Why saying feminism is equality for all and wants to help men also is only going to make men not want to help it even more

[Anonymous]

But that's completely irraitonal. Why would they hate something if it's presented to them in a way that wants to help them?

Because they can see past that presentation for what feminism really is. The original definition of feminism while on the surface looks very similar to the current definition it actually is very different if you look at it carefully. I'm not going to lie I had a very difficult time finding the original definition of feminism because when I asked for the ORIGINAL definition I was only offered the current definition. But after some searching I came to find that feminism originated from the french word Féminisme which is "define, promote and establish the rights of women in civil society". This definition is the one that was used particularly during the first wave feminism movement fighting for womens suffrage.

But that sounds basically the same as the current definition what's your point?

The current definition of feminism has two meanings at least how it's written in Merriam-Webster (1)"the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." (2) "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

Definition number one is the one most people who try to advocate for feminism will use. However, definition number 2 is more closely related to the original definition of feminism. The difference being between the original definition of feminism along with the second definition and the first Merriam-Webster definition is that definition number one claims to fight for everyones rights whereas the original definitions are about promoting women where they are disadvantaged. They have no inclusion about the disadvantages of people outside of themselves. Websters first definition includes this semantically however.

But is it actually true? I mean definitions have changed all the time in Merriam-Websters so we shouldn't claim it to be an objective fact just because it's in the currrent edition of the dictionary because it could be different in the future just as it was different in the past and objectivity doesn't change.

So why are feminists trying to really drive this first Merriam-Webster definition home? Because they are afraid of looking sexist by going by the original definition or the second one because it isn't as inclusive. They don't want to be called the very thing they claim to fight. They also want men to help them with their issues and by saying it'll include men they think men will join. Because what individual wouldn't join a cause that claims it wants to help that individual out with their struggles.

Here's the thing though. SAYING feminism is for men and it ACTUALLY BEING for men are two different things. Ladies. Most men believe in the philosophy that actions speak louder than words. There has not been a whole lot of action on behalf of men by feminists(yes there are some individuals who identity as feminists that are very proactive for me) but on whole it's mostly just been about womens issues and womens issues alone. Saying it's for men is not going to make them join because they see that your actions and your words do not match up. That is going to make them hate you more. It's like watching a politican making promises and the viewer knows they're just saying that to get into office. It makes you like them less because now on top of everything they were before they're now a liar in the viewers eyes. And that's how you feminists are viewed by men by saying you stand for them as well. It completely backfires in every way. You say something trying to recruit them but you only reaffirmed their disdain for you.

Here's the thing though that may surprise feminists and piss off some people who actually aren't feminists. IT'S OK THAT IT'S A MOVEMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR WOMEN AND NOT FOR MEN. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact is women face many struggles that men don't(yes it's true in reverse but for right now I'm specifically addressing womens issues). Just because you are focusing most of your energy on issues that directly affect you doesn't make you a bad person. Those are issues that do need to be addressed. Just own the movement for what it really is. A movement for women. Saying it's also for men is only going to hurt you because then they just think you'll say anything to get what you want without ever actually backing up your words which most people frown upon. I'm a guy but I care about womens issues and I just think that feminism will get farther if they drop the whole equality thing and own the identity of addressing specifcally womens issues. Just because it's specifically for women doesn't mean won't want to help. Them feeling decieved is what will make them not want to help. Many guys will gladly help women out without without expecting a reward of their own. I am trying to get involved in a group that helps people out in Darfur and I clearly do not live in Darfur so it's clearly not a movement trying to help me but that doesn't make me want to help it any less. Some people just enjoy helping others. Ladies you don't need to be afraid to ask to have issues that directly affect you. Nice men will galdly help out even if you didn't talk about their issues.

[Azara]

if any part of society is oppressed the whole society suffers., sexism affects everyone. women and men are not different species they are not even different groups. they are different sexes. sexism, created different groups not women. saying sexist, only affects some groups is like saying terrorism, only affects some groups.

there is a fascistic world view behind discrimination against women hat invariability affects all members of society. sexism, targets women, that does not mean women fighting against oppression can only fight against womens oppression. thats actually just another sexist argument. that women are not competent to deal with politics just 'womens issues' as if thats not political.

historically any mass movement without any particular mention of women, was considered political. we learn about it in history books when it concerns men, it is then seen to concern everyone. women are citizens they are they are parents and doctors and lawyers and rail road workers and priests... women are society. you can't say feminism is about 'women's issuers' as if women are not human beings.

women did not choose to be alienated. calling feminism a woman's issue, is ignorant and serves to reinforce the alienated position of women.

women can not fight mainstream fights if they are marginalized. if your team has members that are discriminated against that affects you. women are not aliens they are people, women are all of the people that men are. the fact there are issues that have to be crossed before a woman can stand along side a man on equal footing, is a social issue not a woman issue.

stop trying to marginalize women.

[myTake Owner]

At no point did I marginalize women and I feel you didn't actually thoroughly read the take like so many others based on a lot of the comments I've read. I said that feminism is and should be seen as fighting for legal issues that directly affect women. Yes all sexism directed at any group affects everyone. But some are directly affected and others are indirectly affected. I also didn't say it's a "womans issue" I said it deals directly with issues that women directly face. Men can help out to. Most men are currently are against feminism yet say they are for equality. Doesn't that tell you something? I'm simply trying to show how the current way of telling men what feminism is is not going to make them want to help feminism because it's a bit dishonest.

"you can't say feminism is about 'women's issuers' as if women are not human beings. "

Also you're just completely strawmanning my argument. No where in did I come even remotely close to hinting at this.

[Anonymous]

If feminism didn't lie about being pro-equality and advocating for the rights and interests of both genders, and if it wasn't sexist and anti-male, you would have a point. But does, and it is.

That kind of dishonesty and sexism is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age.

Women are NOT more oppressed and disadvantaged than men in the western world, so your take is 100% incorrect.

[myTake Owner]

"Women are NOT more oppressed and disadvantaged than men in the western world, so your take "

That doesn't make them not oppressed. It's not about who's more oppressed. The fact is oppression is still a thing. Please re-read it I at no point claimed one group was more oppressed than another.

[Opinion Owner]

If one gender is not more oppressed than the other then there is no excuse for a sexist movement that seeks to advance the interests of one at the expense of the rights and interests of the other. That is precisely the condition we have today and is why we have two opposing movements at odds with one another, both spewing their own sexist and hateful rhetoric about the other gender and driving a wedge between between them rather than trying to help each other. That will always be the case until we rid ourselves of any groups that care only about one gender and not the other.

[myTake Owner]

If a group doesn't pick a specific issue to address they will never fix anything. You can't take on every problem at once. Advancing the interests of ones rights does not mean that anothers have to be diminished.

[Opinion Owner]

"Advancing the interests of ones rights does not mean that anothers have to be diminished."

And yet that is exactly what feminism has been doing for years, and always will.

Equality, by its very definition, requires consideration for both sides of an equation. Feminism has shown over and over again that it is incapable of doing that, which is why it is in its current state and support for it has gone down the toilet.

Open your eyes.

[myTake Owner]

I feel like you didn't really read my take based on what you're saying.

[Maverickj]

Just because women are oppressed doesn't mean men's oppression is not a problem.

[Stephen10]

I see far more men being oppressed than women in the western world. But in the west men don't matter. It's all about kissing women's backsides and empowering them. Screw feminism.

[serp777]

Women don't want actual equality. They want everything to be equal except for complete control over the children in their bodies (and no, the children aren't their bodies), and they want prioritization during divorce and child support. Many women also want a guilty until proven innocent policy during an incident of rape or sexual assault/harassment. A simple accusation can ruin a man's life even if he's innocent and yet we are told that the first thing to do when a woman says they were raped is to "believe them." Well fuck that, I need evidence to believe one way or another. I believe in innocent until proven guilty--this isn't fucking north Korea or Iran here. Finally, women would like to be coddled and provided for when a man is pursuing her. So nothing about feminism is asking for equality--its asking for equality plus many additional rights, anything less is considered shovenism. I bet 5 feminists will start railing on me for being a misogynist even though im entirely for equal rights--im just not for superior rights.

[chuppachup]

I kind of agree with this, although I haven't done enough research to come to a solid conclusion.

But what I've found is, feminism claims to be for men as well, but they sideline and in some cases trivialize men's issues. In a way, I agree with them because as far as I know, women have it a little bit worse in some areas (so do men), but that doesn't mean men's issues are somehow less important because we "aren't as oppressed" or whatever.

Some of them say, "feminism isn't about men, so that's why you're bitching about feminism". Well, my usual reply to that is, well I've been guided here by self-proclaimed feminists telling me that feminism is for men as well. So, instead I've looked into MRAism, despite my negative preconceptions. And I've realised that they actually do care about men's issues. Well, obviously, since it's a MEN's rights movement.

I just think if MRMs and Feminist movements worked together, a lot more would be done. Or better yet, they combine their forces to become an egalitarian conglomerate and handle both men and women's issues equally.

[Transigence]

What you've said reveals that you've accepted a significant level of feminist propaganda. Feminism is a complex system, but at it's heart it's a propaganda machine that puts out a threat narrative targeting men, and demonizing male sexuality and masculinity.

Read the Declaration of Sentiments from 1857 and compare what is said there with the reality of how things were for men and women (from non-feminist historical records). Women were very well protected in 1857. "Our oppression is total?" Are you kidding me? Women wielded enormous power that rivaled men's all throughout history in every society. Much of it was overt, but much more was covert. Chances are you have noticed women's covert power on plenty of occasions throughout your life.

Feminism isn't, and never was, what you think it is or even was.

[Anpu23]

Th issue is that the definition has been fluid, for many years the term was used in many dictionaries as a synonym for misandry. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work towards the betterment of a group, any group. The problem for me with feminism is the fact that it has created an "us vrs them" victim stance. Go to virtually any feminist source and you hear about "institutions of violence against women" and how the "patriarchy" uses certain tools to suppress women. As these are constructs with virtually no basis in reality it looses any credibility to me.

[RationalMale]

Really depends on what you mean behind the nice catchphrases, doesn't it?

Patrick Stewart, that man is literally 75 year old. "Violence against women" might literally mean violent rape.

For the American media, "rape" means "they were both at a bar and were drinking before having sex."

And the whole "violence against women is a men's issue..." HAHAHA!

When's the last time you heard something like "3/4 of homeless people are men, and that's a woman's issue too!" Or "Male suicide rate goes up dramatically after divorce, and that's a woman's issue too!"

The whole "he for she" thing is just another "let's you and him fight!"

[jjmarvin]

My opinion is entitled, "why speaking for all men is a surefire way to not convert them to your way of thinking"

[myTake Owner]

Good thing I never said all men.

[Words_and_Wisdom]

Feminism is defined by the actions of it's advocates, not by words. And so far the actions of feminism try to do everything against men.

[Fugue]

All I know is that the harder you attack "feminism" with tweets and blogs, the stronger it's going to get. Mainstream thought checks its brain at the door the moment you do this.

[myTake Owner]

When did I attack feminism?

[Fugue]

Didn't say you did. Although, since you mention it, the slightest criticism of it often gets painted as an attack. And nuanced views seem to get eclipsed by hysterics and platitudes. Your take is going to sink in minutes to days, while youtube and tumbler "feminists" like Sarkeesian will continue to gain massive support.

[takumii]

"the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

If equality of sexes is what they want, is it logical to name the theory after one sex?

[myTake Owner]

Why are you asking me this? Did you actually read my take at all? I never said it was about equality.

[takumii]

Rhetorical question. Not directed at you.