Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you say that to call for a 6pm curfew, in the House of Lords, for men is misandrist?

I'm being slightly pedantic here, but did she call for it in the House of Lords? Or did she, who sits in the HoL, suggest that it should be considered?
Either way, I think it was a reactionary comment after another tragic breaking story. In that context, I wouldn't call it misandrist, but I wouldn't entertain the idea of it either. Not for a second.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you say that to call for a 6pm curfew, in the House of Lords, for men is misandrist?

I can agree with you on this one. It was a ridiculous comment. I would go as far as misandrist.
Shows how out of touch from reality the house of lords is.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm being slightly pedantic here, but did she call for it in the House of Lords? Or did she, who sits in the HoL, suggest that it should be considered?
Either way, I think it was a reactionary comment after another tragic breaking story. In that context, I wouldn't call it misandrist, but I wouldn't entertain the idea of it either. Not for a second.

So her response was irrational, hysterical, devoid of logic then...as reactionary comments tend to be.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Exactly. Explained. And not refuted by you.



Not understanding the motivation of women to advocate for improvements in the society they live in so as to better support women.

Of course I understand the motivation. They believe something is wrong, unfair, or could somehow be better and as such want to affect change. On some issues I'd agree, on others not.

This does not mean the people trying to affect change are above criticism.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

So her response was irrational, hysterical, devoid of logic then...as reactionary comments tend to be.

Not necessarily.

It was excessive, impractical and ill thought out. But, if you've seen the sheer volume of messages from women everywhere giving examples of where they felt unsafe in situations where they shouldn't have been made feel that way, I dont know can you call it hysterical or illogical.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This does not mean the people trying to affect change are above criticism.

Of course they aren't.

But one of the most thanked posts in this thread suggested they were praying at a church of victimhood I think it was how it was put and elsewhere there has been reference to a feminist credo implying that they are merely working to a dictat rather than having reasonable points of concern.

anewme

JJayoo wrote: »

What is creedo?

Ive been asking this since the start of the thread. No one knows. But it gets referred to.

since you said you knew what modern feminism was, I assumed it must be the creedo.

MadameHussein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For once, I'm going to make a "take it or leave it" post, because I know how this discussion goes, having been involved in such previously. I've little interest in being insulted and demeaned by posters here for posting an alternative opinion.. and I'm fully aware that is where this topic invariably leads to.

While I agree that many of the reactions to Sarah Everard were disgraceful.. there are many situations where women should be more careful with their personal safety, and their appearance. The fashion that many women choose to wear does send signals. Women's fashion, in many cases, from high heels to makeup, are designed to elicit a physical reaction in men. That's a simple fact. To ignore that, is to ignore your own responsibility for the positions you put yourself in. There is an expectation that women should be able to behave the same as men, getting drunk, and partying like crazy, without a care in the world. Or going back to a hotel room with a group of male strangers. This expectation, IMHO, is naive and dangerous. It lacks any degree of awareness that the world is not an entirely safe place.

It's not about victim blaming. It's about personal safety. Most women are far more vulnerable than men, and as such, need to take precautions for their own safety. Sure, they shouldn't have to.. but the reality is that they need to, since those aspects of reality aren't changing any time soon.

There is a trend to embrace absolutes on certain topics. If someone suggests that the woman should have been more aware of her surroundings, then that's supposedly victim blaming, when I consider it to being common sense. Women should be taking care, being aware of who is around them.

Saying that women should take care of themselves, and engage in behavior that is more careful than men, is not misogyny. It's accepting the realities that exist in the world today. I live, for the most part abroad, where I avoid behaviors which would be acceptable in the West, but cause friction, and ultimately increase the risks of violence, in the East. That's a reasonable thing to do, and yet, to suggest that women don't wear revealing clothing in questionable circumstances, is not reasonable... because women should be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and nobody should criticise those choices, regardless of the consequences. I could provide a wide range of examples explaining my point of view, but I know they'll be taken apart and dismissed... or reinterpreted to suit a more absolute view.

This is not to say that women need to cover themselves up, never go out, or whatever. Whenever that's pushed it's the embracing of an absolute as a way to attack anyone who suggests that women should be more careful. However, women should be encouraged to be aware of how their appearance and behavior affects people around them, and to understand that there can be unwanted reactions. Wishing for it not to happen isn't much help.

I recognise that my opinion on this topic is a minority on boards. No problem. However, I do worry about the society we are encouraging when we don't have an entirely safe environment where women can dress and behave however they like, and yet, that's the message that is being sent. Wear skimpy clothing, dance and flirt with strangers, go back to their rooms, and don't expect certain (obvious) things to happen.

In any case, I'm done. And no... I won't be responding to any replies to this post.

I know the poster said they won't be responding to the post but this is pretty disgusting. It is of course not victim blaming to say that everyone should take personal precautions. In an ideal world everyone could get get drunk as they'd like and walk home by themselves at night without the fear of being attacked but we don't live in an ideal world and we (both men and women) have to take precautions. If the poster had left it at that it would have been fine.

The claim about women's clothing is somehow both bizarrely misandrist and misogynistic at the same time. No normal man has been spurred to commit rape because a woman elicited a response in him. Rapists, who are an incredibly small minority of men, are largely motivated by opportunity (especially stranger rape). It's one thing to say that everyone should take personal precautions. It's another to say that a woman who wears revealing clothing  has ignored responsibility for the position she's put herself in. That is very much victim blaming.

Tell me how

^^^^
I only saw their post now when you replied to it.

No where in their whole post did they make a hint at suggestions at anything men might do to create a culture where women feel safe. The assumption is that there is nothing men can do about bad men, and as bad men aren't going to change, only the woman should be acting to ensure she is safe.

Think that's why such views annoy most women.

Skippyme

Annoys me too as a man.

Be the change you want to see and all that, even people's own attitudes & willingness to raise an eyebrow or speak up can challenge supposed norms.

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
The assumption is that there is nothing men can do about bad men, and as bad men aren't going to change, only the woman should be acting to ensure she is safe.

Think that's why such views annoy most women.

joe40

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
I only saw their post now when you replied to it.

No where in their whole post did they make a hint at suggestions at anything men might do to create a culture where women feel safe. The assumption is that there is nothing men can do about bad men, and as bad men aren't going to change, only the woman should be acting to ensure she is safe.

Think that's why such views annoy most women.

In fairness though what can I as a man do to make Women feel safe.
I can make make sure my own behavior isn't harmful, I can try to teach my kids to be respectful etc but apart from that I'm as helpless in all this as anyone.

Tell me how

joe40 wrote: »

In fairness though what can I as a man do to make Women feel safe.
I can make make sure my own behavior isn't harmful, I can try to teach my kids to be respectful etc but apart from that I'm as helpless in all this as anyone.

Definitely cant fix everything easily. Or at all probably.
But, in writing about a woman's clothing making someone to feel a particular way, it does suggest that the man was, if not provoked, which obviously has negative connotations but, say enticed and as such can be absolved to some degree.

Most women dont end up in situations like Sarah Everard did thankfully, but it seems many of them experience situations which make them very uncomfortable without them having to become very serious.

So, maybe men could encourage other men to pay attention to women's words and actions, more so than to what they're wearing.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Of course they aren't.

But one of the most thanked posts in this thread suggested they were praying at a church of victimhood I think it was how it was put and elsewhere there has been reference to a feminist credo implying that they are merely working to a dictat rather than having reasonable points of concern.

Yes, because the feminism that is most prevalent in Western (anglophile) countries is predominantly that. Do I believe all feminists are as such? No I don't, but the more moderate ones (and the majority) get drowned out by the hysterical ones, who are found all across the media, NGO's, HR departments and academia. The average Irish woman. who works an average job in an office or hairdressers or whatever, may feel things could be slightly better, but wouldn't come out with such ****e as curfews for men after 6, are rarely heard. And it is for this reason imo they would be Better off not calling themselves a feminist so as not to be associated with the aforementioned unctuous.

anewme

joe40 wrote: »

In fairness though what can I as a man do to make Women feel safe.
I can make make sure my own behavior isn't harmful, I can try to teach my kids to be respectful etc but apart from that I'm as helpless in all this as anyone.

There is a thread at the moment based on the survey in the UK that all young women were sexually harassed in some way.

In it, there are comments blaming victims of harassment, what they they are wearing, the way they look at them. These are the kind of attitudes that result in women not feeling safe.

All you can do is, when you come upon these attitudes in real life, and to a lesser extent online, that you call them out.

Im sure you do anyway, but I'm being more general here.

anewme

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The average Irish woman. who works an average job in an office or hairdressers or whatever, may feel things could be slightly better, but wouldn't come out with such ****e as curfews for men after 6, are rarely heard. And it is for this reason imo they would be Better off not calling themselves a feminist../QUOTE]

Your mistake is believing that 'average women' are not heard.

Is speaking up for improvements for women restricted to non average women?

CtevenSrowder

anewme wrote: »

The average Irish woman. who works an average job in an office or hairdressers or whatever, may feel things could be slightly better, but wouldn't come out with such ****e as curfews for men after 6, are rarely heard. And it is for this reason imo they would be Better off not calling themselves a feminist..

D'ont discount the 'average' woman. Their belief might be to ensure their children have the opportunities that might not have been offered.

Your mistake would be discounting people as average.

And also believing that they are not heard.

Ah would you stop. I'm not 'discounting' people in the way you are trying to imply. I still find it incredible someone who openly declares they haven't got the first ****ing notion about modern feminism is still in this thread posting out of blind ignorance.

I've no idea where your comment about affording their children opportunities has come from, have I ever suggested otherwise?

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

There is a thread at the moment based on the survey in the UK that all young women were sexually harassed in some way.

In it, there are comments blaming victims of harassment, what they they are wearing, the way they look at them. These are the kind of attitudes that result in women not feeling safe.

All you can do is, when you come upon these attitudes in real life, and to a lesser extent online, that you call them out.

Im sure you do anyway, but I'm being more general here.

Ya in a way it's not surprising....the study that is.

I'm sure you won't agree but there would be a lot of very low level abuse/toxic behavior included in there..that would be more of a nuisance than anything that could be policed.

That being said, the more aggressive stuff is invisible to most guys because the guys that do it do it on quiet streets, which make it even more intimidating for women....I'd have no idea how to even begin trying to get through to those guys.

Online, it is perfectly believable that women are subjected to toxic behavior of an aggressive and sexual nature...where as men would just be subjected to a lower level of aggressive behavior...and it's hard for guys who wouldn't send a d##k pic to imagine that many guys do it, but it's more common than most guys realize...again, should that be a crime...I'd say one that warrants a caution for a start at least.

I also am led to believe that female bullying of other females is on an upward trajectory on account of how females bully other females...that is not an attempt to divert, it's just a consequence of the access to other people online.

There is different dynamic between the sexes that can be unpleasant for women I will say that, one that most guys who would never put a woman in that position could even fathom but it definitely exists...but a similar dynamic can just as easily manifest itself in the lesbian community, it could be worse or not as bad but it definitely exists...

To conclude....I'd have no idea how to correct the behaviors of people especially online...it really has changed a lot in a way.

alexv

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm aware of the charter. I happen to not agree with it. It's beside the point though, the point is that you and others on the TLL thread were calling for new rules to be imposed restricting the range of political or social opinions which people are allowed to express, and that is inherently extremely authoritarian.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Bear in mind that they refer specifically to the idea of posting on Boards.ie, not general societal participation.

In what way does posting the word "boobs" on a forum specifically designed to be irreverent and to take the piss out of literally everything count as an offense under literally of the Charter rules you have posted above?

If you accept that it doesn't, do you accept that you are calling for new rules to be imposed on this site?

If a poster holds far right political beliefs, should they be allowed to argue in favour of them in a debate with a poster who holds far left beliefs?

If a poster believes that abortion counts as murder because life begins at conception, should that poster be prohibited from openly stating these beliefs in a political debate?

If somebody opposes gay marriage for traditionalist reasons, should that person be prohibited from saying so in a political debate?

If somebody believes that modern gender identity theory is made-up and that biological sex should be the only delineator of male and female, synonymous with the word gender and the terms man and woman, should they be prohibited from stating as such in a debate?

If somebody believes, as others have alluded to in this thread, that there are inherent differences between men and women which give rise to different outcomes, should this be prohibited from discussion?

Should people be prohibited from making snide remarks, regardless of gender, about celebrities and people who are not actually present here in this debate?

If somebody believes that the political ideologies associated with fundamentalist Islam are dangerous for Western democracy, should they be allowed to say so? If they believe that, for this reason, immigration to the West should be restricted by Western governments as a form of "cultural protectionism", should that poster be banned for stating as such?

On a non-political forum such as After Hours, should people be prohibited from making silly and crass jokes, such as posting the word "boobs" as a response to a thread about feminism in order to stir the pot and ridicule the debate?

If somebody believes that the modern world is too beholden to identity politics ideology and they oppose this, should they be prohibited from stating so in a debate?

In my view, if your answer to literally any of these questions is "yes", you are an authoritarian (traditionally conservative, I might add!) individual, and a bully. You want others to be silenced because you don't like what they have to say, and in so saying, you are essentially claiming that your own opinions or beliefs are so important - indeed, that you as an individual are so important - that the site's rules should be changed to accommodate your sensibilities.

I, on the other hand, would disagree with most of the beliefs I'm using as hypothetical targets for censorship in my post. The difference is that I do not regard myself as important enough to demand that debates be censored and moulded in a way which artificially gives my beliefs more credibility or breathing space than the community would organically give them if allowed to breathe freely.

I'll just throw out another one as food for thought. I'm about as far left as you can get on most issues, which you will see if you have a gander at my posting history from the last few years since the FG-FF government has been in place (yes, I'm including the ridiculous "coalition that wasn't a coalition" confidence and supply sh!te in that definition, so four going on five years), I campaigned heavily in favour of Repeal and Gay Marriage, and I certainly don't believe that men and women aren't individuals who can't or shouldn't make their own decisions about how to live their lives.

In fact, over the last year I have very seriously considered joining Sinn Fein as a card carrying member, although I feel I will always be drawn more towards left wing independents and away from party organisations. When it comes to international politics, I'm a Bernie and Corbynite every step of the way. Even most left wing folks I know find my beliefs a little too radical to be palatable!

One of ex-girlfriends, on the other hand, is one of the furthest right wing people you will ever meet. When we dated eight years ago she was certainly less far right than she is now, but she opposed Repeal with a militant passion straight off the bat for intensely personal and traumatic reasons, she would regularly go on #SaveTheEighth leaflet drops at the same time as I was going on #RepealTheEighth leaflet drops while we were dating, she very quickly cooled on gay marriage and ended up opposing this too, and over the years she has become full-on far right.

She is now a card carrying member of the Irish Freedom Party and takes part in their seminars and even their anti-lockdown activism. She supports Donald Trump, was hoping to get over to the States to attend CPAC this year when it looked like travel restrictions might not last as long as they have, she's on a first-name basis with more or less every far right ideologue and public figure in this country (just last week she was telling me that John McGuirk is a personal friend, as she had to cut a phone call short to watch his appearance on Prime Time), she previously attended court appearances of Ben Gilroy to show moral support, I'm fairly sure she's quite pally with people such as Maria Steen, etc.

On almost any political issue you could mention, myself and her would be standing on opposite sides of the crash barriers separating protesters and counter protesters at a given event, and screaming ourselves hoarse hurling tirades of opposition at eachother through megaphones.

Do you personally find it strange that we're still extremely close, we talk on the phone most days each week, we cheer eachother on in our respective (and diametrically opposed) political activism, and have a bit of craic sometimes engaging in thunderdome-esque shouting matches over our current beliefs, while at other times enjoying ridiculing politicians we happen to have a mutual disdain for?

Do you believe that I should have cut her out of my life because she doesn't agree with me about social politics? Do you believe that I should be calling for her accounts here, on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram etc to be taken down because the causes she promotes are right wing and fall under the modern, authoritarian definitions of "hate speech"? Do you believe it is a moral failing on my part that, unlike many of her close friends and some members of her family from before her journey into the far right, I haven't ostracised and abandoned her as a person?

Because that is the inevitable conclusion which the championing of ideological censorship leads to. That's the reality of it. And I don't want to live in a world in which people even if they're people I don't agree with - aren't as free as I am to set out their political stall and fight for what they believe, from the bottom of their heart, are worthwhile things to fight for.

Maybe I'm unusual in this, but the absolute number one most important political beliefs that I personally hold are absolute freedom of speech and absolute freedom of political expression and participation. I fundamentally do not believe that democracy exists if there are any limits places on which ideals can compete for the peoples' consent to govern. All you have in those cases is a pseudo-democracy at best, a sham.

What you and many modern feminists call for is for people whose views are diametrically opposed to yours, to be pushed out of every public gathering space there is. And as far as I'm concerned, opposing the arrival of this kind of hideous dystopia - the beginnings of which we have been able to see during the latter half of the 2010s - should be something which united left and right alike. We know what a world in which people who disagree with the current zeitgeist are ostracised looks like, and I for one am more than happy for this to be the hill that I die on, more so than literally any other political or social issue.

Feminystopia.

anewme

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah would you stop. I'm not 'discounting' people in the way you are trying to imply. I still find it incredible someone who openly declares they haven't got the first ****ing notion about modern feminism is still in this thread posting out of blind ignorance.

I've no idea where your comment about affording their children opportunities has come from, have I ever suggested otherwise?

I've said too many times to you now, that you are taking the p. So that's it, I'm not entertaining you challenging me on it again.

I'm posting in this thread, as there are many attempts 'to put women back in their box' or keep them in their box as average women.

You dont have to have read up on feminism or modern feminism to see that.

alexv

Bambi wrote: »

What do modern feminists want anyway?

Same thing they've always wanted: more, more, more.

ILoveYourVibes

Not directed at anyone in particular.

But ....

I personally think what you think about feminism says a lot more about you and your own mental health than it does about feminism.

It strikes me that a lot of people seem intent on going to very dark spaces in their own minds. And others not so much.

I hope a lot of these people will be ok.

alexv

dogbert27 wrote: »

Calls for all men to have a 6pm curfew so women can feel safe after dark

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9350711/Green-peer-calls-MEN-face-6pm-CURFEW-wake-Sarah-Everard-murder.html

These suggestions only seem unhinged when they are seen as genuine demands, and not as what they truly represent: the first bid in a series of negotiations.

Here's an appropriate response to such draconian madness: all radical feminists must be dispersed, for a period of two years, to the various countries in which FGM remains de rigueur, cervix-havers are just another detail of property law, and you can wear what you want (as long as it's a burqa).

The potential benefits and opportunities of such a policy are unlimited. Just think of all the good these 2nd, 3rd and 4th wave womxn (and men) could bring to the equality-deprived locals.

ILoveYourVibes

alexv wrote: »

Here's an appropriate response to such draconian madness: all radical feminists must be dispersed, for a period of two years, to the various countries in which FGM remains de rigueur, cervix-havers are just another detail of property law, and you can wear what you want (as long as it's a burqa).

You realize radical feminists IN those countries defeated Isis for all of us right?

https://www.cfr.org/book/daughters-kobani

And yes you would consider them radical.

CtevenSrowder

anewme wrote: »

I've said too many times to you now, that you are taking the p. So that's it, I'm not entertaining you challenging me on it again.

I'm posting in this thread, as there are many attempts 'to put women back in their box' or keep them in their box as average women.

You dont have to have read up on feminism or modern feminism to see that.

See whatever is you want to see. 'Keeping them in their box as average women', such horse ****e. You are desperate to find sexism where it just doesn't exist. Boobs. Oops, sexist slip from me there, sorry to offend you.

Most women are average women, most men are average men, most people are average people living average lives. Do you know even know what an average is and what it means in such a context? Maybe it's the case that your ignorance extends into many areas.

ILoveYourVibes

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

See whatever is you want to see. 'Keeping them in their box as average women', such horse ****e. You are desperate to find sexism where it just doesn't exist. Boobs. Oops, sexist slip from me there, sorry to offend you.

Most women are average women, most men are average men, most people are average people living average lives. Do you know even know what an average is and what it means in such a context? Maybe it's the case that your ignorance extends into many areas.

Hey ...we can be civil. We don't know what the other is going through behind the screen etc.

I mean i don't know you etc ..but you seem to be posting some pretty dark stuff here.

Most men are average. (pretty obv i know) I think what you say ..says more about you than anything else. I think a lot of men are really expressing their own feelings and frustrations or experiences in life than talking about feminism. And the truth is ...society doesn't really pay them much attention as individuals but it does see them as a group they can use or certain elements of that society does while never improving their lives.

The truth is feminism doesn't really affect the average man on a day to day basis. What he says about it really just says more about what is going on in his own head. And that seems to get pretty dark sometimes.

Sometimes i find myself asking ...is what they say to do with feminism or women at all? Is it just about them and what is going on in their lives?

CtevenSrowder

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Hey ...we can be civil. We don't know what the other is going through behind the screen etc.

I mean i don't know you etc ..but you seem to be posting some pretty dark stuff here.

Most men are average. (pretty obv i know) I think what you say ..says more about you than anything else. I think a lot of men are really expressing their own feelings and frustrations or experiences in life than talking about feminism. And the truth is ...society doesn't really pay them much attention as individuals but it does see them as a group they can use or certain elements of that society does while never improving their lives.

The truth is feminism doesn't really affect the average man on a day to day basis. What he says about it really just says more about what is going on in his own head. And that seems to get pretty dark sometimes.

Haha just what this thread needs, the ramblings of ILYV. There is nothing 'dark' going on inside my head. In fact, I'm currently more content then I've ever been. So your psychiatry from behind a screen is way off.

'We don't know what the other is going through behind the screen etc.'

Precisely, take your own advice would you.

ILoveYourVibes

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Haha just what this thread needs, the ramblings of ILYV. There is nothing 'dark' going on inside my head. So your psychiatry from behind a screen is way off.

'We don't know what the other is going through behind the screen etc.'

Precisely, take your own advice would you.

In fact, I'm currently more content then I've ever been.

Why are you telling me this?

I wasnt even talking about you. But in general when people go all in about a topic ...it is really about THEM.

I will say this.

All I was saying was your posting seems pretty aggressive. That is not pleasant for ANYONE to be on the receiving end of. And it says a lot about you.

CtevenSrowder

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why are you telling me this?

I wasnt even talking about you.

All I was saying was your posting seems pretty aggressive. That is not pleasant for ANYONE to be on the receiving end of. And it says a lot about you.

You quoted my post, what else am I supposed to think. And even if you are talking generally then you are de-facto talking about me, and suggesting that simply because I haven't got a high opinion of modern feminism in the West i must be having 'dark thoughts'. As you said, not please t for anyone to be on the receiving end of my posting style is robust, not aggressive.

ILoveYourVibes

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You quoted my post, what else am I supposed to think. And even if you are talking generally then you are de-facto talking about me, and suggesting that simply because I haven't got a high opinion of modern feminism in the West i must be having 'dark thoughts'. As you said, not please t for anyone to be on the receiving end of.

Now wait.

Its far from simply not having a high opinion of modern feminism isn't it?

That is an understatement.

This is YOUR stream of consciousness.

Boobs. Oops, sexist slip from me there, sorry to offend you.

Maybe it's the case that your ignorance extends into many areas.

You have definite feelings of malice towards 'modern feminism' and towards the people you feel believe in it.

I mean i don't even know what to make of THIS comment. Its not only sexist but also classist.

The average Irish woman. who works an average job in an office or hairdressers or whatever, may feel things could be slightly better, but wouldn't come out with such ****e as curfews for men after 6, are rarely heard.

ILoveYourVibes

By the way ...The era of MODERN FEMINISM strictly speaking is over.

The period referred to as modern feminism began in 1990 and ended in 2010.

It ended with third wave feminism. We are on 4th wave feminism.

Is 4th wave feminism good for society?

Well lets look at it non emotionally shall we in an academic way?

One of the characteristics of 4th wave feminism that sets it apart is the speaking out publicly against men in power who have done wrong against women.

#YesAllWomen, #bringbackourgirls, #NotYourAsianSidekick and #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen #Metoo

Since these are all issues of law and justice and the SEEKING of a more just society where laws already in place are merely enforced a lot of the time. I cannot see how this can't be seen as good for society. If you think catching weinstein was good for society you must know that its directly as a result of 4th wave feminism performative action that he was caught. 4th wave feminists invited women to forums to post about everyday sexual harassment. They then did so on social media. I don't think weinstein would have been caught without this. I dont know if people realize this ..but 4th wave feminism allowed women a space to go after men in power who had abused them. Surely that IS good for society.

One of the main things that seems to get people angry is the concept in 4th wave feminism of 'privilege'.

4th wave feminism HAD to right the wrongs of the past and acknowledge intersectionality. It had to include black women , working class women etc. And therefore white women had to acknowledge privilege. Within this idea was the idea of 'male priveledge'.

One of the things that set 4th wave feminism apart was the use of social platforms to make all voices equally powerful. Suddenly women found they could make themselves heard in a way never before. For example i dont think we would have caught Weinstein without social media.


Rebecca Solnit wrote an essay in 2008 entitled 'Men explain things to me'. It gave rise to the term mansplaining. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-Explain-Things-Rebecca-Solnit/dp/1608464660

I sometimes worry in threads like this. That INSTEAD of taking feminism as a subject etc people simply talk about what they feel about it. And then can't tell the difference from the subject and their feelings towards it.

I don't think that is always useful for anyone.