Poll: Are you a feminist?

[JanatUrlich]

If you believe that a person who has a vagina should be able to do what they want with that vagina then you are a feminist.

 

[Cheesepower5]

If you believe that a person who has a vagina should be able to do what they want with that vagina then you are a feminist.

What if they want to use that vagina for evil, like to start a genocide or something?

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

 

[Ramzal]

If you believe that a person who has a vagina should be able to do what they want with that vagina then you are a feminist.

What if they want to use that vagina for evil, like to start a genocide or something?

This has happened several times in history actually. *Points at Troy*

 

[Kahunaburger]

Great answer, I didn't expect that.

You're right, people don't want to hear it. Men are just supposed to take whatever come to them and whatever comes to them is always less important than if the same had happened to a woman. Rape, genital mutilation, domestic violence, losing everyone you love in divorce court, etc...

exactly, women are victimised and treated like they are weak and need protecting and in some cases overly so, men are expected to stay silent and endure, the male victims of DV assault and sexual assault are often not seen or payed attention to, and it shouldn't be like that, even before I started doing my studies on this in late high school and uni I knew there was such a differential in the treatment, but until I started studying Criminology, I never knew just how substantial that difference is.

That is, IMO, is the perfect example of why feminism is still important. Patriarchy screws everyone over.

You do realize we just objectively don't live in a patriarchy anymore, right?

Sexism still exists, but men no longer have total power of society.

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

 

[Epona]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

 

[geK0]

I hold the same basic beliefs that I'm told feminism has (equal rights and such), but I have an irrational bias against the term that I have a hard time getting over : \

By calling themselves feminists, they give the impression that they believe women; I mean, the entire belief system is named for females, so it's hard to argue that feminism means equality for everyone.... that would be equalism.... But there's really no point in getting into an argument over semantics; if you mean "equal rights for everyone" when you say "feminism" then I am a feminist.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Considering the OP provided the definition to use, and it's been argued back and forth for the last 23 pages, do you really expect people to share the same perceptions of the definitions behind patriarchy?

The US may have been a patriarchy during the nuclear era, but it certainly isn't anymore. The father figure hasn't been the supreme authority in our society for quite some time. But then again, that's my personal perspective, which will undoubtedly differ from others.

If you believe that a person who has a vagina should be able to do what they want with that vagina then you are a feminist.

As opposed to feminists that tell men they must keep their dicks in their pants until required? Not a mean spirited come back mind you; I rather enjoyed this particular definition, but it's a bit simplistic in practice. A lot of feminists don't think women should be allowed to do certain things with their vaginas.

 

[Ramzal]

I've been attacked by a woman who attacked me with a glass bottle in the street, fought back and expressed that I did on these forums and was practically called out for my "behavior" for defending myself.

And who do you think disapproved of self-defense there? Feminists?

Didn't stop to ask. I usually don't indulge people who'd rather be stabbed to death with a broken bottle than defend themselves. You know...whatchamacallit...oh yeah. Morons. (Very condescending, but well deserved.)

 

[Epona]

If you believe that a person who has a vagina should be able to do what they want with that vagina then you are a feminist.

Do you believe that a person with a penis should be able to what they want with that penis? I am betting you have limitations that apply to penises but not vaginas.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

By the bare bones definition of Feminist, I could be called such, so yes. I guess I'm Feminist (and a guy as well.)

However, I don't really do much with it. Most of the problems I see either stem from not enough people encouraging women to attempt certain fields as much as some others, or that society is going "stereotypical" in regards to portrayal; which includes both when society shows women/girls as being supposed to act a certain way, and when people act like stereotypes in real life without thinking. The question of encouragement in certain fields is a tricky problem at best, and stereotypes are around because people are lazy thinkers.

Extra stuff on that Note, which get sorta technical at first, then a little preachy (and could possibly annoy those better at this than me), then depressing, then just sad... Don't say I didn't warn you about that last part:

Spoiler

Disclaimer: Some would argue stereo types are bad, others that they are neutral. But really, it's more of a societal tool that is really easy to get wrong through over generalization. Which makes it more a really flawed tool than inherently bad or inherently neutral. It's definitely not good either though. The only way to use Stereotyping "right", pretty much requires cutting it down to bare bones definition, at which point it ceases to be a stereotype and just becomes a word; but by the same token, renders stereotyping useless as a tool of figuring out societal structure.

Of course, there's this one set of stereotypes that puts me in a weird position that are associated with one word; it rare enough that one wouldn't normally encounter it in normal activity, it balances out the other stereotypes, and yet it has so many accidental associations. "Tomboys". There's a kind of weird relationship I have with that word and its associated stereotypes. On one hand, I like the idea of girls who have a masculine edge to whatever femininity they have, (to the point of being attracted to it and little else), and yet it annoys my to no end that Society stereotypes and generalizes the hell out of the word and its meaning with; A, "it's a childhood 'phase'". B, "Probably Lesbians". C, "This is not what men want". And whats worse is that I don't get to see enough tomboyish girls to have even the illusion of hope of finding a suitable partner, even without those three stereotypes clogging up my mind and ruining my joy.

And now that I'm suddenly arguing my hot button topic, I have to wonder; why can't the girl be the knight and have the guy be the sorcerer? Seriously, that's how my romances would play out. And yet... No girl seems to want to be my hero.

Hopefully the spoiler tags keep this from getting people... too grumpy and off topic. Not that it can be avoided with this issue.

Capcha-y thing: "No Way"?, great, as if I hadn't made myself depressed enough.

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

In my opinion, nobody should be feminist. Everyone should be an equalist. Fighting for equal rights, the word femenist suggests that one is more for the rights of women in general.
Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males. But that does not mean you should fight only for the rights of one group, but try and fight for all. And those who are discriminated against should be the ones we fight for each time. Everyone should have equal rights, genders, colors, sexuality... It's only when you break the laws of your society that your rights are taken away, like the freedom of a rapist or a murderer. But it's not a crime to be a woman, black, gay and so forth.

That's my opinion, anyways.

 

[Ramzal]

I've been attacked by a woman who attacked me with a glass bottle in the street, fought back and expressed that I did on these forums and was practically called out for my "behavior" for defending myself.

And who do you think disapproved of self-defense there? Feminists?

Didn't stop to ask. I usually don't indulge people who'd rather be stabbed to death with a broken bottle than defend themselves. You know...whatchamacallit...oh yeah. Morons. (Very condescending, but well deserved.)

I can't say bringing that up as a point against feminism when feminists didn't necessarily do it seems much better. (And really... whoever it was was very likely not a feminist unless you're leaving details out that make it about anything besides gender)

Fair enough now that I think about it. It was mainly stated that I was a terrible person for even laying a hand on a woman...regardless of her actions. Which is something that is often heard from EXTREME feminist on college campus rallies. I cna honestly say I don't know if they were a feminist now that I think about it. You're right. I assumed without asking. Now I know.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Please elaborate on your revolutionary new definition for the word "patriarchy" used in the context of a feminism thread.

Considering the OP provided the definition to use, and it's been argued back and forth for the last 23 pages, do you really expect people to share the same perceptions of the definitions behind patriarchy?

The US may have been a patriarchy during the nuclear era, but it certainly isn't anymore. The father figure hasn't been the supreme authority in our society for quite some time. But then again, that's my personal perspective, which will undoubtedly differ from others.

"Patriarchy" when used in the context of feminism is a specific term [http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/t/tobias-feminisim.html] that refers to (I'm oversimplifying here) a society that has gender roles that disproportionately place power in the hands of men and privileges stereotypically male things over stereotypically female things.

So an example of patriarchy at work (again I'm massively over-simplifying here) is the whole "men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers" norm (note: exceptions to a norm can and do exist but tend to be regarded as exceptions). Fallout from this norm includes the glass ceiling, women being underpaid, men being more likely to lose custody battles, and "stay at home dads" being stigmatized.

 

[Epona]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

You don't seem to understand that "trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary" is a complete waste of time by itself because people who benefit from AA will always claim it is necessary.

If you think that those who benefit from AA are just going to say "ok, things are equal now" then you are smoking something that you aren't sharing with the rest of the thread. It's like feminism, no matter how many advantages women get, they will never say "we are equal enough".

Right now we have people saying that women have taken over the workforce (Maria Shriver said 3 years ago that "it's a womans world now", link below and I saw a Time magazine cover a month or two ago saying similar) and women are still whining about equal pay.

It has been shown countless times that women get paid less because they take more time off work, work less overtime, are not as mobile and just generally choose less risky and less demanding jobs. That won't matter though because women still protest and because of that, things will change in their favor. Next thing you know cashiers at Wal Mart will be making more than stockers who do heavy lifting because Wal Mart is tired of getting sued and they know men are less likely to protest. I hate to say it but it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

 

[Epona]

In my opinion, nobody should be feminist. Everyone should be an equalist. Fighting for equal rights, the word femenist suggests that one is more for the rights of women in general.
Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males. But that does not mean you should fight only for the rights of one group, but try and fight for all. And those who are discriminated against should be the ones we fight for each time. Everyone should have equal rights, genders, colors, sexuality... It's only when you break the laws of your society that your rights are taken away, like the freedom of a rapist or a murderer. But it's not a crime to be a woman, black, gay and so forth.

That's my opinion, anyways.

Oh really? What rights do males have that females do not?

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I agree that hiring lesser-qualified minority groups to grant them status is putting the cart before the horse, you have to at least recognize that there are fewer 'qualified' candidates for those positions because of the unequal manner in which we educate and prepare people for life.

There may be more 'qualified' white male candidates for Job A because white men are more likely to be privileged with the training and opportunity for Job A than other groups. Suggesting that the playing field is totally level is to suggest that there's more white men in these positions because being a white man somehow makes you more competent, which we know to be false.

So I feel the anger is a bit misdirected. While people rail against 'affirmative action', they rarely qualify that anger by suggesting comprehensive change to the systems that make such programs needed. Most just stop at the anger.

Of course. The real question is, where does an actual difference in opportunity following those demographic lines exist? That's where the effort needs to be placed, and that's also why affirmative action as it is actually practiced is ridiculous, sexist, and racist, and also *maintains* the idea that those people aren't as capable, because they're not being held to the same standard.

I will say that the criticisms of such programs are undermined somewhat by being conjured largely, I've found, from individuals to whom the program gives no benefit. As in, white people.

Speaking as a white guy, I don't bother to speak out against them. I instead endeavor to do my part to make this world one in which those programs will not be a necessity. Whining about them focuses the conversation on a symptom and not the disease. In fact all it does is reinforce the idea that minority groups have, that we white folks are always trying to keep them down, to maintain our comfortable majority and position of privilege. I feel effort is better spent ignoring things like affirmative action and instead focusing efforts on making them obsolete.

In other words, sit back and take the discrimination like a man?

See, that's how we got here. People sitting back and not protesting.

I have bolded the parts of my post you apparently missed.

I saw the bolded parts, you could do both. You do not discriminate AND protest when you are discriminated against.

I have limited time and energy. I figure, arguing against affirmative action is a waste of time; it's complaining about a symptom and frankly, I sound like an entitled little jerk when I whine about discrimination, being that I'm a white heterosexual cisgendered middle class American. It's like... I'm complaining?

Nah, no thanks. My time and energy are much better spent on trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary. No sense in wasting it hacking away at symptoms that, honestly, don't always misfire anyway. People seem to confuse the words "can" and "do" when it comes to affirmative action. It can create a situation where a lesser qualified candidate gets the position. It doesn't always, however, and in fact has most likely prevented a qualified candidate from being denied because of X, Y or Z.

You don't seem to understand that "trying to do my part to make the world into one where affirmative action would be unnecessary" is a complete waste of time by itself because people who benefit from AA will always claim it is necessary.

If you think that those who benefit from AA are just going to say "ok, things are equal now" then you are smoking something that you aren't sharing with the rest of the thread. It's like feminism, no matter how many advantages women get, they will never say "we are equal enough".

Right now we have people saying that women have taken over the workforce (Maria Shriver said 3 years ago that "it's a womans world now", link below and I saw a Time magazine cover a month or two ago saying similar) and women are still whining about equal pay.

It has been shown countless times that women get paid less because they take more time off work, work less overtime, are not as mobile and just generally choose less risky and less demanding jobs. That won't matter though because women still protest and because of that, things will change in their favor. Next thing you know cashiers at Wal Mart will be making more than stockers who do heavy lifting because Wal Mart is tired of getting sued and they know men are less likely to protest. I hate to say it but it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

Okay, you make a lot of claims here.

1) People benefiting from AA will always want it and never want to give it up. (I'm assuming you mean, here, that this is even if we remake the world into one where true equality has been reached. You and I will be long dead but whatever.)

2) That women are completely equal to men now in every way and are in fact unfairly whining for more considerations.

3) That women are paid less for completely justifiable means and there is no unfair pay practices in the workforce.

We're gonna need some citations here, just so I know you're not just making things up as you go.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

In my opinion, nobody should be feminist. Everyone should be an equalist. Fighting for equal rights, the word femenist suggests that one is more for the rights of women in general.
Of course the rights of women are less, unfortunately, that those of males. But that does not mean you should fight only for the rights of one group, but try and fight for all. And those who are discriminated against should be the ones we fight for each time. Everyone should have equal rights, genders, colors, sexuality... It's only when you break the laws of your society that your rights are taken away, like the freedom of a rapist or a murderer. But it's not a crime to be a woman, black, gay and so forth.

That's my opinion, anyways.

Equal-ism probably does exist, and feminism is probably a subset of it.

Anyways, People are lazy, they try not to think harder than they need to to understand an issue. So its probably not a stretch of logic that they argue for women's rights under the banner of Feminism because going under the banner of equal-ism would put a little bit of extra mental thinking to get behind it. Not to mention Full on equal-ism sounds like its trying to do so much at once.

Working example: a friend walks in and invites you to an "Equalist rally", one thing that goes through your head is: "Who's rights are we fighting for this time?" and thus a conversation ensues that wastes time and energy, only to end up at "[X]'s right's today, from what that guy said about the issue, it sounds just, might as well go". And if you hadn't heard of equal-ism before the thought train would increase to: "Sounds like a big task to solve all the world's inequalities- shouldn't we focus on the most pressing at the moment?- Hey, can you tell me which people are currently under privileged?- which ones are we fighting for this time?- HEY! LISTEN!- how do you expect to solve even one problem if your mission statement is so loosely defined?- HEY! LISTEN! HEY! LISTEN!"

Ouch, Right? I bet that hurt to read.

Let's try that scenario again with Feminism.

Person 1: "Hey bud, want to go to a feminism Rally?"
Person 2 (internal): "feminism, fighting for women's equality, sound like a just cause."
Person 2: "Sure, Why not."

Much simpler.

...

Now if only I could go straight back to idealism after that line of thought. But I'd need some coffee first.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

"Patriarchy" when used in the context of feminism is a specific term [http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/t/tobias-feminisim.html] that refers to (I'm oversimplifying here) a society that has gender roles that disproportionately place power in the hands of men and privileges stereotypically male things over stereotypically female things.

So an example of patriarchy at work (again I'm massively over-simplifying here) is the whole "men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers" norm (note: exceptions to a norm can and do exist but tend to be regarded as exceptions). Fallout from this norm includes the glass ceiling, women being underpaid, men being more likely to lose custody battles, and "stay at home dads" being stigmatized.

I expected this reply, and it still confuses me to this day. I accept the premise that stereotypical gender roles can have the sociological influence of either being desirable or undesirable given the contextual societies they derive from. As an example, being the bread winner in a capitalist society gives one greater freedoms given how the structure is set up and the lack of a "biological clock" seems to influence men in a greater degree to pursue monetary interests. But to couple that with a "negative" regarding custody in the same breath seems... out of place to me. Men are consistently pushed in society to maintain a working family structure and often stigmatized for their failures to do so even if beyond their control (considering the opposition to controlling their female partners).

Now you described it as a fallout, and under a certain perspective, I suppose I can reason that. Men are unfairly punished from a legal sense in their failures to maintain a workable home structure, that appears to be controlled primarily by females. I suppose that's where I disconnect. Your statement that women are homemakers isn't supported solely by a patriarchy based system; it's perpetuated by feminism in it's current form. Women are capable of maintaining their own family autonomously from male influence, so it's easier to throw the failures back on the male when they actually have little to do with the problem itself.

More to the point, where feminism is attempting to tear down a system they claim is a patriarchy and harmful to both genders, they still aren't doing anything about the parts of the system they claim is harmful to men. Nor can I currently fathom the resulting changes that would take place that assist men after the feminists have reached the point of satisfaction (if ever). It's easy to say that I should help their cause because it will help me, but I fail to see how it does so, nor do they offer me explanations in support of the statement.

The gender stereotypes are more often than not, supported by their own gender more than the opposing gender. It might be because we're inherently competing against each other, but a woman will call another woman a slut before a man does and I would presume that a man will stigmatize other men for choosing to be a family man over a career man then a woman. So how does feminism address this? It doesn't; in fact it's at odds with itself over certain things (such as what a woman can/should do with her own body).

I'm not saying I'm only supporting causes that service my needs, but to state that feminism serves both men and women is looking at the issue through rose colored glasses. Feminism is about assisting women. Men may benefit indirectly (maybe, still looking into it), but it's still about women.