This brought me to tears; so many "feminists" have treated me as a pariah because I don't think the same way they do. I'm a woman against feminism because today's feminism isn't for all women...:/ thank u thank u for this talk. It was candid, refreshing and healing.
Every man I've heard go off about how "feminism isn't about gender equality" always wound up saying that he thought the loss of his male privilege was gynocratic misandrisitic oppression.
@Ult_R4nger 94 Yeah, you're right, it couldn't possibly be because of any of that paranoid hoseshit. After all, feminists never get doxxed, or physically menaced, or victimized by regressive legislation, or have to face hostile panels of powerful men in front of a national audience and have to take their families into hiding for fear of violent reprisals against their children and their husbands.... And if you don't think male privilege exists, I invite you to create a RU-vid account under a conspicuously female name, with a female photograph, and start expressing your opinions freely on videos, and see what happens.
Exactly! Feminism has shifted from gender equality to female domination. I find women that speak out against feminism are stronger than those who BLINDLY follow it
@@TheHappyLeperBeaver Because that would mean you would have to bring other people down in order to lift one up. Why negate the achievements of one, to compensate for the lack of another? There's nothing fair about equality of outcome.
@@TheHappyLeperBeaver equality is outcome is simply so unequal. it comes to contradict feminism. where women are not wanted because of their skill or competence but because they are needed. this makes it seem as if we are chosen as a number and not as an individual
I define my self as a MASCULINIST. But don't worry, it just means I want gender equality. If you have to explain that feminism means equality, then wouldn't it just be easier to actually use the word equality?
I took her Human Sexuality class at UNC, sat in the front row every single day. This woman's lectures are absolutely AMAZING. She was by far the best professor I had.
This woman is very intelligent. But, while I was watching, I was thinking: "She is way ahead of her time, she's gonna have trouble". I scrolled down, and my thoughts were confirmed.
These comments are so triggered by nothing. Feminists SAY that they fight for equality, and this educated woman is making the point that we should skip the idea of "feminism" which divides people based on gender/sex and fight so pure equality.
Stop using feminism because it triggers anger from anti-feminists? Boo hoo. Let try that. The pay gap is real, and women need to be encouraged and hired in companies and the government so that they have equal representation.
@Bish - No, the pay gap is not real. The overall "earnings gap" exists because women choose not to work as many hours, and don't choose the same career fields as men. Women CHOOSE their fate. That's what being "empowered" means. As for "representation"..? Why does it matter to you what gender the people are in various fields? So long as the most qualified individuals are working in careers that they actually WANT to work in, all is well with the world. I don't care if zero women are working in STEM (or if it's 80%) so long as meritocracy is preserved. Representation is meaningless.
Of course equalism doesn't exist moron the same way feminism wasn't a word. The women in 1848 weren't calling themselves feminists and neither were the women in 1920 or even 1960-1970. It's a relatively new word applied to older movements some people feel aligns with what's going on today.
Harshit Madan Do you really think those languages stood still for hundred years. They evolved, transformed by the use people had. If we become gender equalitarists, our languages will become this too. It is a social phenomenon and we may want to help it happen faster for the sake of oppressed people, women in this case
I am so sorry that some comments just show how they're missing the point of this talk. It's the language.. the terms.. the labels.. that drive you to feel, to act, to react and so on.. Equalism is just her proposal.. and it's okay to disagree..
Love is word but its actions that prove i mean it ...... unless feminism or mra can truly fight for eqaul rights the word eqaulism will be just that a word and worse it'll have more power then either because it truly is supposed to encompass all
Feminists are pissed off because she's not subscribing to a label. Anti-SJW's are pissed off because she didn't recite the same tired narrative that came here to have re-affirmed to themselves. And the real points of her talk are getting completely overshadowed because everyone is too caught up in wanting to be "the right one". I don't agree with her. But this was a perspective I don't think I've seen before, and it was a really interesting new light to view things under. It's nice to know how other people think, and regardless of how everyone is treating it, I thought it was well thought out. I sincerely hope that there are other people who don't completely right her off simply because she's doesn't fit neatly into whatever camp they've assigned themselves under.
thescoopforspoons I just wish she had specified if the goal was equal opportunity or equal outcome because they are very different things. I think the difference is choice. Equal opportunity says we are all born and treated basically equal and our own choices and actions account for our success or lack thereof and we determine our own outcome without diclscrimination for immutable characteristics. Equality of outcome says it doesn't matter what you do or don't do, what you choose or dont choose we are all born equal and will die equal. Any inequality may be dealt with by swiftly knocking one up l, or down a peg to ensure no one has more or less than another. I'm just not sure if that is possible without taking away any individuals choice, how else will you ensure every persona outcomes are Equal and will it be just? Any ideas I think your original comment had some great points, as did the Ted talk.
Disclaimer - I am what you would call an "anti-SJW" as I'm for free speech and the freedom of expression. I personally disagree with the notion of "gender neutral language" and that it would be an important aspect in our society. Because the biological facts are present, men and women are different biologically and also psychologically. Women tend to have certain character traits far more than men (For example agreeableness or empathy.) hence they tend to gravitate towards certain jobs more than men (These are statistical facts, I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, but I'm talking about about statistical majorities.). There are so many differences and a focus on how genders are not different does not actually resolve anything and I feel it'd be a bigger issue as once you put men and women together and try to paint them with a single brush things will not be working out as well as one might think. For example, James Damore who tried to help google by saying that they should try and implement gender specific incentives and aspects which would appeal to the other gender and to pull in more diverse people, which is what Google wants, but he got labeled a misogynist because he had the gall to say that women and men are different and might require a different approach to incentivize them to work at google. I would recommend checking out "Jordan Peterson". He is an extremely well-spoken guy who is one of the most cited clinical psychologists in Canada currently, and he's extremely clear in terms of the differences between men and women, and about how we have to learn and live with them while also keeping those differences in mind..
Yea but I'm full well in her camp. I think each gender has it's edges, that also reinforce prejudices against them with their privileges, and comparing them into a binary choice of which one is the sympathetic one is a baaaad choice. Really both men's and women's groups have many good things they're striving for, more especially if they worked together more often.
Betsy Cairo you have just put into words all the thoughts I have been struggling with lately. Women's right + Men's rights = Equal rights. Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can strive for both at the same time they are not mutually exclusive the constant infighting between the groups is just slowing down the process. If people can begin to understand that rather then dividing the world needs to stand together to fix all of our problems. If we continue to only see one side of the argument as important we all just prove how bigoted and sexist we truly are.
You are absolutely right. This is the real crux of the matter. Feminism needs MRAs to balance it out, and if feminists truly believe in gender equality, then they should be supporters of MRAs, and vice versa. Less fighting between the genders, more listening to women's AND men's issues! And watch The Red Pill movie - a movie with heart, and a message of peace and understanding at its core.
Totally right everyone. One of the arguments I always used against the word 'feminism' is that sexism oppresses and defines men too. So why to call him 'feminism'? Men have the right to be vulnerable and to do whatever it is suitable to their personalities (if they do respect others, of course, and that applies to everyone, women, men, others). So the word actually was partly shifting the standard roles of sexism, instead of just unblocking equality.
Totally agree we must fight for the rights of both gender. To the question "why is it so hard for people to understand" : simply because in the long time women suffered a zillion time more of gender discrimination than men. But men discrimination does exist, of course. Just indeed, it is hard to hear for women. But totally aligned it must be heard and understood.
Yes. Feminism affects woman too. it made me depressed for years. being told I'm underpriveledged all my life and I'm going to suffer all my life because I'm a woman and theres nothing can do about it made me depressed and hate myself.
Nobody would care any more than they care now. In fact he would be praised for being so brave as to make such a speech knowing he'd get so much backlash. A good idea is a good idea, doesn't matter what's between the inventor's legs.
The problem is that left wing people tend to claim that to fight for rights as a group your group must be systemically/institutionally oppressed and they have decided that women fit that since they historically had fewer rights than men, but you can't just fight for "equality" because then you're fighting for "non oppresssed" categories too... But I think in reality individuals' experiences of oppression and difficulty or privilege and opportunity are complex and multifactorial. And at the end of the day focussing on certain so called oppressed groups like women or "people of colour" perpetuates old divides and over simplifies things. It also perpetuates a sense of victimhood on one side and of being under attack on the other. So I agree, just care about people in general and call out injustice wherever you see it, but don't just divide everyone into simplistic oppressed/privileged groups.
I'm not a feminist. Even though I'm female. I don't think that girls should be given more rights. I think that EVERYONE should be given EQUAL rights. No matter if they are male, female, or anything else. We should stop going on about women's rights because equal rights is more important.
finally , i have been saying this for years, at last someone bring it forward, no male chauvinism or feminism but equality. thank you. finally someone with common sense.
Men make up over 90% high-ranking corporate positions. Wouldn't it be nice of there were more women in those jobs? That would be MORE equality. WAIT... Men make up over 90% of sanitation workers. Wouldn't it be nice of there were more women in those jobs? That would be MORE equality. Men make up over 90% of workplace deaths. Wouldn't it be nice of there were more women in those jobs? That would be MORE equality. Oh, I forgot equality now means women can't make their own decisions.
5 лет назад
90% of Men's Work Place Deaths is on obsolete dangerous Labor Intensive Jobs kept in place by dominating Patriarchy, NOT Women. Work to get rid of those Jobs.
Liam Sena, I agree. Men should stop digging the coal, stop drilling the oil, stop building the roads and cars, stop building the skyscrapers. We should stop being almost all the police and firefighters. This patriarchal structure was setup to support a system that buffers women from reality. “Woman and children first” children yes, but why women? They are not better at parenting, they are not “gentler, kinder, or more nurturing.” Have you ever held a door open to “help” a woman? Stopped to help her change a tire? Protect her from some crazy dog? Why? How often have they ever done that for a man? Break the patriarchy, stop helping women.
Truth. WELL put! Want equality? Pay half the bills, work yourself into a grave, become a protector and provider, then we can talk about equality. When I see women marching for men's reproductive rights, then I will believe they want equality.
Montes Foreman, if there are so many workplace deaths, then something is not right. Perhaps proper safety procedures are not in place to begin with. Who says that women are not accountable for their actions? Which women are you referring to?
I'm a feminist but I thought this lady had some wonderful points! It disgusts me to see what some feminists do these days and how misunderstood the movement can be
Maddy Reagan most feminists of today are sick with their feminism. It's not relevant nor productive in the West. Just like men's rights activists.... though they have more relevant or accurate points. It's still one sided and no need for it.
what is a tree? what is a woman? What is a man? Language matters, and so do definitions. Can we just call whatever we want as we feel without it having consequences?
"Egalitarianism" is an already established term that means exactly what is intended by "equalism", why the need to create a new term for a concept that already exists? That being said, good talk.
While I agree that it's already and established term, egalitarianism is a mouthful. I like equalism because it rolls off the tongue more easily, I feel.
I AGREE TO HER POINTS. This is one of the best speech i have ever had about this topic. and she have arranged all the perfect words together of what i was straggling to explain..
I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fucking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Meeshka Petite Don't use Christ as a way to show your annoyance. He's a person, show respect. Also, if you want something original, I identify as a tree.
IS. He is a person. He always has been a person, and always will be. Stop trying to shove your antireligous beliefs down my throat. (I'm not religious either, by the way, I'm Christian)
Meeshka Petite What does STFU stand for? By the way, to assume that someone is brain dead because they have different beliefs than you is not a very open-minded attitude or very tolerant. I don't know if those things are important to you, but if you hold other people to that standard, you should live it out. That's called integrity. By the way, if the comment about the tree offended you, I really am sorry. I'm just trying to make a point. If a human thinks that they're a tree, they need help to recognize the truth. You don't plant them in the ground and water them, you send them to get counseling.
being included in a community does not mean the society adapting to each individuals wishes, but the individual adapting to the society he/she wants to belong to.
But society is made of group of individuals. And if those group of individuals wants to be "included" then society needs to adapt to these changes too.
Very interesting, I agree with basically everything this white, female professor said. jk, equalism sounds weird now, but I think it could catch on, and the language does have a huge impact I think people don't consciously realize. Saying i'm an equalist sounds legit and would make me feel better than saying feminist, simply because all of the complications it can bring to a conversation.
Something to note about equality.. if you have a football team and everyone thinks they are a quarterback, the team wont get anywhere. If they accept their positions and recognize their differences, then they can work off of each other to move forward.
lol football is the worst example you can give. the quarterback definitely gets way more playtime and a higher paying contract than anyone else on the team. a team doesn't mean equality
You know, holding political beliefs doesn't rule out the possibility of having a personality... in fact, having opinions about things is one of the main indicators of a personality. Are you saying that the only way for people to 'be themselves' is to have absolutely no opinions one way or another? I might have misunderstood your comment. Are you saying that people with good personalities don't have an opinion on social inequality!? What's the link that you're trying to draw between personality and political beliefs? Genuine question, not being sarcastic.
I am always concerned when people give words to much power. So though I don't like the term feminist I would not judge you to harshly for using the word, if you think it helps describe you, because I not a big fan of word authoritarians either.
panglossDr: It is not common knowledge anymore that feminism seeks equality, it's literally in the name FEMINISM. Men have no platform in feminism and most of what I am discovering about the current movement is that it seeks a life over men. Finally someone who suggest that we seek a life WITH each other not separated on one side or the other.
Right, but we can actually study the real impact of word usage in the society. And studying it, people found it is big. Of course, any linguistic specialist knows language is a social phenomenon, can't be controlled with authority. Betsy Cairo just propose to use more correct words. to everyone to understand the mechanism she describes and the need to indeed, control what we say. Because to fight for any cause, the alternative to words is mostly violence, I would definitely take good care of words :)
The problem with Feminism, as with many well intended movements, is that it takes an issue that is really about a functioning whole (Healthy dynamics for men and women to interact together in society) and focuses on just a part (the empowerment of women) If there is an abusive husband, having a more powerful wife doesn't fully address the underlying dysfunction (although hopefully she can get to safety) The man's dysfunction has to be dealt with because the family marriage only works well when both parties are having their needs met and working together. I've noticed this with activist of all sorts. They take a systemic issue involving multiple people groups and only want to advocate for a particular group (which may have legitimate concerns) without considering the ideal functioning of the whole. Activists' passion for a single group or issue frequently results in a loss of perspective of the best interest of the whole.
You have no idea how I glad to see your comment. I think the same, a lot of troubles of humanity has only complex decision. It's very sad, that each group of activisties isolate themselves from solidarity. Man and woman are not different, we have one human nature.
This is brilliant! I've always used the word egalitarian myself. I also find it interesting how we've had "mansplaing" and "manspreading" added to people's vocabulary at the same time that feminism and sexual preference equality has been striving forward. For what it's worth, I believe in equality of all (sex, sexual preference, race) - but it's often that creates arguments when defending "non traditional victims" for lack of a better phrase. That's not to detract from "traditional victims". Many groups (male or female, cis or LGBTI etc) face issues or discrimination. The sooner language changes to be inclusive, not exclusive, then I think it'll be easier to tackle the underlying issues.
Alex Davila why?? I don't understand. John Grayson offers a perfectly fine explanation as to why it's important. the whole concept behind egalitarianism is simple and harms absolutely no one. you can't argue with it (which is also why out of the 3 replies before me on this comment, none actually be argued against it or even simply explained why it does not suit them)
Alex Davila this has nothing to do with talent, all humans are equal by fundamental worth and social status. That's it. That's all it's about. The first example about police and army, whether ur female, male, none, both, you still need to work hard. That applies to everyone regardless of gender. Just cuz men do hold the record for being physically stronger doesn't mean we deny people the opportunity to prove their worth in this field The next one, obesity has absolutely nothing to do with gender. In this example, you talk about just fat ‘women' like it doesn't apply to you guys either? And just because someone isn't as physically attractive as the model you saw on the cover page of vogue doesn't mean they can't think, feel and express the same way you, or the model does so why discriminate? No one's asking you to date a fat person, but if you genuinely enjoy their company, why not? Why deny people of opportunities just because they don't fit into ur distorted idea of perfect? Sure, everyone has preferences but that doesn't mean you refuse to even talk to someone who doesn't fit in that preference
Alex Davila Take what you said about police requiring strength. if it's egalitarian, then the view would be "you must pass this physical strength test to become a police officer". A non-egalitarian example would be "if female, pass this 'female' police officer test, if male, pass this male police officer test". Recently in Australia there was a graduating class of firefighters that was roughly 25% females. This was after a huge advertising push to get more females to sign up. Importantly, the test is universal, they didn't pass a "female" test, they passed the "firefighter" test. This is the key of egalitarianism. treat everyone equally. Don't move goalposts for specific groups. It's important because having different rules creates an "us and them" mindset, be it race gender religion etc. If everyone is treated equally (without discrimination), then it's objectively fair.
She is way too ahead of time ..,may be after 100 years or so we can say word feminism is outdated but not now because she don't know the struggles a 'common woman ' around the world faces
Newspeak! none of us are equal! this is bollocks! Equality of Opertunity is good but to fight for equality of outcome is stupid! I am not equal to Usain Bolt at running, he is far better than me and we should celebrate our differences not try to equalise everything like it "aught to be".
Yes. She is not saying that we are all the same in our abilities and trades. She say people should be equal in opportunity and rights. Why would you be against that?
so your point is that women should stop fighting to have equal rights as men cause they are simply not equal to them and therefore cant call themselves that? lmaoo evey time there is a topic of feminism i wonder what have women done to men to hate us this much, lol you;re a teriible person and your mama didnt raise you right
She has noble ideals, but what she is referring to is humanism. Original Feminism must still prevail to look after the interests of women. I would like to see a Ted talk on the influence of MRA on the push for humanism.
I am currently studying the grounds of feminism. I am fascinated by this word and it led me to different conversations, talks, and discussions. But this talk is remarkable, her convictions and principles are amazing. I'll definitely search for more of her talks
And what about the significant amount of violence against women in this world? Are we just going to pretend like men and and women are equal in that context? I understand her point but it sits quite superficially
I feel like equity is needed, not equality, give people what they need. I had an interview at university for a games development course and the interviewer said I have a higher chance of being employed even if I'm less qualified because of feminism. This isn't right. I've also been told I'm less likely to get a job if a person from an ethnic minority applies even if I am more qualified because of "equality". This isn't equality, it's businesses trying to look diverse and PC.
Emily B I don't know but that's the very definition of inequality. In equality, since everyone is equal, merit should stand out and no special treatment should be delievered to anyone: man, woman, other races, etc.... since there would be nothing called a 'minority group problems'. All will be given equal rights, isn't it?
Marriage was never simply about two people loving each other. The roots of the word Matrimony lay in the celebration of Motherhood: Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron. If the nature of a union is sterile it is not truly « Marriage » it is a legal union.
some people don't understand: this woman isn't saying that feminism is bad, she is saying that there shouldn't have to be an identifier for everyone to have the same rights, just like the people who don't identify as male/female shouldn't have to prove why they feel what they do. just saying.
This is very much a perfect world idea. It sounds like the line "I don't see color" when taking about race. It isn't helpful at all to ignore the differences we have. We can be inclusive AND different individuals. Feminism is to put the spotlight on the disadvantages various women have faced and still struggle with today. If you were born female and later no longer identify as one, you still have experiences being one and perhaps struggled with issues many women have faced. It's not a polarizing word, men, anyone can be feminists by supporting equality and assisting in issues women face. It stands up for men's right to be feminine as well. To see childcare or nursing jobs for anyone, not sterotypically for women. It also isn't an excuse to hate men or feel more important than anyone else. It doesn't come with a rule book either. You can be a plummer, stripper, or scientist. The point is you CAN be different. You can look however you like. Get a facelift, or embrace your grey hair without judgement. We are amazingly different and sharing our differences opens gateways to knowledge and wisdom. The "middle ground" or whatever, is that we're all humans. "equalism" is broad, dissociative word. It doesn't do the struggle for women's rights the justice it deserves and doesn't give it the voice it needs. I find it similar to the "All Lives Matter" statement. It takes away the spotlight the disadvantaged need. Perhaps make a new word for gender non subscribers. Celebrate eachothers individuality and listen to what struggles someone different faces. Recognize them without discarding a whole historic movement towards equality, a movement that paved the way for other non binary or transsexual people to be more acknowledged as well.
exactly my thoughts, we have not ‘grown out of feminism’ when millions of women around the world still face inequality. how are we supposed to move forward and not acknowledge any of the issues
@@blhootz I’m glad someone actually read what I said-and appreciated it on top of that! Thanks for your response and positive feedback, it means a lot to me. :)
Betsy did a great job of explaining a very noble goal. I don't think Feminism is about equality as with many other group causes. I think that most of the group causes are about focusing on times founding individuals were wronged, and make no mistake, many individuals have been slighted, taken advantage of and abused. Once there is a group which recognizes and identifies with the founding individual's victimization, the focus becomes on making everyone else pay. I am all for inclusion and equality but I am really tired of the endless parade of historic injustices which some how make it right to require repayment by people who were never involved in the injustice. Confront it where it exists and get over it. Group causes don't really seem to be seeking fairness but rather unmerited advantage, and making other pay. The world is not now nor will it likely ever be fair.
I have a suggestion: Gender Rights Activism (GRA) or gender equalism. The name should have some denotation of gender in it. Because otherwise you could be talking about equality based on ethnicity, age etc. and that's not what she means.
@@taurtue "What's your point? There will be people who will feel excluded no matter what, it shouldn't be promoted" I think my point was rather obvious in my original post. Feeling excluded drives growth of character. In fact, any kind of atrocity drives the growth of character. I never said anything about promotion. However, if my kid falls on some rock and gets a bruise, I let him. It is better to be bruised than to become a flower so sheltered and delicate that air will wither it.
I find that when we look to the differences which separate us. It is easy to overlook the things which should unite us. Some do seek to define their "equality" as egalitarianism. Others have no idea what they want to be classified as. Honestly? We should quit teaching kids to strive for agendas. Rather strive for kindness, compassion, equality of opportunity (not outcome), and realize that those who tell you how to believe are often the real problem. This ranges from hate mongers on the right and left to those who are misguided or disillusioned. The primary issue with any movement will be that once it has reached its stated goal. It faces becoming irrelevant. So, you must continue at that point and find Don Quixote windmill dragons. Problem is that most of the windmills are just that........windmills.
If a woman wants to be a plumber, electrician, welder, mechanic, construction worker, skyscraper window cleaner, etc. I'll show them the same respect as I show men. IF on the other hand they just want to be treated equal but have special treatment like lower standards...then we're not equal are we? An independent woman can pay for her own meal on a first date, an independent woman doesn't need men to open doors, walk them to the door, pay for them at public places, or defend them in times of trouble. THAT is equality. Women talk chivalry, but they don't want chivalry. They want the right to cherry pick what they want and don't want. Men aren't going for that anymore.
"I didn't understand feminism, but I do now... Even though I don't." Yes, noting similarities is important... but realizing that are differences are just as valid and important to do. Our differences in pay wages, to our differences in our health. They are both just as valid and important to take note of as how we are humans and thus need to eat. God, this woman is why feminism is given a terrible connotation.
I have disagreements about certain agendas some feminists have(as I have disagreements about any ideology), but I am very much against “banning” words and controlling people’s language. If you don’t like something then I prefer to speak out against it, not “ban” it, this usually makes martyrs and pariahs and ends up having the opposite effect you want
The muddling of contemporary vocabulary, using words or inventing words to mean whatever you want them to mean, is being used to conceal hypocrisy and intolerance. The word this woman speaks of has been used to seek privilege, rationalize prejudice, and demonize dissent.
The logical approach to this argument is really good. Many people try to use statistics which can easily be 'bend' to suit any viewpoints which good logic backing it. This is refreshing.
I am also ok with 'equalist'- if it means that women don't have to wear forced hijab, just like men.. Or if men are also made to wear forced hijab just like women...
she's only talking about the part of the world that she lives in, when you have countries that girls sold, raped and forced wed with no law to protect them then you need feminism for people to focus on this type of inequality
juliana silva all i see from feminist is waHHHH im oppressed forget those women who are being stoned my male friend who works harder then me earns more then me
+cyber beetle because I live in Iraq so I'm the one who has the right to talk about feminist here, here girls do fight back but they're put in jail because the laws will never have their back.
+Lucy Wald yes there's and again because I live in middle east so I can speak in behalf of it, here you have powerful women that made huge movements. you can look for a women called Dr nawal Al saadawi and then let me know if you think
+Cackling Muse well in middle east the one's who are making these crimes don't even get put in jail because the laws are made for the benefit of the male only, so we do need to talk about it to change these rules.
Not saying we are all completely equal but this is what we need to focus on, equal opportunity for all then we can accept differences, people don't seem ready for that.
Please don't fight to take away my right or make it offensive for me to say I'm a woman, I like girly things, & I'm attracted to masculine men. We might as well all walk around wearing brown sacks with shaved heads and all think & say & do the same things so that no one gets "left behind." It's a very disturbing thought. The reason society works & the reason we love people is because they're unique & special, different than everyone else.
If we are asking a whole culture to reevaluate and change their use of the language (IE gendered pronouns) we should be willing to reevaluate our use of the word feminism. It's just a word, and the insistence to use it is starting to sound like a temper tantrum.
