Toxic Feminism

[Mole]

Natural Selection is a terrible way to order society, in fact we are meaning creating animals, and we order our society by meaning.

Natural Selection is not teleological, that is, Natural Selection has no meaning.

So to find the meaning of our society, there is no point in looking in Natural Selection, rather we look to evidence and reason and culture.

So feminism can't be justified or unjustified using Natural Selection.

 

[Redbone]

That isn't in contradiction to what I said unless you conflate gender with biological sex.

Personally I think we put too much emphasis on gender and gender roles. I liken biological sex to hardware and gender to software.

Evolved masculine, feminine behaviors can be inherited from social environment -- ScienceDaily

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The only thing I think is wrong here is men with MRA sentiments have really taken to using evolutionary theory as if it is scientific fact. And I'll tell you...this is something that I actually have a formal education in as I had originally planned on becoming an Archaeologist. It worries me too...and not even for the reason it is being put forth as fact in the first place (to demonstrate that it is natural for females to be subservient to males). No, I'm worried about what this does to males...when they are tied to such a two-dimensional understanding of themselves based on what any social scientist would concede is absolute conjecture. These are evolutionary theories based on very little hard evidence...and are not merely "subject to change"...trust me...they will change each and every time a new discovery is made. Please do not define yourself by another man's speculation over a couple of clues. Don't back yourself into a corner with another myth.

FWIW The prevailing theory of the day... scientists believe they have identified some sort of 'on/off' switch in our primitive brains...which for females...causes them to bond with the aggressive, alpha male you mentioned when resources are scarce. But when resources are plentiful (the switch is 'off')...females prefer/bond with nurturing, attentive, gentle males (males that are willing to invest heavily in a single mate and their offspring). Social scientists are currently entertaining the thought that it's only the threatened female that finds the aggressive, win-at-all-costs male attractive.




Yes, we are saying the same thing...Patriarchy does not necessarily benefit men at the expense of women. <-This is Feminism 101 and I hope you believe me here. Obviously, I can't get you to actually read some feminist literature...but I think you would find it quite different than what makes the evening news. At the very least...if you sense that I am truthful and believe me when I say that I don't think anything poorly of men...even the ones doing the kinds of things I'd like to put an end to...I have compassion for. <-If you can believe my account of my feminist views...perhaps you can be open to the possibility that we are not the man-haters we have been made out to be.

Anyway, you have a very idealistic view of how society functions without feminism that it is difficult for me to respond. If you only knew how distrustful I am of society in the first place...hello Salem Witch trials just came to mind for some reason...I think because I just saw some Halloween decorations. I hate society...it is so unstable to me...and I think they are going to do the wrong thing every time. I would most definitely be the person that would end up in a bad relationship with someone that should be cast out of society... and from there I'd end up being burned at the stake.

I think there are grains of truth in patriarchy theory, even if I think it might be a somewhat simplified and not always accurate representation of reality. I feel the same way about a lot of Red Pill theories (i.e. hypergamy).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Evolved masculine, feminine behaviors can be inherited from social environment -- ScienceDaily

Evolution via social engineering/conditioning? Fascinating. I think this further reinforces my analogy of gender to software and sex to hardware.

 

[Lark]

Evolved masculine, feminine behaviors can be inherited from social environment -- ScienceDaily

I wonder what else is inherited from social environment if that's the the case?

My favourite non-fiction political writer GDH Cole has written about how he thinks that give that environment has such an influence then the making of a good environment, a better one than you yourself have known, is a worth while goal in life, which is I guess the heart of the "progressive" idea (although he did not think there was anything guaranteed or inevitable about progress, there's no plan to history) but I'm not sure he would necessarily agree with what has been accorded as progress or a good environment over time.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Don't talk about Natural selection if you can't fulfill your role. What's the use of a useless man in the household if he's going to be patriarch just because he's a male?

That's not how it works. Women are not that stupid to let anyone lead them, and if you have women bitching in your life, they're bitching for a reason. Demanding Patriarchy while you're useless to your family, society and exhibit the weakest masculine traits, is not the way to put you to command in the cockpit if you don't even own your cock.

It's not even about the women in your life. It's about everyone in your life.

Milennial men have grown weak, and that's the reality they don't want to face. They follow trendy instructions of how they should be and put themselves in a box of criteria to fit in society. Even the father figures which should have been role models are now slowly replaced by puny, angry, abusive, irresponsible, simp-ish, or submissive men, resulting in a very poor development of gender identity of both son and daughter. Look around you, of course there would be this gender confusion pandemic.

Son-father estrangement makes the son prone to effeminization.
Daughter-father estrangement makes the daughter prone to "daddy issues".
And let's not forget delinquincy, truancy, promiscuity, drug abuse, criminal tendencies and other psychological problems.

The father is the source of power that establishes not only the notion of the forbidden, but ensures the growth of his offspring is positively cared for at the best of his ability.

The son needs emotional support, and forge a masculine mindset in the shores of parenthood by identifying with the characteristics of his role model, the father. He enjoys the challenges, the experiences, and all the instructions and teachings that are taking place while father and son are bonding.

The daughter needs emotinal support, that father who will listen to her worries, support her, brighten up her mood, motivates her, protects her, and guides her through the treks of life. He becomes the blueprint of the man she subsconsciously wants.

A healthy upbringing of our children contributes into the definition of the morals governing our society. It all starts from the very foundation which is family, but we're all busy blaming that policy, and blaming that government, and blaming that religion, and blaming that hokum, in a useless neverending jibber jabber intead of owning our part of the problem.

Women who have views about men on a conscious level, will soon change those views when they meet men who are worthy of them changing those views.

Haven't you met someone who told you : "I never thought I would do X ever in my life. If they asked me if I'd be in Y a month ago, I'll them they're insane."...etc, or any kind of statement that demonstrates a change of heart? Yeah.

Whatever its form, whether traditional or modern, If you're a worthy patriarch, your wife will follow, the women and men in your circle will follow, and it goes like this. It's not given, it's earned.

 

[lowtech redneck]

I generally think of it negatively now because modern incarnations of feminism are toxic by their very design, focusing on concepts like "toxic masculinity", straight white male "privilege", and intersectionality in general, with the intent creating division and ill will for the purpose of attaining power. When taken as a worldview, the ideology in question leads its proponents to a negative feedback loop of intolerance, anger, and paranoid hypersensitivity to the point of giving themselves an actual mental illness.

 

[Coriolis]

I generally think of it negatively now because modern incarnations of feminism are toxic by their very design, focusing on concepts like "toxic masculinity", straight white male "privilege", and intersectionality in general, with the intent creating division and ill will for the purpose of attaining power. When taken as a worldview, the ideology in question leads its proponents to a negative feedback loop of intolerance, anger, and paranoid hypersensitivity to the point of giving themselves an actual mental illness.

I'm not sure where those posting negatively in these threads are finding their feminists. Online in strident extremist blogs, perhaps? I know quite a few feminists IRL. I don't think I have heard a single one of them talk about "toxic masculinity" or questing for power. They are too busy volunteering with the local women's shelter, encouraging girls to consider STEM education, raising money for local health clinics, running for office, supporting candidates for office, etc. In short, they are acting, not talking, and the actions they are taking benefit men as well as women; and women across the spectrum.

The father is the source of power that establishes not only the notion of the forbidden, but ensures the growth of his offspring is positively cared for at the best of his ability.

The son needs emotional support, and forge a masculine mindset in the shores of parenthood by identifying with the characteristics of his role model, the father. He enjoys the challenges, the experiences, and all the instructions and teachings that are taking place while father and son are bonding.

The daughter needs emotinal support, that father who will listen to her worries, support her, brighten up her mood, motivates her, protects her, and guides her through the treks of life. He becomes the blueprint of the man she subsconsciously wants.

Sounds like I had a deal, then. I had no brothers, so my father did things with me that he might have done with a son: took me fishing, taught me woodworking and how to fix things, etc. My mother taught me to cook and sew. Together they provided a stable and loving home for me as a child, but ultimately I had to learn to protect myself, and each was a role model only in certain specific respects.

A healthy upbringing of our children contributes into the definition of the morals governing our society. It all starts from the very foundation which is family, but we're all busy blaming that policy, and blaming that government, and blaming that religion, and blaming that hokum, in a useless neverending jibber jabber intead of owning our part of the problem.

I agree that modern parents are often falling down on the job. External forces definitely make their job harder, though, everything from schools trying to usurp their authority, to modern marketing, to the increased litigiousness of society, to the increased judgment of others, exacerbated by social media. Parents aren't given space to teach their children how to be adults, as many of these forces insist on treating them as children until the magic day that they turn 18 or 21. But we must teach our daughters to be assertive and independent, just as we must teach our sons to be compassionate and nurturing. Traits like these, after all, are human traits and should be part of everyone's toolbox.

 

[Lark]

I generally think of it negatively now because modern incarnations of feminism are toxic by their very design, focusing on concepts like "toxic masculinity", straight white male "privilege", and intersectionality in general, with the intent creating division and ill will for the purpose of attaining power. When taken as a worldview, the ideology in question leads its proponents to a negative feedback loop of intolerance, anger, and paranoid hypersensitivity to the point of giving themselves an actual mental illness.

I'm interested in this, you seem to have done a little bit more of a reading of recent trends than I have, I've been thinking a lot lately about its more than fifthteen years ago that I actually studied feminism and it was often a case of reading sources which were older than that, also it was a european, and often UK centric, reading too.

The whole [whatever] is a form of mental illness argument is an old one, at least I remember maybe five or six years ago, there was a to do list website and it had a lot of people who had listed goals describing american conservatives or liberals as mentally ill or the ideology as a form of mental illness. So its an old trope and it might just be used to dismiss the good with the bad and dispense with any need to think about it further, see what I mean?

Although I would make two points, the kind of hyperbolic, unstable version of feminism or liberalism or any other example, I personally find are generally confined to the academy or university campus (on which they could be reinforced and enforced pretty thought policey wise) and online, like I dont believe the whole alt right and nazi revival could have happened offline but the online arena was perfect for it, gamer gate and other interactions between hyperbolic types with other hyperbolic types resulting in pretty hyperbolic responses or trends (that's before you even get into the possibility that someone is deliberately seeking to game everyone and create instability).

I do think that the intolerant, angry, paranoid hypersensitivity thing is very interesting, I think that it may have started out as a left wing phenomenon, like George Orwell wrote about "socialists hating fun" and described the "happy poor" scene in christmas carol as the stuff of their nightmares, that the immiserated may not be miserable themselves could be a threat to their cause, but there are right wing varieties, like I mentioned, and it becoming a really wide spread, general thing.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure where those posting negatively in these threads are finding their feminists. Online in strident extremist blogs, perhaps? I know quite a few feminists IRL. I don't think I have heard a single one of them talk about "toxic masculinity" or questing for power. They are too busy volunteering with the local women's shelter, encouraging girls to consider STEM education, raising money for local health clinics, running for office, supporting candidates for office, etc. In short, they are acting, not talking, and the actions they are taking benefit men as well as women; and women across the spectrum.

I know the point you're trying to make, that most opponents of something will like to discuss it at its worst rather than at its best, its something I see a lot of liberals do quite automatically and when a few very minor and pretty philosophical points from an alternative politics are made to them it generally results in their minds being blown (dismiss that if you want but I've known enough right wing extremists who were former trotskyists to know it for a fact, there was one called "recovering trotskyist" who was so prolific in the creation of "listmanias" in the UK Amazon website that it pretty much got that function closed down).

In the main I dont think of feminists as a foe, more often than not the male anti-feminists have very personal motives for opposing what they imagine is the ideological backbone of some personal grievance, although was there not one or two examples of the whole "toxic men" feminist on this forum at a time? I think I definitely remember someone who was like that on occasion, I even remember thinking that they would occasionally lighten up before going all mental militant again, for whatever reason, I didnt interact with them much and may have had them on ignore because I found it a little pointless to engage in discussion with them. Those sorts of people are a little one dimensional. Left or right. Its part of the reason I think they could as easily be bots and not even people at all.

 

[Starry]

...more often than not the male anti-feminists have very personal motives for opposing what they imagine is the ideological backbone of some personal grievance...

While I understand and agree with the primary point you were making here...I wanted to capture this portion in order to say that for those of us that are just as mindful of (white, heterosexual) men's rights as they are their own...the bolded is painfully obvious and is why MRA sentiments are ultimately dismissed.

Being a self-proclaimed egalitarian (or merely an individual that believes in equality) that uses biological determinism to attack feminism makes you look like you are uneducated and simply have a personal problem.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's funny though because "the personal is political" was a slogan popular with a lot of second wave feminists. It's a fair criticism to make of of MRA types in pointing out their personal reasons for disagreeing with what they feel are toxic aspects of feminism but let's not pretend personal reasons aren't playing a role with adopters of most ideologies

The personal is political - Wikipedia

So while it may seem a good reason to dismiss someone's concerns, it seems a bit hypocritical. I'd wager that when you get to the root of anyone's reason for believing a certain way or advocating for a particular cause, the personal will play some role, even with a Gandhi or Christ like figure

The criticism that anti feminists are misogynistic or interested only in preserving white male heterosexuality only goes so far, when you become aware of the growing number of females, non heterosexual and non white people who either sympathize with MRAs or hold anti feminist views--my bisexual, socially liberal self included. The notion that people against feminism must hold views synonymous with white nationalism is seeming increasingly thin and shaky, as is the notion that one cannot hold egalitarian views whilst being anti feminist. Feminism does not hold a monopoly on humanism and egalitarianism any more than any one religion holds a monopoly on morality

 

[lowtech redneck]

The whole [whatever] is a form of mental illness argument is an old one, at least I remember maybe five or six years ago, there was a to do list website and it had a lot of people who had listed goals describing american conservatives or liberals as mentally ill or the ideology as a form of mental illness. So its an old trope and it might just be used to dismiss the good with the bad and dispense with any need to think about it further, see what I mean?

Although I would make two points, the kind of hyperbolic, unstable version of feminism or liberalism or any other example, I personally find are generally confined to the academy or university campus (on which they could be reinforced and enforced pretty thought policey wise) and online, like I dont believe the whole alt right and nazi revival could have happened offline but the online arena was perfect for it, gamer gate and other interactions between hyperbolic types with other hyperbolic types resulting in pretty hyperbolic responses or trends (that's before you even get into the possibility that someone is deliberately seeking to game everyone and create instability).

I do think that the intolerant, angry, paranoid hypersensitivity thing is very interesting, I think that it may have started out as a left wing phenomenon, like George Orwell wrote about "socialists hating fun" and described the "happy poor" scene in christmas carol as the stuff of their nightmares, that the immiserated may not be miserable themselves could be a threat to their cause, but there are right wing varieties, like I mentioned, and it becoming a really wide spread, general thing.

Edit: It seems I mis-remembered talking specifically about microaggressions and trigger warnings, though they are largely what I had in mind when talking about modern feminists giving themselves mental illnesses, probably because I subjectively think that concepts like privilege theory, interesectionality, and "toxic masculinity" have much the same effect, but are technically distinct from the former as it relates to my point. My apologies for the confusion.

The system ate my previous reply (damn timed clock-out), I'll try to be more succinct:

The mental illness aspect involves the effect of thinking in terms of microaggressions and trigger warnings on the psyche over time, rather than the ideas themselves being caused by mental illness, or embraced by the mentally ill-basically they gradually recreate symptoms of PTSD while simultaneously making people ideologically resistant to the ideas behind behavioral therapy. Being mentally ill due to brain chemistry myself, and having to constantly struggle to train my mind in the opposite direction in order to prevent it from going back to its default setting, its easy to for me to see how this movement is inadvertently turning behavioral therapy on its head, and training their minds to replicate mental illness, but its understandable that most people are unfamiliar with the process.

White male "privilege" theory, in my mind, is related to and feeds off these concepts as it encourages a vague sense of paranoia and urgency while providing an 'other" whose advancement and well-being is perceived as inversely related to one's own, but you are correct in that similar accusations could and have been made against other theories, such as Marx's "proletariat and bourgeoisie" conflict, Rand's "Makers versus Takers", or Bannon's "globalists". I probably should have made a clear distinction between privilege theory and microaggressions and trigger warnings, though it must be said that proponents of one very frequently cite the other as justification. You are also correct in that its most prevalent online and on college campuses, though I believe that causes a highly disproportionate impact on society, and its future.

The best quick and dirty article on the subject is Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind: How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic

He also goes into the role that social media has played in this process, though I believe he vastly underestimates the complicity of a large proportion of college professors in initiating and encouraging this movement as a vehicle for social change (such as at Evergreen University).

 

[Lark]

Edit: It seems I mis-remembered talking specifically about microaggressions and trigger warnings, though they are largely what I had in mind when talking about modern feminists giving themselves mental illnesses, probably because I subjectively think that concepts like privilege theory, interesectionality, and "toxic masculinity" have much the same effect, but are technically distinct from the former as it relates to my point. My apologies for the confusion.

The system ate my previous reply (damn timed clock-out), I'll try to be more succinct:

The mental illness aspect involves the effect of thinking in terms of microaggressions and trigger warnings on the psyche over time, rather than the ideas themselves being caused by mental illness, or embraced by the mentally ill-basically they gradually recreate symptoms of PTSD while simultaneously making people ideologically resistant to the ideas behind behavioral therapy. Being mentally ill due to brain chemistry myself, and having to constantly struggle to train my mind in the opposite direction in order to prevent it from going back to its default setting, its easy to for me to see how this movement is inadvertently turning behavioral therapy on its head, and training their minds to replicate mental illness, but its understandable that most people are unfamiliar with the process.

White male "privilege" theory, in my mind, is related to and feeds off these concepts as it encourages a vague sense of paranoia and urgency while providing an 'other" whose advancement and well-being is perceived as inversely related to one's own, but you are correct in that similar accusations could and have been made against other theories, such as Marx's "proletariat and bourgeoisie" conflict, Rand's "Makers versus Takers", or Bannon's "globalists". I probably should have made a clear distinction between privilege theory and microaggressions and trigger warnings, though it must be said that proponents of one very frequently cite the other as justification. You are also correct in that its most prevalent online and on college campuses, though I believe that causes a highly disproportionate impact on society, and its future.

The best quick and dirty article on the subject is Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind: How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic

He also goes into the role that social media has played in this process, though I believe he vastly underestimates the complicity of a large proportion of college professors in initiating and encouraging this movement as a vehicle for social change (such as at Evergreen University).

I think that universities in the US context are much different to those here or even in the republic of ireland because I could not see campaigning departments or professors surviving, the academic culture is very different, even when I recall lecturers exhibiting bias or when it was known from elsewhere, say prefaces or introductions they had written to books, it was generally more of a "fan boy" kind than a political sort, if that makes sense.

Its interesting that you choose behaviour theory or CBT as the example, there probably is operant or classical conditioning involved, that's true, it all makes me think of Skinner's behaviourism (and Skinner did have a kind of utopia in mind in which his behaviourism would give rise to a totally satisfied society, I think it was part of what motivated Huxley to write Brave New World) but I was thinking more of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, its more popular as a management theory or business and advertising theory.

It can involve the identification or engineering of automatic thoughts and associations, in most of the literature it talks about negative automatic thoughts ("NATS") and eliminating them by challenge, disputation, substitution, a range of awareness techniques which dont differ too much from behaviour theory (though I know that William James had a more philosophical psychological idea about the power of positive action as opposed to the power of positive thinking which is a different sort of behavioural theory). I've often read those books and had thoughts like what you've articulated here and wondered how much of these theories have been adopted by political marketing men for campaigns or the engendering of disordered patterns of thinking to motivate agitation.

What I would say though is that while I've heard it alleged before now that the left does this, either by default or by design, I have encountered lots of right wingers (who know doubt believe this about the left) who do definitely adopt those tactics, its usually incredibly bungled, pretty obvious and will pretty much ruin any attempt from the point of it being "rumbled" that any genuinely persuasive point could be made.

The last time I did encounter it was a kid telling me about this sort of super villain persona online who had "brain washed" them into far right ideas, when I did observe this supposed super villain persona on discussion forums they were a pretty sorry sort of contributor and I suspect didnt strike as much of a profile with anyone older than their teenage years, who admired them as a gamer, and that made me think about the internet played a big part it couldnt have previously in spreading ideas.

 

[Starry]

It's funny though because "the personal is political" was a slogan popular with a lot of second wave feminists. It's a fair criticism to make of of MRA types in pointing out their personal reasons for disagreeing with what they feel are toxic aspects of feminism but let's not pretend personal reasons aren't playing a role with adopters of most ideologies

The personal is political - Wikipedia

So while it may seem a good reason to dismiss someone's concerns, it seems a bit hypocritical. I'd wager that when you get to the root of anyone's reason for believing a certain way or advocating for a particular cause, the personal will play some role, even with a Gandhi or Christ like figure

The criticism that anti feminists are misogynistic or interested only in preserving white male heterosexuality only goes so far, when you become aware of the growing number of females, non heterosexual and non white people who either sympathize with MRAs or hold anti feminist views--my bisexual, socially liberal self included. The notion that people against feminism must hold views synonymous with white nationalism is seeming increasingly thin and shaky, as is the notion that one cannot hold egalitarian views whilst being anti feminist. Feminism does not hold a monopoly on humanism and egalitarianism any more than any one religion holds a monopoly on morality

It might have been my post that prompted this response idk so if that's the case let me clarify...

There is no doubt that most people are motivated by personal experience...that's pretty much a no-brainer right there. People are a thousand times if not more more likely to speak out against that which they have personally witnessed or experienced. The challenge is demonstrating that what has been personally witnessed or experienced is not an exception but part of the rule. And from there demonstrate (for what is being discussed here) that feminism is the cause of that rule. <- When this isn't established the "personal isn't political". It's still just personal.

Does this mean there isn't a trend that needs to be watched closely? No. But it will be difficult to make that case when you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Feminists do not think they have a monopoly on humanism, etc. They are against biological determinism though. Even in instances when it comes packaged as humanism.

 

[Coriolis]

I know the point you're trying to make, that most opponents of something will like to discuss it at its worst rather than at its best, its something I see a lot of liberals do quite automatically and when a few very minor and pretty philosophical points from an alternative politics are made to them it generally results in their minds being blown (dismiss that if you want but I've known enough right wing extremists who were former trotskyists to know it for a fact, there was one called "recovering trotskyist" who was so prolific in the creation of "listmanias" in the UK Amazon website that it pretty much got that function closed down).

Of course they would. It's easier than trying to argue or work against the mainstream majority of whatever group they have decided to oppose. Feminism is nothing more than the view that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. That so many people who hold this view are so opposed to being called feminists is a testament to both the effectiveness of the smear campaign against feminism, and the power of peer/social pressure.

In the main I dont think of feminists as a foe, more often than not the male anti-feminists have very personal motives for opposing what they imagine is the ideological backbone of some personal grievance, although was there not one or two examples of the whole "toxic men" feminist on this forum at a time? I think I definitely remember someone who was like that on occasion, I even remember thinking that they would occasionally lighten up before going all mental militant again, for whatever reason, I didnt interact with them much and may have had them on ignore because I found it a little pointless to engage in discussion with them. Those sorts of people are a little one dimensional. Left or right. Its part of the reason I think they could as easily be bots and not even people at all.

Sure - there are toxic, man-hating "feminists" out there, and probably a few here as well. They are obnoxious and they are loud. They are not the majority, however -- far from it, any more than Westboro Baptist Church represents the majority of Christians.

There is no doubt that most people are motivated by personal experience...that's pretty much a no-brainer right there. People are a thousand times if not more more likely to speak out against that which they have personally witnessed or experienced. The challenge is demonstrating that what has been personally witnessed or experienced is not an exception but part of the rule. And from there demonstrate (for what is being discussed here) that feminism is the cause of that rule. <- When this isn't established the "personal isn't political". It's still just personal.

I have also seen the opposite happen. When someone advocates strongly for an issue that doesn't impact them, others are often mistrustful or discount their opinions because they have no stake in the matter. They will be asked, "Have you experienced this problem? Then how do you know it is even a problem? Why should we listen to you?" The reasons why should be obvious to anyone with half a wit, but when emotions are carrying the day, none of that matters.

 

[Lark]

Feminism is nothing more than the view that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.

I think its way more than that, although I dont think there's anything wrong with that.

If you read Sherri S Tepper's Gate To Woman's Country, its a pretty good feminist utopia/dystopia and it does a good job too of characterising what feminism is too, its not merely what you say it is but I dont particularly have a problem with it.

 

[Coriolis]

I think its way more than that, although I dont think there's anything wrong with that.

That's the definition in pretty much every mainstream dictionary I can find, online and elsewhere. It's at the root of all efforts to put women's rights on a par with men's, and in doing so, effect the reverse as well. Everything else is just spin, implementation (some methods are more effective than others), extra specificity ("feminism in this context means . . . "), or smear.

 

[ceecee]

Because this topic comes up a lot when discussing feminism, this story seems to belong here.

A woman is about to become the Marines’ first-ever female infantry officer – VICE News

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because this topic comes up a lot when discussing feminism, this story seems to belong here.

A woman is about to become the Marines’ first-ever female infantry officer – VICE News

Good.

That title is awkward and redundant though. Couldn't help nitpicking it.