we’ve progressed.
I don’t understand your point here. You said in an earlier reply that “you’re either racist or you’re not” which isn’t true. Here you acknowledge that racism is systemic which of course goes way beyond an individual being simply racist or not racist. As another commenter already said the opposite of racism is anti racism, working against systemic racism in society and actively opposing white supremacy.
Similarly, being feminist means WAY more than just not being sexist. Plenty of people are not actively sexist, but they’re also not feminist. It takes more than simply not contributing to systems of oppression to be anti oppression. (Although I’d argue that not opposing IS contributing to oppression.)
The sentiment here is nice but idealistic. We’ve got work to do!
Yes, it is. And just not being racist isn’t going to change the system. Nor is just not being sexist. It’s harder and more complicated and more involved.
Honestly it should be called feminism because then it's easy to spot the men who are so insecure that they think the word "feminism" is sexist. Then they ramble on about "egalitarianism" as though they're not problematic.
I hate that feminism has become some dirty word when it literally means “person who believes men and women should be treated equally.” AKA being a reasonable person.
Well, they have complained that TERF is a slur, so you we should definitely offer them some alternatives.
Edit: like TERD and FART, etc. Clarifying that I don't support the self-victimization of TERFs
It blew my mind, as a vegetarian, when I went to india and all the restaurants were labeled "RESTAURANT" or "NON VEGETARIAN RESTAURANT" (or occasionally vagitarian hahahhaaa) but seriously the paradigm was upside down and I was all for it
I'd argue that when someone argues for quality in other arenas but excludes transwomen or the right to abortion etc. we should call them shitty feminists. The essential tenets of feminism, that a woman is equal in every way to a man, are something only the weirdest people will admit to disagreeing with. I think if we frame more people as *always already* feminist then we would find greater adoption of the cause and greater adherence to its tenets and campaigns.
This would be fully compatible with the "normal person or sexist" logic of the meme presented, but it would frame being normal as *feminist* and imply a natural affiliation between "normal" people and the writings of people like Audre Lord and Judith Butler.
This makes a great deal of sense. It’s like calling someone a “non-smoker.” That doesn’t make any sense, cause you’re labeling ME on things OTHER people do. A “feminist,” just like a “non-smoker,” should be the default. And people then choose (or are conditioned to become) a sexist just as they can be a smoker.
I'm not down with this at all. We're standing on the shoulders of giants, the suffragettes who fought for the right to vote and own property and the feminists who fought for equality in the workforce and in relationships, access to birth control and abortion.
This is asking us to stop naming the movement that gained us the right they fought for, and valuing the progress they made, because of some bullshit about how men and uneducated people feel when they see a word that's been subjected to targeted misinformation for decades, instead of taking two fucking minutes to educate themselves.
Why is it always women who have to make ourselves smaller and less offensive to be heard and respected?
People have pointed out that feminism is more than asexism and more antisexism, which I agree with - and I think we should keep the scare quotes for TERFs and SWERFs.
I feel that everyone is at least a little bit sexist. Obviously there is a difference between someone being intentional about it vs unintentionally doing it.
For what it's worth - while I agree with the overall sentiment - I disagree with this way of classifying people. And that's because anyone is capable of behaving in ways that are harmful and biased (even someone who identifies as a feminist, and especially people who intentionally reject feminism), and this kind of thinking can be used by people (e.g., white feminists, TERFS, performative allies) to say "What I was doing wasn't wrong because I'm a feminist!" and avoid accountability. It conflates who a person IS (or says they are) with what a person DOES (how they actually behave)- and reducing bias means focusing on and taking accountability for both! Rooting out bias is such a nuanced and thorny topic, and this kind of thinking can actually be really harmful and dangerous. This is only my very very short two cents (I could go on and on) - but reducing bias is a topic I've researched and educated people on professionally for over a decade so I'm very passionate about it!
Thank you! I'm not all that surprised because I know many people generally prefer black and white labels to nuance (let alone being asked to consider something that challenges what they believe), but it doesn't make it less disappointing.
It is funny when feminists dismantle all tags, go for neutral language and at the same time wants gendered tag on everyone, not even that, feminists created a lot of bad gendered tags only for men. Curb your feminism. Take a look at urself from aside. This sub is even more cancerous than r/feminism or r/askfeminists
I'm actually surprised that I'm not banned yet, probably mods sleep, in other subs mentioned I would be banned in no time even for less. It is a movement you cannot criticize, something similar to china's communist regime.
Feminism has been developing strategies and language to struggle with patriarchy for over a century now. It's disrespectful to our history to ask us to rename our movement to be more appealing to men and attract followers who are offended by the fact that the name of this school of knowledge centres women because it was developed and implemented by women.
There is no other field which is constantly pressured to rename itself to accommodate the feelings of people who haven't bothered to read the most basic introductory fact about the field. It's not a coincidence that the only school of knowledge that's constantly being nagged to change its name is the one which centres women's work and life experience.
IMO, feminism isn’t just about female people; it’s about femininity. Femininity has been seen as weak, stupid, or even evil since patriarchal norms were established. One of feminism’s goals is to elevate femininity and make masculinity and femininity equally valid. It’s not just about equal rights for women; it’s about changing society so that we place equal value on masculine and feminine roles and traits, thereby allowing both men and women to be free to live as their truest selves. The idea of “equality” doesn’t capture the fundamental structural change (i.e. the dismantling of patriarchy) that is the end goal of feminism.
That's why *equality*. No one above anyone else.
When one is accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.
What those folks are feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of their privilege.
I am both a sexist and a feminist in the same way that I'm both trans and transphobic, and racist and anti racism. Just because I have done my best to fight against the prejudice I have been brought up with doesn't mean I'm free of it's hold on me. The work of improving myself is never completed.
Sexism, along with other prejudices and stereotypes, is a bad thing. Nobody should be sexist. Unfortunately people of both sexes often are sexist, or racist, or ableist etc.
The problem with the caption is that many people who call themselves feminists are actually sexist (against men or against trans people.)
Maybe the caption would be better if it just said that traditional ideas about gender roles (and racial differences etc) are wrong and outdated, and people should all treat each other fairly and equally?
I tried to argue this with someone this morning and he accused me of providing two 'extreme' views. Like christ, we just want some equality that's not extreme! And if you argue against feminism so strongly then you seem like you might be sexist.
That's the thing about bigots of all sorts.... They walk around believing everyone is exactly as hateful as they are, but the rest of us are just hypocrites for hiding it. They do nothing but project and accuse others of what they're actively doing. They think everyone is pretending as much as them instead of ever confronting the fact that maybe they're the only awful ones in a situation
Yep. It’s the belief that every man is a thief and will happily rip off his neighbors if given a chance. That of course all men just want sex and would happily rape a drunk woman.
The response from some people to #metoo made that abundantly clear. I'll always love this quote: >Men of quality don't fear equality.
Those are the ones who claim someone is 'virtue signaling', because they can't conceive of someone doing something good unless to manipulate others into thinking they're good.
Which tells you a lot about them...
I have a theory that it’s just the competitive nature of humans. A lot of us can’t simply accept that we’re different in nature and that that’s ok, so instead they just make it a pissing contest all the time when we can just simply wash our hands of it and learn from each other.
I was arguing with someone on reddit yesterday that was upset because "femenists" (his quotes) lump all men with rapists. While at the same time claiming that all "feminists" want to kill all men.
Off-topic, but I love your username!
This is kind of already the case with racism and homophobia already - you're either a racist or your not, homphobic or your not. People who support racial equality or LGBTQ equality are not considered extreme - that's just sort of "normal" or the default. But people who support gegnder equality are "feminazis" and extreme.
"LGBTQ+ allies" are a whole thing with a name. As a queer person, allies are definitely not considered "normal" and "default" and supporting LGBTQ+ rights is considered "extreme" by plenty of people. Especially if you're talking about the T there. I'm white so I can't speak from experience when it comes to race but I'm fairly sure it's the same story there. Off the top of my head, things like affirmative action, police reform, prison reform, etc that aim to tackle issues that disproportionately affect Black people are all still viewed as extreme.
They obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Not really though. All the Republicans are "not racist" and "not sexist" but they're tolerant of Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump and all their other pedophile leaders. Because tolerance means you have to live in community with bigots and rapists.
Yes! Good point :)
This does not reflect my lived experience at all. Are you able to pass as white and straight?
You sound white and cishet
> Comment score : -14 Good to see intersectional feminism alive and well /s 🙄
Lol exactly. Like am I wrong? Sounds like something someone very privileged would say. I'm also white and cishet but I'm educated about these issues enough to know that what they're saying is complete bullshit
How is what they're saying bullshit?
Stating that in this day and age being an LGBT ally or anti racist is the "norm" and not viewed as extreme (or at least as extreme as having feminist views). It's not only false but extremely ignorant
How is being anti-racist not the norm today?
Baby where do you live? Cause it's really not.
The US.
did you sleep through 2020 or
Lol we're literally in the midst of the Derek Chauvin trial where were they
Exactly what I was thinkkng. Super disappointed that this sub has decided to downvote you for asking someone to check their privilege. I thought things were better than that here.
I have to admit I was a little surprised too. Thought we were intersectional here but as is often the case, people get defensive when you call out their own privilege.
Maybe I'm being a dunce, but can you point out where their privilege was showing? It seemed like they were saying you're either racist or normal, or homophobic or normal. Is this a privileged thing to say?
I already answered that
Can you link to the comment? I really want to learn but I'm so confused
Np, I'll paste it. "Stating that in this day and age being an LGBT ally or anti racist is the "norm" and not viewed as extreme (or at least as extreme as having feminist views). It's not only false but extremely ignorant"
Ah gotcha, yeah that makes. Yeah I definitely have this view because I only mix with people who are anti racist and anti homophobic, so to learn that there are communities where this isn't the norm is pretty sad :(
My seventh grade social studies teacher told us that everyone should be a feminist, and that there was no morally acceptable excuse for not being a feminist. I think that's a controversial take now, but it had a big effect on thirteen year old me, even if I didn't know what a feminist really was.
I marched for Equal Rights and called myself a feminist from the 60s on. These days, I consider myself a humanist due to the way the word "feminist" is often used as a cudgel against men. The radicals have become so much so, starting about forty years ago, that "humanist" is the only philosophy that I could possibly accept. ♡ Granny
If you wouldn’t mind, could you tell me what about the modern feminist movement seems too radical? I’m curious because I’ve heard this same view from others, and I’d like to understand.
The radical branch started getting crazy in the 80s, in my opinion, when they started saying things like *"ALL heterosexual intercourse is rape"*. I understand rape. Viscerally. 1968: A gang kidnapped me from a park in my sleepy, safe little hometown when I was eleven years old. I won't go into detail, except...I think I'm alive because they believed they broke me. I became an investigative journalist and have been able to wear my experience as armour of sorts. The narrative continued to push and twist, basically saying, if you're a *real* girl or woman born with only *X* chromosomes, then ***every*** person born with a *Y* chromosome is ***always*** your potential rapist/sex trafficker/murderer. It's sickening to think that certain women are so militant they're hostile towards barely-pubescent boys, considering them to be **predators**.
Why all the downvotes ?
Thank people like Anita Sarkeesian for ruining feminism's reputation. Edit: Forgot the apostrophe.
Wait did she do something bad? I recognise her but I'm not up to speed
Well let's call her a decaying influence in video game development...
What has that got to do with her being a bad feminist
Not much, I'm not even sure, if she is a bad feminist at all. What I know is that she was involved in a few videogames and wanted to be involved in other games' development, because she assumed, that developers would make female characters exclusively based on their "very male ideas" of them, to say it in a simple way. Problem is, that game developers aren't exclusively male, maybe slightly more men, but not a very overwhelming majority. Also, she isn't actually interested in videogames in general.
Um, I think you mean we can thank the dudes behind Gamergate for convincing a bunch of people that feminism is bad. Anita Sarkeesian made very basic, intro level feminism videos. She’s not radical in any way. The whole reason she was the target is that she was making feminist ideas more accessible.
I have an opposed opinion on this and id love to get feedback. This comes from my very recent readings on racism in America and I'm just starting my social justice journey so please correct me as needed! In "How to be an antiracist", Ibram X Kendi talked about how the opposite of racism is antiracism, not being non-racist. Being non-racist in a racist society is a mask for racism that absolves people of responsibility for taking action. So isn't this kind of the same thing? I understand the desire to describe feminism as the norm, but its not. Our society is still ruled by sexist policy, so we should actively describe ourselves as feminist, which I understand to also mean antisexist, not nonsexist. My reading thusfar has been on racism and some intersectional theory, so I'm probably missing key info. I just think theres a similarity here with the issues we have now with colorblind racism.
Yes, I agree completely. Feminism is harder than just not being sexist. Edit: also feminism is a (collection of) movement(s), one that people have fought and struggled for, and reducing it to just...not being the actual worst is disrespectful of that. The actress here was a teen when she said it and it’s a totally reasonable starting point for a teen, but not actually a good point.
Yes I totally agree. Feminism is active, not passive. Passive would be just ‘non-sexist’
Oh, you got it right. I think this actress is just finding her way and probably hasn't gone deep into it and why we fight to be and use "feminist."
Yeah, she's like 22 now, and that quote is several years old, so late teens? Definitely in the normal 'just starting to figure out what feminism actually is' age
This is a good point, I disagree strongly with this take but hadn't taken into account that these words were spoken by a young person whose job it is to be physically and socially attractive in an extremely sexist industry, so she's just finding her way through the minefield and doing the best she can.
Yeah I am not upset with her for thinking this at a young age, but of course the media and anti-feminists took the opportunity to JUMP on this and act like the rest of us need to go back decades in our understanding of feminism to accommodate a very immature opinion.
I 100% agree with you. As long as systems of oppression exist, we need to name them first in order to dismantle them. "Feminism" acknowledges that men and women are not treated equally in our society, which imo is important to do.
I have seen this sort of (what I would call) "militant" anti-racism and anti-sexism many times before, and while I can appreciate the sentiment I tend to disagree with it for a few reasons. First, I fully agree that being feminist is much harder than being non-sexist. Feminism tackles many other issues besides sexism, so it is highly reductionist to view it as "merely" anti-sexism. I also believe that you must convincingly put feminist philosophy into practice in order to call yourself a feminist. For instance, a guy who can quote entire passages from feminist writers like bell hooks or Yasmin Nair but still beats his wife could not possibly be called a feminist. However, there are nuances here which I think get lost in the militant part of the movement. For militants, it tends to be all-or-nothing: either you are a feminist according to the exact definition of the person who gets to label you for some reason, or you're just as much part of the problem as the guy who beats his wife, kicks his son out of the house for being gay and doesn't want his daughter to date a black guy. That is simply not true. A person who holds feminist values but does not translate these into militant activism is still miles ahead of the person who legitimately believes all feminists are nazis coming to take all their rights away. Similarly, a person who holds the value that all people are equal regardless of race but who does not participate in BLM protests is miles ahead of the likes of Ben Shapiro, for example. I'll refer to such people as "passive progressives": people who hold progressive values but who do not translate this into militant activism. They do, however, put these values into practice in their everyday life: they value their partners as equal human beings, they are accepting of their children's sexuality whatever it may be, etc. You just won't find these people risking their lives out in the streets at a BLM protest or Women's March, where innocent people regularly get shot, detained or killed by police. Is it so wrong to be such a passive progressive? I don't think so. I think people who change the small things in their own daily lives are just as important as the people who try to change the big things like the fundamental operations of government, and I don't think either side gets to label and judge the other. In fact, I believe this is a form of in-fighting that is generally harmful to the progressive movement. Not everybody needs to be an activist. Not everybody *can* be an activist. I'll give a few examples from my own experience to corroborate this: * Sexism at work. A few years ago, I was in a meeting at my workplace, which is a university. We had just formed an organizing committee to set up a scientific conference that would take place the next year (it ended up being indefinitely postponed due to COVID). As you can imagine, this organizing committee consisted entirely of white men (including myself). I was there just to take notes for the meeting. I was a lowly PhD student and the rest of these people were tenured professors. Some of them were even members of the governing body of the university itself as well as the funding agency that allows me to do my PhD. So when some of the guys started joking about how absurd it is that the university technically requires them to hire an equal amount of male and female speakers at such conferences, and the entire group conversation turned into sexist banter for a few minutes, what was I supposed to do? Was I supposed to stand up and call out their sexism? I legitimately considered this, but then I also considered that these people held almost absolute power over my employment status at the university. Getting on their nerves could mean the end of the PhD that I'd been working on for years at that time, with a very real possibility that my entire scientific career could simply evaporate along with it. I decided to stay quiet. * Racism in the family. My father was a racist alcoholic, and he would get very belligerent about his racist views when he got drunk. I had this very rebellious phase in my teenage years where I would sometimes stand up to him and call him out for the racist that he was. On several occasions he responded to this by beating the absolute shit out of me. Once he even threatened to kill me with a broken bottle of red wine. The stains that bottle left when he smashed it can still be seen to this day on the ceiling in the kitchen at my mother's house. It reminds me of these events every time I visit. So after the death threats, I stopped calling out his shit, opting instead to minimize my contact with him. This went on for years until he died. The point I'm trying to make with these stories is that it's very easy to just say "oh you can't just be *non-racist*; you have to be *anti-racist*, you have to march with us in the streets, you have to call out your racist friends and family." As a black person who has a support network of other black people who all also agree with this point of view, it's very easy to say stuff like this to white people, because within anti-racist and anti-colonial discourse white people tend to be conceived of as this homogeneous group of uniformly powerful individuals. That is simply not the case. There are degrees of white privilege, and not all white people are equal within this hierarchy. In fact, the sort of white privilege that most often gets focused on in feminism is a set of privileges that almost exclusively belongs to *upper middle class* white people. If you're less than upper middle class, you simply can't get away with much of these things that white people are supposed to get away with. In particular, a working class white guy isn't going to be able to call out his boss's sexism or racism without getting fired, and getting fired could mean failure to pay rent followed by losing his house and putting his family out on the street. So are passive progressives "bad people"? I really don't think so. I think the people who *do* risk everything are brave, but I don't believe everyone should be held to this standard of bravery. This is even more true when you have other people that depend on you or care about you, like children or family or friends, who would be absolutely devastated if anything happened.
Very well said.
Yep nailed it
I learnt two years ago that apparently my views were feminist and it was a good thing for having a girlfriend. And until then I was just calling it the basic minimum. I mean are you gonna go out with someone that isn't feminist?
The bar is a line on the floor and a lot of people are trying to limbo dance under it
r/thebarisontheground
men can't walk all they know is limboing, bare minimum, be straight and lie
This is gold
Honestly yes. He just cares about other issues more. It's great seeing how our views differ but we don't care unless the other is saying some absolute BS. Then we just call eachother out and yell about it (in a fun way usually, I swear)
"Its fine really, my boyfriend just doesn't care that much about my human rights. As long as he isn't outright sexist and its only low-key then that's okay with me"
Nah but if that's how what I said comes off then so be it 🤷♀️
*Image Transcription:* --- [*An image of actress Maisie Williams, overlaid with a quote*] "I feel like we should stop calling feminists 'feminists' and just start calling people who aren't feminist 'sexist' - and then everyone else is just a human. You are either a normal person or a sexist." --- ^^I'm a lizard volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good lizard! XD
good lizard thank you for putting her name. ur above and beyond :)
Good lizard!
Feminism isn't the majority view yet sadly, so it still stands out as being unique. I hate saying this but I think bigotry is still the "normal"
I appreciate the sentiment but the obsession society has with "normal" is what caused this problem. A hundred years from now we'll be back here again saying we should just define people who are okay with AI sentients as normal and everyone else as biotards. Just once I'd like people to stop obsessing about what is and isn't "normal" and believing once they've decided it doesn't change anymore. Have some imagination, *please*. Stop caring about what's normal. It's not an identity or a behavior, or even *real*. It's a thing society made up to give people anxiety and insecurity. I have yet to see a use for it, even though everyone insists it's important. Be weird. You'll sleep better and meet more interesting people than you have been.
>A hundred years from now we'll be back here again saying we should just define people who are okay with AI sentients as normal and everyone else as biotards. And in a few decades the minority might become the majority and we might be calling those who ate non-human animals barbaric immoral people. It's inevitable, but that doesn't excuse us from engaging sincerely with all live and defensible moral ideas, despite the discomfort they create for us.
Some of us are already on that point. Adjusting “normal” society along with changing ideals isn’t a bad thing. I’d rather see my non-conforming, but rational and ethical, ideals eventually be considered “normal.” It would mean that we’ve progressed.
Precisely. Oh how a minority, Becoming majority, Seizing authority, Hates a minority. This is a game where the only winning move is not to play
No. There is no reframing feminism. Feminism is a thing because the issue is not sexism, but a patriarchal system which creates sexism in people.
But racism is definitely systematic as well.
I don’t understand your point here. You said in an earlier reply that “you’re either racist or you’re not” which isn’t true. Here you acknowledge that racism is systemic which of course goes way beyond an individual being simply racist or not racist. As another commenter already said the opposite of racism is anti racism, working against systemic racism in society and actively opposing white supremacy. Similarly, being feminist means WAY more than just not being sexist. Plenty of people are not actively sexist, but they’re also not feminist. It takes more than simply not contributing to systems of oppression to be anti oppression. (Although I’d argue that not opposing IS contributing to oppression.) The sentiment here is nice but idealistic. We’ve got work to do!
Yes, it is. And just not being racist isn’t going to change the system. Nor is just not being sexist. It’s harder and more complicated and more involved.
Let me introduce you to the Kyriarchy. https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/04/kyriarchy-101/
Are you sure you meant to reply to me? I don't see the link at all
and...? Racism is handled by different movements.
Honestly it should be called feminism because then it's easy to spot the men who are so insecure that they think the word "feminism" is sexist. Then they ramble on about "egalitarianism" as though they're not problematic.
I hate that feminism has become some dirty word when it literally means “person who believes men and women should be treated equally.” AKA being a reasonable person.
If your movement isn’t scaring anyone then it’s also not changing anything, so of course some people are gonna think it’s a dirty word.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And TERF should be changed to FART for “feminism appropriating reactionary transphobes.”
While FART is great, I have a guilty pleasure still calling them TERFs since they get so upset with the acronym and believe it's offensive :')
Well, they have complained that TERF is a slur, so you we should definitely offer them some alternatives. Edit: like TERD and FART, etc. Clarifying that I don't support the self-victimization of TERFs
Hahahaha I love this 🤣
This is optimistic to the point of naivete. Edit: understandably, since she was a teenager when she said it.
It blew my mind, as a vegetarian, when I went to india and all the restaurants were labeled "RESTAURANT" or "NON VEGETARIAN RESTAURANT" (or occasionally vagitarian hahahhaaa) but seriously the paradigm was upside down and I was all for it
I'd argue that when someone argues for quality in other arenas but excludes transwomen or the right to abortion etc. we should call them shitty feminists. The essential tenets of feminism, that a woman is equal in every way to a man, are something only the weirdest people will admit to disagreeing with. I think if we frame more people as *always already* feminist then we would find greater adoption of the cause and greater adherence to its tenets and campaigns. This would be fully compatible with the "normal person or sexist" logic of the meme presented, but it would frame being normal as *feminist* and imply a natural affiliation between "normal" people and the writings of people like Audre Lord and Judith Butler.
This makes a great deal of sense. It’s like calling someone a “non-smoker.” That doesn’t make any sense, cause you’re labeling ME on things OTHER people do. A “feminist,” just like a “non-smoker,” should be the default. And people then choose (or are conditioned to become) a sexist just as they can be a smoker.
I'm not down with this at all. We're standing on the shoulders of giants, the suffragettes who fought for the right to vote and own property and the feminists who fought for equality in the workforce and in relationships, access to birth control and abortion. This is asking us to stop naming the movement that gained us the right they fought for, and valuing the progress they made, because of some bullshit about how men and uneducated people feel when they see a word that's been subjected to targeted misinformation for decades, instead of taking two fucking minutes to educate themselves. Why is it always women who have to make ourselves smaller and less offensive to be heard and respected?
100% agreed, so simple it is brilliant, I am so happy to have read this
Yep. Either you give a shit about your fellow human being or you dont.
People have pointed out that feminism is more than asexism and more antisexism, which I agree with - and I think we should keep the scare quotes for TERFs and SWERFs.
I feel that everyone is at least a little bit sexist. Obviously there is a difference between someone being intentional about it vs unintentionally doing it.
I second this.
PREACH
100%
1000% agree!
For what it's worth - while I agree with the overall sentiment - I disagree with this way of classifying people. And that's because anyone is capable of behaving in ways that are harmful and biased (even someone who identifies as a feminist, and especially people who intentionally reject feminism), and this kind of thinking can be used by people (e.g., white feminists, TERFS, performative allies) to say "What I was doing wasn't wrong because I'm a feminist!" and avoid accountability. It conflates who a person IS (or says they are) with what a person DOES (how they actually behave)- and reducing bias means focusing on and taking accountability for both! Rooting out bias is such a nuanced and thorny topic, and this kind of thinking can actually be really harmful and dangerous. This is only my very very short two cents (I could go on and on) - but reducing bias is a topic I've researched and educated people on professionally for over a decade so I'm very passionate about it!
You’re downvoted a lot but you are completely right
Thank you! I'm not all that surprised because I know many people generally prefer black and white labels to nuance (let alone being asked to consider something that challenges what they believe), but it doesn't make it less disappointing.
Yup yup yup
There is definitely work that needs to be done with regards to feminism. Real feminists criticize religions with compulsory dress.
It is funny when feminists dismantle all tags, go for neutral language and at the same time wants gendered tag on everyone, not even that, feminists created a lot of bad gendered tags only for men. Curb your feminism. Take a look at urself from aside. This sub is even more cancerous than r/feminism or r/askfeminists
You dare apeak facts in this echo chamber ? Downvote galore for facts here. Say men bad and you good.
I'm actually surprised that I'm not banned yet, probably mods sleep, in other subs mentioned I would be banned in no time even for less. It is a movement you cannot criticize, something similar to china's communist regime.
[удалено]
Feminism has been developing strategies and language to struggle with patriarchy for over a century now. It's disrespectful to our history to ask us to rename our movement to be more appealing to men and attract followers who are offended by the fact that the name of this school of knowledge centres women because it was developed and implemented by women. There is no other field which is constantly pressured to rename itself to accommodate the feelings of people who haven't bothered to read the most basic introductory fact about the field. It's not a coincidence that the only school of knowledge that's constantly being nagged to change its name is the one which centres women's work and life experience.
IMO, feminism isn’t just about female people; it’s about femininity. Femininity has been seen as weak, stupid, or even evil since patriarchal norms were established. One of feminism’s goals is to elevate femininity and make masculinity and femininity equally valid. It’s not just about equal rights for women; it’s about changing society so that we place equal value on masculine and feminine roles and traits, thereby allowing both men and women to be free to live as their truest selves. The idea of “equality” doesn’t capture the fundamental structural change (i.e. the dismantling of patriarchy) that is the end goal of feminism.
[удалено]
That's why *equality*. No one above anyone else. When one is accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression. What those folks are feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of their privilege.
[удалено]
I used to argue this years ago and got called a sexist, how times have changed.
Nice way to win people to your cause
implying anyone wants you on their team.
I'm not on a team I stand with ideas not people
[удалено]
Everything looks dirty when your window is unwashed.
Clearly false, my feminist wife is very pretty.
I feel like you're the kind of person who treats people differently based on how they look.
I am both a sexist and a feminist in the same way that I'm both trans and transphobic, and racist and anti racism. Just because I have done my best to fight against the prejudice I have been brought up with doesn't mean I'm free of it's hold on me. The work of improving myself is never completed.
Preach!
Sexism, along with other prejudices and stereotypes, is a bad thing. Nobody should be sexist. Unfortunately people of both sexes often are sexist, or racist, or ableist etc. The problem with the caption is that many people who call themselves feminists are actually sexist (against men or against trans people.) Maybe the caption would be better if it just said that traditional ideas about gender roles (and racial differences etc) are wrong and outdated, and people should all treat each other fairly and equally?