Equality. I think it's fair to get educated, be cognizant, and vocalize yourself, but to identify with one particular piece of the equation is silly to me. Though maybe resource efficient for identification purposes, the way we all play into our roles of type.
That's not to say I don't mind labels. I thought up the term humanism a while back that already has largely established ideological branches about in line with what you'd think of the term. It is all inclusive, and therefore "more true" to the end goal of equality for all.
Maybe the particulars - femisnists, racists, etc - can be our paramilitary shock troops.
I used to think things like that were all valid but I dont really any longer, misandry and mysogyny are at the root about hatred and othering, those processes should stop per se instead of this or that variety of channelling them, someone could easily give up hating men or women but hate someone or something else.
There are stereotypes which hold people back and the major thing to be fought is prejudice, I've heard some very smart people repeat casually prejudices which have been in circulation for a long time in their workplaces about particular departments or the people who work in them, those same people wouldnt believe that they were capable of such things and would instead assume their prejudices were factual and seek to confirm them any way they could, anything that threatens the confirmation has to go. Its this less obvious sort of prejudice and unconscious discrimination which has to go and much more insidious than the obvious examples of sexism, mysogyny or misandry if you ask me, perhaps they can be feeders in some ways for those things or vice versa but anyway.
There is also a point to be made about gender roles as evolved from a reflection of peoples own natures, I know plenty of women who turned on and attacked feminism because they felt their ambassadors, spokespeople and liberators had it all wrong and were threatening them with a life they did not want to lead.
The feminism of some of the female leaders within the bolsheviks is pretty authoritarian and regards women at home as shirking duty and enjoying a sort of private idle, its in some ways absorded some mysogynistic tendencies if you ask me but was a 100% example of liberation being someone done to you or for you and possibly against your wishes rather than something you come to yourself.
On one hand, the non-genderization of society pretty much undermines a billion year's worth of work.
On the other, society is becoming non-gendered.
I guess I don't feel anything. It's just gonna... happen.
I've expressed similar sentiments. Biological sex, like it or not, does come with associated characteristics in general, and these serve an evolutionary purpose. Our species is far less gendered than many others, and in the animal world gender takes on many forms- but as long as sexual reproduction exists there will be differences. It's not a bad thing. Society becoming non-gendered is not a bad thing at all, if it promotes diversity and creativity; if it is promoted as a new norm, I argue that it is damaging. Gender as well as biological sex exists, and should be celebrated. That said, I consider myself as much a feminist as anyone else, and I am sympathetic to any feminist point of view even if I diverge on some points.
Relating to the article: I didn't read the entire original article, but the quoted excerpts are good. Each person has both feminine and masculine (as well as neutral) energy, yin and yang. We can't have true equality and harmony until both are developed equally. This means that males and females and those of undefined gender need to treat each other with respect as well as develop the different sides of themselves. How we treat each gender reflects how we treat that aspect of ourselves. Men can't truly respect women until they (are allowed to) appreciate their feminine side, and women can't truly connect with men until they embrace their masculine side. The converse is also true; women can't truly embrace their masculine side until they can trust and love men as people. Absolutely, men should be allowed to express as much gender associated variability as women, and it is damaging when they are not. It hurts feminist goals in many ways.
I think this is somewhat relevant. I realized the issue of sexual assault is not limited to women by any means, and that this misconception is actually hurting men.
quoted from another thread:
Originally Posted by greenfairy
It can happen, but only in extreme circumstances. Sexual assault just is a problem of men victimizing women, and there's nothing sexist about saying so. You can't really rape a man unless you do some serious bondage kind of scenario. If a woman takes advantage of a drunken man who regrets it then yeah, that is rape- but how often does that really happen?
I think I should retract some of the bolded. Men can be raped, and it's a bigger problem than a lot of people think. It's still true that it affects women far more frequently, but we shouldn't trivialize men's experiences either. Men get raped and sexually assaulted by other men frequently, both as adults and as children, and child abuse is a huge problem.