Young Woman Calmly And Eloquently Explains Why She's Not A Feminist.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I agree with your comment, but we should allow her mistakes due to her young age and lack of experience and research, she still has a lot to learn. It is very telltale that she did not speak on men's radical group-think being self-serving and not taking other gender/sexual orientation equality issues into consideration, while feminist groups do endeavour to tackle the inequality of other gender and/or sexual orientation issues. Then again, it may just yet another example of semantics and misunderstanding of the root problem plaguing all of society, all genders/sexual orientations.

You can't allow her anything. I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding, or her not being indoctrinated enough. It's simple disagreement. I think she has it exactly right.

You discount her age, but I say it's a good thing. She is speaking to this retched generation of young feminists. They are immature with an anti-biology perspective. They hate millions of years of evolution. The girl in the video has a target audience. I know exactly who she is speaking to.

The new generation of feminists is anti-humanity. Feminism wasn't immune to the entitlement generation. An entitled feminist is a horrible thing. They don't want equality, they want to "correct" men. If I had to live under their standard for an acceptable man, I'd become suicidal. I couldn't take it. It's a miserable existence.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: nenothtu

Why you focus on semantics is beyond me, do you feel the same way with radical and non-radical men's groups, interested in only men's equality/issues?

Yes I do.

"Equality" by it's very nature must go both ways. "Masculism" is no less unequal than "Feminism", and vice versa.

I focus on "semantics" because words have meanings. They are utterly useless as communications devices without meanings.

"A rose by any other name...would smell as sweet".

Fair enough. The same can be said of a skunk, however - it smells the same whatever one calls it, too.

I don't focus on semantics, I focus on the core beliefs and what a group is striving to accomplish.

How do you accomplish discussion if you and all others in the discussion have to listen to what the others "mean" rather than what they SAY?

The core beliefs are best presented in whatever name a group calls itself. One would not expect a group called a rugby club to actually be a knitting circle. By the same token, one would not expect a group referring to themselves as "Feminists" to actually mean "Egalitarians", while at the same time leaving out the entire other half of the equation.

Then again, it's your group, not mine, so call it what you like.

They are feminists, egalitarians, humanists and much more - if you choose to not recognize that, then the skunk indeed stinks no matter it's name.

Like I said, it's your club, not mine, so call it what you like.

It's not a matter of "recognition", it's a matter of "definition" - restricting a group to a single part of a whole is in no way encompassing of the entirety of it - "female" is only a part of "human", not all encompassing... and that may be part of the problem right there. "Feminist" is absolutely not "egalitarian" or "humanist", by definition. "Humans" are not all female, and by restricting the criteria to just that in the very title, and then claiming "all humanity" is covered by it, one is saying that only females are human.

Be that as it may, call your club whatever you like - I don't have to join it if I don't like the rules, now do I? I seriously doubt you'd want my sub-human self around anyhow. I'll be elsewhere, hanging out with the women who can meet me on equal terms.

a reply to: mahatche

As i see it there are both female and male radical and non-radical groups out there, and the sooner everyone learns to recognize the difference the better we can start to have correct and intelligent dialogue about intent and desired goals.

As new feminist waves develop according to their generational issues, I will always look to what they are trying to achieve for the betterment of women's lives, which may ultimately filter down to the betterment of other discriminated people's lives through the enactment of new laws, such as criminalizing rape pornography, etc.

he majority of activists I speak to define themselves as intersectional feminists – or say they try to live up to this decription – and when I mention this to Kimberlé Crenshaw, the US law professor who coined the term intersectionality in 1989, she's genuinely surprised. The theory concerns the way multiple oppressions intersect, and although, as Crenshaw says, it can be interpreted in a wild variety of ways, today's feminists generally seem to see it as an attempt to elevate and make space for the voices and issues of those who are marginalised, and a framework for recognising how class, race, age, ability, sexuality, gender and other issues combine to affect women's experience of discrimination. Younis considers intersectionality the overriding principle for today's feminists, and Ali says she constantly tries to check her privilege, to recognise how hierarchies of power are constructed.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: InTheLight
I agree with your comment, but we should allow her mistakes due to her young age and lack of experience and research, she still has a lot to learn. It is very telltale that she did not speak on men's radical group-think being self-serving and not taking other gender/sexual orientation equality issues into consideration, while feminist groups do endeavour to tackle the inequality of other gender and/or sexual orientation issues. Then again, it may just yet another example of semantics and misunderstanding of the root problem plaguing all of society, all genders/sexual orientations.

You can't allow her anything. I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding, or her not being indoctrinated enough. It's simple disagreement. I think she has it exactly right.

You discount her age, but I say it's a good thing. She is speaking to this retched generation of young feminists. They are immature with an anti-biology perspective. They hate millions of years of evolution. The girl in the video has a target audience. I know exactly who she is speaking to.

The new generation of feminists is anti-humanity. Feminism wasn't immune to the entitlement generation. An entitled feminist is a horrible thing. They don't want equality, they want to "correct" men. If I had to live under their standard for an acceptable man, I'd become suicidal. I couldn't take it. It's a miserable existence.

I believe the ever-changing face and ultimate goal of intersectional feminism is to change our broken discriminatory societal system for the good of all people. If this young woman dismisses that core belief and dwells only on radical feminist activities, then she has a great deal to learn, most of all, how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The young woman has much to learn along her life's path and I know she will be telling an alternate tale much further down the road. She, like some of you here on ATS accept without question the veil of equality, most likely due to lack of experience and/or research. I am sure of this.