Gender, Objectification, Feminism & Asexuality

[Gizamaluke]

This is a difficult topic to approach because it doesn't quite exist yet, or it does but is mostly regarded in a negative light. It's a gender issue, it's an objectification issue and, yes, these are words we often seen associated with feminism; but what about masculinism? Why isn't that a term associated with men? Why are the words for expressing the male nature associated with words such as chauvinist, why is it bad to be masculine? Why is it good to be female? Why do men oppress women? Don't men also oppress themselves? If we care about gender equality so much, why do we continue to believe that genders are so different from one another?

The world seems to be over-saturated with an ill-defined form of feminism that appears to give women the power they need to establish themselves as 'better' than men, most of my teen years were filled with advertisements showing men are useless and women are perfect, shows where women are intellectual and men only care about sex, and today I'm constantly being hit with propaganda that paints men as barely contained animals who would likely rape women at the slightest provocation. Which in turn has resulted in a backlash of 'alpha male' attitudes in various countries.

However, I feel that asexuals are in position to reach out into a new area of gender study; of being able to shrug off some of these standard stereotypes. Some bias will always exist, but there is a chance that the gender-neutral and/or 'those who reject gender' might be able to create a substantial glue between the rest of us that identify as male/female/trans/etc to create something that moves past feminism to the logical conclusion of ignoring gender.

"Why would we want to ignore gender? I like being a woman."

"Why get rid of gender? I like being a man."

Perhaps 'ignore' is the wrong word to use, perhaps lessening the importance of gender in our lives would be better, perhaps lessening the importance of gender in any social role would also be better phrasing.

Where does this come from? Well it comes from asexuality, specifically my asexuality. I've been 'checked-out', I've been flirted with, I've been objectified and humiliated in public as well, but because I was predetermined at birth to be male I'm supposed to automatically dumb myself down and give into animalistic instinct and accept these actions as a compliment and feel proud? No. I won't accept that as reasonable, I can't believe that young men sending 'dick-pics' isn't as self-depreciating as young women sending 'boob shots'. Why are anti-bullying campaigns so one-sided when it comes to sex? Why should women be more protected than men? Why are boys encouraged to act as if perversion is okay, while it's outright offensive should a woman try to act in the same manner, or more likely, that their female perversion should be advertised as 'romantic' or 'empowering'. The version of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' for a male demographic wouldn't be quite so socially acceptable.

I recently saw a AVEN forum topic that was for a feminist group meet-up, I saw that men and women were both going, but mostly women. There's nothing wrong with this, I told myself, it's something that exists, it's good for women, and some men are going so there's no problems there. Yet I kept thinking, a nagging little thought, I couldn't quite drop it: Why do these (I'm assuming mostly asexual women) feel the need to apply the exclusionary group name 'Feminism' on a website where the majority of men are like-minded, gender-neutral or so asexual that they no longer think in terms of gender (an option which I hope I am)? I started to wonder if I found this offensive, I realised I didn't, but that I simply found it confusing. Why couldn't they simply have had a group meet-up? Was the fact that they were women important? Were they discussing 'female' only problems? Or would they focus on topics that effected both men and women? So I waited a few days for my thoughts to swirl around before I posted a poorly worded rant.

The problem, and my frustration, was due to the fact that there is no word to define what I want to explain. I can't simply toss out the word 'Feminism' and get nods of recognition, I need to post a short essay just to get somewhere close to the definition I can't quite say; and Gender-neutralism, Neugenderism, or androgyny are pathetically weak interpretations of what I mean as well. I feel that asexuals should not be feminists because feminism is a movement to improve the welfare of women, alone. Asexuals should be seeking to improve the welfare of everyone regardless of gender distinction, we should be more wiling to remove oppressive, constrictive barriers and produce our own form of gender studies that tries to balance out the over-corrections of the past.

We need our own movement; our own stance on gender, sex, love, relationships, occupation, race, porn, art, war, politics, etc. What do we want our society to be? What do we need? Why should we go on with the imbalance? Why can't we simply point to how things are and say, "Yes, the patriarchal society has created gender inequality but it has damaged the male gender as much as any other."

So I'm going to finish writing now, but I have so much more to express yet I cannot continue without some real research and close to 2000 more words. If you've skipped to the end I'll give you the gist, I want to create a new 'ism' but one that's inclusive to all genders.

(Ps. I don't know if this should be posted in Musings & Rantings, Gender Discussion or Philosophy).

[eched]

As a feminist(in training!) let me point a few things out. Being feminist is not gender related. It's not saying the female form is better. It's not blaming the male form. It's simply saying all genders should be equal and sexism and gender norms are wrong.

What you are describing at the start of your post with how men are seen(wild animals, rape happy, likes to be the alpha male) were ALL caused be patriarchy. One gender got complete control(in this case men) and they wanted to make it so they could get away with anything. Saying you are a wild animal helps you get away with acting like a wild animal. It was an act done to empower men. The mind frame was since men could get away with being slobs and wanting nothing but sex, then they would be able to get nothing but sex and be rewarded for being slobs!

The problem is, even though patriarchy was used by men(who just happened to get into power) to try and better men, you can't better people with sexism. It just doesn't work. Now everyone calls all men sex crazed as a way to insult men. Do understand, just because it came back and bit guys in the butt doesn't mean patriarchy didn't cause it. It did, there's no ifs or butts about that. Men had control over the media, they decided with that complete control to make themselves look like animals, and then they got banged over the head with it.

Feminism is against this. The Patriarchy system that has been made causes sexist stereotypes against men and women which are both harmful to men and women. Men in charge caused it, but if the other gender got 100% control it likely would have turned out just as bad. Sadly though, men have been in charge SO long that it has made a cycle of men always being in charge in some sense, and believe it or not this harms men greatly. If you are a man and you are above women and none men, you can't relate to them because they are lower then you, and you there for stand on your own. It's lonely at the top, and that's where patriarchy comes at men and kicks them in the butt.

I'm a feminist because the gender norms that have been made by patriarchy are harmful and wrong. I will fight these gender norms and for what is right. Feminism means equality for all genders!

[verily-forsooth-egads]

I found myself agreeing with you at several points, but I dislike your implying that feminism need not exist within the asexual community. Yes, both women and men face objectification and yes there's some overlap in their experiences, and I'll even agree that women's empowerment is not the biggest long-term goal related to gender that needs focus, but to say that asexual women can't possibly face anything asexual men don't belies a considerable lack of understanding on your part.

[SithLord]

I think you're being a little closed-minded on your view of feminism. I'm a cisgendered female despite being a tomboy, and I am a feminist. That means I support female rights and the rights for women to be equal to men. Gender-wise, anyone who identifies as a woman, girl, chick, or otherwise feminine is seen as less than someone who identifies as a man, boy, dude, or otherwise masculine. I think women should be paid the same as men. I think women deserve to walk down the street only being worried about being mugged, not raped, stabbed, kidnapped, molested, stalked, and a bunch of other things women are more likely to experience than men. I believe women and men should both be considered players when they do well sexually, but neither should be seen as sluts when they do too well. This is about a sexual double standard spanning all sexualities.

Of course men get discriminated against as well. They're seen as less manly (ugh) if they wear a dress or skirt. If they're gay they're also seen as less manly (why do you think there are terms like "bear" and "twink" that divide gay men even more?). Men are expected to be tough, emotionless pursuers who aren't afraid of spiders or germs. I can continue but I don't want to go on a rant.

Basically, most of these things are seen as feminine, and are looked down on. That's why I believe feminism is the best term for how I believe. I believe things considered feminine (pink, babies, fluffy things, emotions, being social, etc) should be considered on equal status to things considered masculine (cars, toughness, etc). They aren't, and that's why I will rip my own teeth out before I give credit to masculinists.

[Yes, there are people calling themselves masculinists because they're retarded and deserve to die alone, resulting in their genes being lost to history. Clearly they have no idea what the bigger issue is about gender equality. And these assholes are male chauvinists, so don't be confused.]

But again, this is an issue of GENDER. And asexuality has nothing to do with gender. Some identify along the binary gender spectrum, some don't. This isn't an issue that matters to asexuality in itself. We're not separate from the issue, and have nothing superior or objective about us that makes us special in the issue of gender. We're not mostly gender neutral, we're mostly gendered humans who have a say in the issue of gender equality.

[Gizamaluke]

As a feminist(in training!) let me point a few things out. Being feminist is not gender related. It's not saying the female form is better. It's not blaming the male form. It's simply saying all genders should be equal and sexism and gender norms are wrong.

What you are describing at the start of your post with how men are seen(wild animals, rape happy, likes to be the alpha male) were ALL caused be patriarchy. One gender got complete control(in this case men) and they wanted to make it so they could get away with anything. Saying you are a wild animal helps you get away with acting like a wild animal. It was an act done to empower men. The mind frame was since men could get away with being slobs and wanting nothing but sex, then they would be able to get nothing but sex and be rewarded for being slobs!

The problem is, even though patriarchy was used by men(who just happened to get into power) to try and better men, you can't better people with sexism. It just doesn't work. Now everyone calls all men sex crazed as a way to insult men. Do understand, just because it came back and bit guys in the butt doesn't mean patriarchy didn't cause it. It did, there's no ifs or butts about that. Men had control over the media, they decided with that complete control to make themselves look like animals, and then they got banged over the head with it.

Feminism is against this. The Patriarchy system that has been made causes sexist stereotypes against men and women which are both harmful to men and women. Men in charge caused it, but if the other gender got 100% control it likely would have turned out just as bad. Sadly though, men have been in charge SO long that it has made a cycle of men always being in charge in some sense, and believe it or not this harms men greatly. If you are a man and you are above women and none men, you can't relate to them because they are lower then you, and you there for stand on your own. It's lonely at the top, and that's where patriarchy comes at men and kicks them in the butt.

I'm a feminist because the gender norms that have been made by patriarchy are harmful and wrong. I will fight these gender norms and for what is right. Feminism means equality for all genders!

I knew I shouldn't have stopped elaborating where I did, now it seems like I'm trying to destroy feminism when really what I was trying to say was that between asexuals there shouldn't be a divide. Feminism should of course exist when dealing with 'sexuals' who believe that genders are unequal. There are several countries around the world that would benefit from a feminist movement, and we are starting to see this change happen. But the word 'feminist' does make some males feel as if they're not allowed to join in, that they can't be a part of the movement, or the discussion, because society has created this bizarre image of feminists as right-wing feminazis. Even women are starting to reject feminism because they don't want to be associated with that image. There is definite room for improvement here.

I'm not saying that we should forget everything that feminism has taught us, there's been so much good created due to the movement, but I've read in feminist papers, essays and books several times over that they have often wondered why men haven't had a similar movement. I believe that the next step in feminism is a re-branding and an inclusion of men, and other genders, on a larger scale. No offence, but feminists have got it wrong in the past by assuming that all women were equal in their plight, and didn't understand that working class black women did not have the same situation as middle class whites, which created even more feminist thought and study in the long term. It is in no way a bad thing to criticize or try to change a movement, so long as it's on reasonable grounds. Feminism is almost on the cusp of dealing with male 'social' inequality

But back to what you were saying,

I understand that the patriarchal society created these male problems as much as any other, which was why I ended on "Yes, the patriarchal society has created gender inequality but it has damaged the male gender as much as any other." I've been studying feminism for the better part of four years, I've written several essays on the subject and I am currently writing another. Does this mean I'm an expert and everything I write is automatically correct on this subject? No, but it does mean I'm not an idiot flailing at a subject he doesn't understand. I know that feminism isn't about pushing women higher than men, or creating inequality but that is the public image, that's the patriarchal image created for feminism, the "ill-defined form of feminism" that people believe is the real feminism. A bunch of lesbians, who hate men, sitting in a room and cackling over a cauldron. It's an offensive stereotype, and one which is causing a lot of women to reject feminism, because men do, so how should feminism fight this image? By doing what it normally does? By hoping new feminists like Emma Watson can change this image? Or by changing feminism itself to include men, and other genders, in the fight for gender equality?

I found myself agreeing with you at several points, but I dislike your implying that feminism need not exist within the asexual community. Yes, both women and men face objectification and yes there's some overlap in their experiences, and I'll even agree that women's empowerment is not the biggest long-term goal related to gender that needs focus, but to say that asexual women can't possibly face anything asexual men don't belies a considerable lack of understanding on your part.

Again, sorry, I knew I should have explained this part better. I meant that asexual men and women didn't need this idea of feminism when reacting to one another, but do in fact need it when dealing with the sexual world. Really your question has just solved my confusion, that I stated before, about why the felt the need to be feminist. Obviously, now, they were going to be applying their beliefs to main-steam society, not the asexual community. I felt that the term was exclusionary, and I suppose for a moment I forgot that AVEN does not reflect the whole world.

I think you're being a little closed-minded on your view of feminism. I'm a cisgendered female despite being a tomboy, and I am a feminist. That means I support female rights and the rights for women to be equal to men. Gender-wise, anyone who identifies as a woman, girl, chick, or otherwise feminine is seen as less than someone who identifies as a man, boy, dude, or otherwise masculine. I think women should be paid the same as men. I think women deserve to walk down the street only being worried about being mugged, not raped, stabbed, kidnapped, molested, stalked, and a bunch of other things women are more likely to experience than men. I believe women and men should both be considered players when they do well sexually, but neither should be seen as sluts when they do too well. This is about a sexual double standard spanning all sexualities.

Of course men get discriminated against as well. They're seen as less manly (ugh) if they wear a dress or skirt. If they're gay they're also seen as less manly (why do you think there are terms like "bear" and "twink" that divide gay men even more?). Men are expected to be tough, emotionless pursuers who aren't afraid of spiders or germs. I can continue but I don't want to go on a rant.

Basically, most of these things are seen as feminine, and are looked down on. That's why I believe feminism is the best term for how I believe. I believe things considered feminine (pink, babies, fluffy things, emotions, being social, etc) should be considered on equal status to things considered masculine (cars, toughness, etc). They aren't, and that's why I will rip my own teeth out before I give credit to masculinists.

[Yes, there are people calling themselves masculinists because they're retarded and deserve to die alone, resulting in their genes being lost to history. Clearly they have no idea what the bigger issue is about gender equality. And these assholes are male chauvinists, so don't be confused.]

But again, this is an issue of GENDER. And asexuality has nothing to do with gender. Some identify along the binary gender spectrum, some don't. This isn't an issue that matters to asexuality in itself. We're not separate from the issue, and have nothing superior or objective about us that makes us special in the issue of gender. We're not mostly gender neutral, we're mostly gendered humans who have a say in the issue of gender equality.

I did not realise there was such a thing as masculinists, I had heard the term before but I assumed it was a joke. If it's a movement to apply beefheadedness then yes, it shouldn't be considered a real movement. When I used the term I was hoping that it would be used in order to change male viewpoints of men, rather than increase male power over women. I understand what true feminism is trying to accomplish for women, and it's a great movement that has done a lot of good, but there is an increasing amount of men who are rejecting feminism as anything other than an attack on men. They don't seem to understand that their actions are harmful, because, lets face it, feminism isn't taught to men, and if it is it's usually by the wrong sort of feminism as shown in 1980s tv shows, a form of feminism we're still having trouble shrugging off. So why aren't men being taught how to treat other men equally? Why aren't they taught this along side how to treat women equally? There is room for improvement and feminism needs to somehow blend with male thinking at an earlier level. We also need to make sure that the correct form of feminism is being taught.

In term of gender, I'll be honest, this whole post came around when I started thinking about asexuals in the real world and how we don't quite fit. Men and women, ungendered, androgynous, etc, these are all things that we are but we have this odd conformity/non-conformity thing going on in our sexuality. We're trying to create social ties between ourselves with different terms for different things, while at the same time we're trying to explore our differences and celebrate them. It feels somewhat similar to how the EU works. An ever evolving progress towards an idea of asexuality that is inclusive as possible... but lets face it, the things that female asexuals want is the same thing that male asexuals want, to be considered a person and not a sex object, to be seen for their personality and achievements, not their curves.

I'm not saying it's easier for asexual women to fend off objectification and offensive sexual encounters, but unlike men, they do have a platform for discussing and correcting these issues, and it's called feminism. I don't in any way wish to break feminism or get rid of it, but I would like there to be something similar, a movement for men that would in the same way reduce the fetishisation of the male body, destroy unhealthy stereotypes and create balance where there is imbalance.

I would have liked this new 'ism' to have been inclusive as possible, but perhaps instead of replacing feminism it would need to run parallel and be the same but with a different focus.

[eched]

I'm a guy and I feel accepted by feminism. The feminist site I go to just the other day posted a big, long article saying why it's alright for men to stay virgins. It was for men, written by a guy. Just pointing that out there.

I realise do to feminist being such a broad word some extreme groups have clung onto it, but the other groups of feminists try to point out the corruption of these groups the best they can. For example, I still support sex workers and S&M and any feminist that says this stuff is by default bad or tries to make it into a villain like act are instantly in my uncool book.

[SuperHorace]

*Applause* Exactly my opinions.

[Gizamaluke]

*Applause* Exactly my opinions.

I'm assuming you're referring to what etched said? Just for my own clarification.

[LeeBree]

I agree with the OP. I consider myself an equalist, not a feminist. Women don't need empowerment because we're not weak in the first place. Our first world societies don't assume us weak by default either, this is 2014, female empowerment isn't needed in our kinds of societies, rather it's needed in places where females actually don't have rights. Females get paid less, I'll give that issue credit but otherwise, it is literally illegal to discriminate against women, and anyone who does is socially rejected. But if a man is discriminated against for his sex, it's just and fair. Because men are never discriminated for being men, obviously (sarcasm here). Also, male rape does not get the attention it deserves, it's no less important than female rape or harassment.

I'm tired of seeing men portrayed as idiotic sex animals in media, even if it was initially a form of empowerment, it's just downright insulting to any decent men nowadays. Not to mention how there always seems to be the ever popular "Lol, captain dumbass father is bad at handling children. Teehee, better get super mom to save the day because men are derpy fuck ups". No, fuck that, men can be great fathers and women aren't good mothers by default. #rant

Anyway… there's also people like Anita who get support despite how blatantly selective she is with her representation of video games. And then I see the occasional nonsense, like trying to ban the five year old insult "bossy" from being directed at girls. Yea, that's empowerment, let's have girls whine and cry over a simple word that isn't even sexist.

There's also so much inconsistency, if a female character dresses promiscuously and has rather large breasts, it's objectifying females for the sex crazed men to lust over! How dare you portray the female body like that! Yet… we're not supposed to shame sluts… yet, no slutty female character is ever allowed to exist ever? What. Oh, but if a man is portrayed with little clothing and absurdly large muscles, that's male empowerment. Uh, no, actually, it's objectifying male bodies. Double standard much?

Feminism did have its uses in first world societies… a couple decades ago, but now it's just tainted with far too many feminazis who want to oppress men. Of course feminists who are actual equalists still exist, but at this point I don't see why we need to keep the fem term. There really isn't the male and female species, we're all human and I don't care what people try to say, the genders shouldn't be treated differently. Which also reminds me of how men are expected, in a er, "classic" relationship, to basically do all the relationship work. He pays the bills, opens doors for her, takes her out, he does the proposing… no. Just no. Anyone who wants, or doesn't want to do those things, male or female, should be able to without being considered socially abnormal. And I swear I die inside every time someone says to be more ladylike. Gender should be far less relevant than it currently is.

And here's a disclaimer, I don't claim all feminists are this way, but that's how I most often see feminism presented. Full of double standards, inconsistencies, and male shaming. This is why I think equalist is a better term for people who are actually equalists. To feminists who are actually for equality though, good for you!

Lastly, I don't think this is really an asexual problem, as gender is a separate matter. There are a lot of asexuals with gender neutrality though but… they are free to identify how they want to, expecting them to align with this or that belief system because of their gender is a problem in of itself.

[Mycroft is Yourcroft]

There really isn't the male and female species, we're all human and I don't care what people try to say, the genders shouldn't be treated differently.

I totally agree with you here

it is literally illegal to discriminate against women, and anyone who does is socially rejected.

Making something illegal does not make the problem go away. Approximately 97% of rapists will never be punished (legally and socially), yet sex crimes in general are illegal.

EDIT: Adding source

[eched]

Can we PLEASE leave Anita alone. She's been threatened with death WAY to many times for it be to okay to pick on her. Give the girl some space.

[LeeBree]

Can we PLEASE leave Anita alone. She's been threatened with death WAY to many times for it be to okay to pick on her. Give the girl some space.

… That doesn't make her immune to criticism, nor is criticism the same as me threatening her life or picking on her. Disagreeing with her doesn't remotely equate to the absurd notions that she should be censored or threatened with death. Not to mention that "picking on her" was one small sentence devoid of any details or personal attacks.

[Guest]

I don't like Anita, but I wouldn't go as far as death threats. I just think she's not a good image for feminism.

Anyway I'm moving this to Philosophy Politics and Science

[Mark Leafton]

Making something illegal does not make the problem go away. Approximately 97% of rapists will never be punished (legally and socially), yet sex crimes in general are illegal.

Could I get some citation? Interested in what kind of study and by what parameters these numbers were found.

[Mycroft is Yourcroft]

Could I get some citation? Interested in what kind of study and by what parameters these numbers were found.

Done :)

[Mark Leafton]

Could I get some citation? Interested in what kind of study and by what parameters these numbers were found.

Done :)

Awesome ^_^

[Shoryu]

This subject matter is always confusing me to 'pick' a side. It seems as if it's just two extreme sides in a competition to see who has it worse over the other rather than acknowledging both have their own unique problems. You have women on one end talking about rape culture (which is a perfectly valid observation) but it's always met with men on the other side saying males are just as likely to be raped and that the number could be higher since it goes unreported and/or justice is rarely served properly. Okay, I get it, both genders are victims here. However, it appears to be setting up these gender barriers and ignoring really the core issue; rape itself and humanity in general. I am reminded of a quote from Jacque Fresco: "there are no People of Color problems, no Ethnic problems, no Women problems, no Poverty problems, there are only Human problems."

I'd totally be down for a movement like that. Core of the problem isn't our gender barriers, it's purely humans being humans. You can fetch me all the statistics in the world about rape or equal pay, and even if you found such data that favored showing how women have it worse, there's more than likely an equal opposite to that statistic proving men having it equally worse and vice versa. What's in common is that it's a human issue, not gender!

I see where the OP is coming from, in that an equality movement shouldn't try to be exclusive to genders. Just people fighting for what's just in the world where everyone is suffering with their own unique problems.

[Mark Leafton]

I'd totally be down for a movement like that. Core of the problem isn't our gender barriers, it's purely humans being humans. You can fetch me all the statistics in the world about rape or equal pay, and even if you found such data that favored showing how women have it worse, there's more than likely an equal opposite to that statistic proving men having it equally worse and vice versa. What's in common is that it's a human issue, not gender!

I see where the OP is coming from, in that an equality movement shouldn't try to be exclusive to genders. Just people fighting for what's just in the world where everyone is suffering with their own unique problems.

There's already a name for that kind of movement: Egalitarianism and/or Equalism.

As I see it, the feminist movement is currently facing three problems. Problem number one: It's experiencing massive push back from several fronts; fundamentalist conservatives as always are against social progress (can't really get around this one), but also from other equality movements, such as men's right and even feminism itself. The second problem is the fact that when you just say the word feminism, some people instantly think of "man-hating, anti-cis/hetero extremist", which is of course not what the word is actually representative of. This misinterpretation does however result in a very aggressive opposition in those who actually believe that to be the case. The third and last problem is also the most serious one: Those "man-hating, anti-cis/hetero extremists" are actually real. While yes, they are a very small minority within the feminist movement, they sadly are a very vocal one. So vocal in fact that they, even though they're a small fringe denomination (can I use that word?) of feminism, have managed to create problem number two as well as hijacked some of the movements face, by which I mean they have managed to push themselves into the lamplight the movement receives from the media and the rest of society, and by staying under the guise of feminism, they gain automatic validity to their arguments from many people, because everyone who claims to be feminists want equality right?

So where am I going with this? Well, rather than actually having to deal with these problems from the inside of the movement, it is much easier to face them from outside. Why? Because when you're tackling these problems without using the label "feminist", but instead "equalist" or "egalitarian" you circumvent the second problem and part of the first problem (those pesky fundamentalist conservatives will still oppose social progress). People won't feel the need to aggressively oppose you as they do against feminists, since the negative connotations they believe to be tied to the feminist movement are nearly non-existent in the equalist or egalitarian movements. And on top of that, since many of these people actually want an equal society, they will side with you once they understand what you're actually working towards.

By doing this you're actually somewhat dodging the third problem as well. The reason why these fringe groups are able to exist within feminism is because the movement has somewhat lost it's focus. It's trying to deal with all these injustices it perceives all at once, which gives these fringe people the opportunity to sneak their own goals onto the agenda without to many people noticing. The equalist and egalitarian movements has, because they're much younger than feminism, much more focus. In my opinion this is especially true for the egalitarian movement. The egalitarians are divided into sub groups; gender egalitarians (working for equality in between the genders), sexual egalitarians (working towards equality between sexual orientations), etc. This gives the sub groups one singular goal to work towards, instead of having this massive list of goals to reach, which makes it much harder for fringe ideas to wedge their way onto the agenda such as they did with feminism. There are of course still problems within these movements as well, but no movement is totally pure.

[Shoryu]

Totally get what you mean, Mark, especially in respect to how the most vocal are usually the poor representations of such movements. I'd imagine Egalitarianism would fall victim to the negative connotations of "crazy communists" (and I'm aware of the fact communism was never truly practiced since communism made it clear there was no state government and thus instead had Stalinism being the poor representative for communism).

It's an unfortunate effect when movements spring about, no matter the subject of interest, the public is usually swayed to the misrepresentation of such cause.

[Zapstileon]

I don't think feminism is relevant to what we want to do. The definition of Feminism is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"

This was necessary during the Suffragette movement when women had no rights and it is necessary in countries where women's rights are still being ignored. Feminism is great and necessary, but not in first world countries, which is where gender equality and neutrality can be proposed. What we need is to equalize the gap between genders. Not only male and female but also the non-binaries, the trans, androgynous, agenders and so on. Equality between sexuality, gender, religion/philosophy of life and all these things. That's what we need now. In countries where women's rights aren't established, we can't make the leap to gender equality, it would be too great of a leap, too much at one time, but in first world countries where men and women are largely considered equal, we need to equalize the gap. I genuinely don't think Feminism is the movement for the job, mainly because of the association, but also because of the points that Mark Leafton pointed out above. Note also, that Feminism deals with equality between sex not gender. Another reason why it is not the movement for the job.

We need to focus on making it okay for males to express themselves without being called sissies, fags and whatever other insults are thrown at them for dressing femininely. Why is it okay for a female to wear trousers or suits, but not okay for males to wear skirts or dresses? Because there's inequality.

Besides that, I think it's okay to have gender as a way to identify yourself and compare yourself with others, but it should not be thrust upon you at birth. Same as no one looks at a baby and says "It's a gay boy!" they shouldn't be able to look at a baby and say "It's a boy!" How do they know if this child will be a boy? Or if it will be any gender at all. Maybe this child will identify as agender, or bigender? They can't say that at birth same as they can't say that the child will be homosexual, heterosexual or asexual. What they should say is "Congratulation. Your child is a female." That way, they open up to the possibility that it is androgynous, but in a female body. Furthermore, we should be encouraging gender-neutral pronouns from childhood. Why not introduce gender-neutrality in preschool? The Swedes are doing it in some places and it doesn't do those children any harm. Here, have a link as proof.

I posted a YouTube video about this on a topic of the Gender discussion thread yesterday, but I'll link that to you as well. This guy talks about some of the things you've mentioned in this topic, and he get's my opinion pretty well. In fact, I think I am quoting him above when I say the thing about not being able to see the child's sexuality at birth.

I don't think we should be aggressive about the patriarchy thing either, for the record. The fact is that patriarchy or no, men are actually struggling a lot in this society. Not because men are being oppressed perhaps, but definitely because men have expectations that many don't even want to meet. "Be a man!" anyone? So many rules on how to be a real man, on how you shouldn't cry, shouldn't be a 'wuss' or a 'sissy', be strong and alpha, be butch, etc. There is a great gap between males and females even now. I like to think of it a bit like this: male expectations <____________> normal human expectations <____________>female expectations. Because females are allowed to be as good as men, if they can put in the effort. (Still won't get paid as much, but the recognition stands.) Norwegian Boxer Cecilia Brækhus proves as much every time she's in the ring. In equestrian, where there is no difference between sexes, males and females are often as good as each other.

It's the expectations that are the problem. The fact that people tell me that I shouldn't swear because I'm a girl. Well, I'm not a girl, so I'll swear all I want. Or people telling a male that he shouldn't wear a dress because he's a boy. Well, what if he's not? And besides that, what if we are what they tell us? What if I were a girl? Why shouldn't I swear because of that? And why shouldn't he wear a dress in spite of being a boy? That's the kind of thing I want to change. I want to equalise that. I want people to be people, regardless of gender, to be allowed to say what they want and dress how they want, and marry who they want. Gender should not be a deciding factor. Gender should not be a restriction. It should be nothing more than a way of identifying oneself.

My hair colour is biological. I can change that with some hairdye. My eyes are biological too, but some contact lenses can hide their colour. If I can do that, then surely, my sex should not matter? And my gender even less. No job interview asks your hair colour, or your eye colour. If you wear contacts, no one will be any the wiser. Why do they then ask gender and sex? What does it matter if you present as male or female? What does it matter that you were born one or the other sex? If you can hide it, it should not matter. If you are qualified for the job/ task, it should not matter. It simply should not matter. We are each of us good enough, regardless of sex, of gender, of hair colour. So why do we have to prove that we are?

[Gizamaluke]

Totally get what you mean, Mark, especially in respect to how the most vocal are usually the poor representations of such movements. I'd imagine Egalitarianism would fall victim to the negative connotations of "crazy communists" (and I'm aware of the fact communism was never truly practiced since communism made it clear there was no state government and thus instead had Stalinism being the poor representative for communism).

It's an unfortunate effect when movements spring about, no matter the subject of interest, the public is usually swayed to the misrepresentation of such cause.

This is true of all movements, I'm afraid, there has to be a violent or aggressive start in order for anyone to take the movement seriously, e.g. suffragettes, French Civil War, Socialism etc. Then there's a calm period were real progress is made which eventually turns stale and the original idea is lost, reformed or real change is made. This possible Egalitarianist movement would have success, but would eventually stagnate like all political and social movements, but while it's running there would be progress.

[Mark Leafton]

Totally get what you mean, Mark, especially in respect to how the most vocal are usually the poor representations of such movements. I'd imagine Egalitarianism would fall victim to the negative connotations of "crazy communists" (and I'm aware of the fact communism was never truly practiced since communism made it clear there was no state government and thus instead had Stalinism being the poor representative for communism).

It's an unfortunate effect when movements spring about, no matter the subject of interest, the public is usually swayed to the misrepresentation of such cause.

Indeed.

One good aspect with egalitarianism to work around that problem is the sub groups I talked about. You can be part of the gender egalitarian group and still be in total opposition to the economic egalitarian group.

Which means each group is both part of a bigger movement as well as an independent movement. Thus the movements can steer away from negative tendencies as separate movements may come in conflict with each other, the end result being self-policing as well as policing from outside.

[SithLord]

I don't like Anita, but I wouldn't go as far as death threats. I just think she's not a good image for feminism.

Anyway I'm moving this to Philosophy Politics and Science

Can you explain to me how's she bad for feminism? I don't get how.

[Zapstileon]

Totally get what you mean, Mark, especially in respect to how the most vocal are usually the poor representations of such movements. I'd imagine Egalitarianism would fall victim to the negative connotations of "crazy communists" (and I'm aware of the fact communism was never truly practiced since communism made it clear there was no state government and thus instead had Stalinism being the poor representative for communism).

It's an unfortunate effect when movements spring about, no matter the subject of interest, the public is usually swayed to the misrepresentation of such cause.

Indeed.

One good aspect with egalitarianism to work around that problem is the sub groups I talked about. You can be part of the gender egalitarian group and still be in total opposition to the economic egalitarian group.

Which means each group is both part of a bigger movement as well as an independent movement. Thus the movements can steer away from negative tendencies as separate movements may come in conflict with each other, the end result being self-policing as well as policing from outside.

I agree, but I am a little worried about the "us vs them" effect. It may easily destroy the movement from the inside, especially if the groups don't communicate with each other constantly. Of course, it helps to have a common objective, just as long as no one gets too extreme on their specific movement and lose sight of the objective.

[theMOONmonarch]

I guess I am the quintessential stereotypical man-hating feminazi extremist, but my life experiences have made me what I am. I have never actually known a biologically male person (gays included) that did not behave like the stereotypical brainless sex-crazed brute and consistently mock and belittle females. Usually they take an immense amount of pride in this image. I'm not saying that decent men can't possibly exist; I'm just saying I've never actually met one. Even if one acts nice, it tends to be just that: an act, which wears off quickly.

[Coolwhoami]

By the basis of that anecdote, it would be reasonable for sexism to exist, purely on the basis that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to systematically treat a group of people in a differential and negative fashion. It is why feminism does and must resist such a notion: to acknowledge it is to endorse the precise conditions that lead to our current situation.

[Diforto]

As I see it, the feminist movement is currently facing three problems. Problem number one: It's experiencing massive push back from several fronts; fundamentalist conservatives as always are against social progress (can't really get around this one), but also from other equality movements, such as men's right and even feminism itself. The second problem is the fact that when you just say the word feminism, some people instantly think of "man-hating, anti-cis/hetero extremist", which is of course not what the word is actually representative of. This misinterpretation does however result in a very aggressive opposition in those who actually believe that to be the case. The third and last problem is also the most serious one: Those "man-hating, anti-cis/hetero extremists" are actually real. While yes, they are a very small minority within the feminist movement, they sadly are a very vocal one. So vocal in fact that they, even though they're a small fringe denomination (can I use that word?) of feminism, have managed to create problem number two as well as hijacked some of the movements face, by which I mean they have managed to push themselves into the lamplight the movement receives from the media and the rest of society, and by staying under the guise of feminism, they gain automatic validity to their arguments from many people, because everyone who claims to be feminists want equality right?

So where am I going with this? Well, rather than actually having to deal with these problems from the inside of the movement, it is much easier to face them from outside. Why? Because when you're tackling these problems without using the label "feminist", but instead "equalist" or "egalitarian" you circumvent the second problem and part of the first problem (those pesky fundamentalist conservatives will still oppose social progress). People won't feel the need to aggressively oppose you as they do against feminists, since the negative connotations they believe to be tied to the feminist movement are nearly non-existent in the equalist or egalitarian movements. And on top of that, since many of these people actually want an equal society, they will side with you once they understand what you're actually working towards.

By doing this you're actually somewhat dodging the third problem as well. The reason why these fringe groups are able to exist within feminism is because the movement has somewhat lost it's focus. It's trying to deal with all these injustices it perceives all at once, which gives these fringe people the opportunity to sneak their own goals onto the agenda without to many people noticing. The equalist and egalitarian movements has, because they're much younger than feminism, much more focus. In my opinion this is especially true for the egalitarian movement. The egalitarians are divided into sub groups; gender egalitarians (working for equality in between the genders), sexual egalitarians (working towards equality between sexual orientations), etc. This gives the sub groups one singular goal to work towards, instead of having this massive list of goals to reach, which makes it much harder for fringe ideas to wedge their way onto the agenda such as they did with feminism. There are of course still problems within these movements as well, but no movement is totally pure.

About the first problem with feminism:

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash

--- Men right's activist are not an equality movement

--- Divergence of opinion are awesome in equalist movement but prove that the feminist movement isn't workable?

About the second problem with feminism:

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash. In the 2012 Québec studient strike, there was demonization of strikers in most media...

About the third problem

---It is not a big problem, the bad part of it are byproduct of idendity politics. It is mostly diffamation by the elite (the second problem) that is the problem.

If I understand you, you would think that if homosexual were to find a new name for themself, homophobia would cease to exist?

Totally get what you mean, Mark, especially in respect to how the most vocal are usually the poor representations of such movements. I'd imagine Egalitarianism would fall victim to the negative connotations of "crazy communists" (and I'm aware of the fact communism was never truly practiced since communism made it clear there was no state government and thus instead had Stalinism being the poor representative for communism).

It's an unfortunate effect when movements spring about, no matter the subject of interest, the public is usually swayed to the misrepresentation of such cause.

Indeed.

One good aspect with egalitarianism to work around that problem is the sub groups I talked about. You can be part of the gender egalitarian group and still be in total opposition to the economic egalitarian group.

Which means each group is both part of a bigger movement as well as an independent movement. Thus the movements can steer away from negative tendencies as separate movements may come in conflict with each other, the end result being self-policing as well as policing from outside.

Technically speaking, that means that there is separate movement having the same name...

I agree with the OP. I consider myself an equalist, not a feminist. Women don't need empowerment because we're not weak in the first place. [1] Our first world societies don't assume us weak by default either, this is 2014, female empowerment isn't needed in our kinds of societies, rather it's needed in places where females actually don't have rights. Females get paid less, I'll give that issue credit but otherwise, it is literally illegal to discriminate against women, and anyone who does is socially rejected. But if a man is discriminated against for his sex [2] , it's just and fair. Because men are never discriminated for being men, obviously (sarcasm here). Also, male rape does not get the attention it deserves, it's no less important than female rape or harassment. [3]

I'm tired of seeing men portrayed as idiotic sex animals in media, even if it was initially a form of empowerment, it's just downright insulting to any decent men nowadays. Not to mention how there always seems to be the ever popular "Lol, captain dumbass father is bad at handling children. Teehee, better get super mom to save the day because men are derpy fuck ups". No, fuck that, men can be great fathers and women aren't good mothers by default. #rant [4]

Anyway… there's also people like Anita who get support despite how blatantly selective she is with her representation of video games. And then I see the occasional nonsense, like trying to ban the five year old insult "bossy" from being directed at girls. Yea, that's empowerment, let's have girls whine and cry over a simple word that isn't even sexist.

There's also so much inconsistency, if a female character dresses promiscuously and has rather large breasts, it's objectifying females for the sex crazed men to lust over! How dare you portray the female body like that! Yet… we're not supposed to shame sluts… yet, no slutty female character is ever allowed to exist ever? What. Oh, but if a man is portrayed with little clothing and absurdly large muscles, that's male empowerment. Uh, no, actually, it's objectifying male bodies. Double standard much?

Feminism did have its uses in first world societies… a couple decades ago, but now it's just tainted with far too many feminazis who want to oppress men. [5] Of course feminists who are actual equalists still exist, but at this point I don't see why we need to keep the fem term. There really isn't the male and female species, we're all human and I don't care what people try to say, the genders shouldn't be treated differently. Which also reminds me of how men are expected, in a er, "classic" relationship, to basically do all the relationship work. He pays the bills, opens doors for her, takes her out, he does the proposing [6]… no. Just no. Anyone who wants, or doesn't want to do those things, male or female, should be able to without being considered socially abnormal. And I swear I die inside every time someone says to be more ladylike. Gender should be far less relevant than it currently is.

And here's a disclaimer, I don't claim all feminists are this way, but that's how I most often see feminism presented. Full of double standards, inconsistencies, and male shaming. This is why I think equalist is a better term for people who are actually equalists. To feminists who are actually for equality though, good for you!

Lastly, I don't think this is really an asexual problem, as gender is a separate matter. There are a lot of asexuals with gender neutrality though but… they are free to identify how they want to, expecting them to align with this or that belief system because of their gender is a problem in of itself. [7]

1 I would say that feminism is about destroying bloody patriarchy

2 gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, GENDER

3 There is something about women being seen as passive and men as active (patriarcat) behind it

4 The gendered expecation are more about brainwashing women in a opressed position and brainwashing men in a kapo position

5 Such critics were always there

6 And he have everything under his control

7 There is a too big correlation between non-binariness and asexuality to be not interconnected.

I guess I am the quintessential stereotypical man-hating feminazi extremist, but my life experiences have made me what I am. I have never actually known a biologically male person (gays included) that did not behave like the stereotypical brainless sex-crazed brute and consistently mock and belittle females. Usually they take an immense amount of pride in this image. I'm not saying that decent men can't possibly exist; I'm just saying I've never actually met one. Even if one acts nice, it tends to be just that: an act, which wears off quickly.

Do you know trans* folk?

[Mark Leafton]

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash

Don't know if that statement is entirely correct, but for the sake of argument I will assume it is.

If a movement is getting reactionary backlash, that does not mean that the movement is successful.

If we go by this standard, groups like the westboro baptis church or the KKK would be hugely successful groups, which they are obviously not and never will be (let's all hope I didn't just jinx it by stating that)

--- Men right's activist are not an equality movement

Feminism have just as many outlandish and horrible suggestions as the mens right movement has.

This does not, in fact, discredit either movement though, but the members that forwarded these suggestions.

This in turn creates a problem within the movement that actively hinders it's progress, which the movement then has to work around. (I discussed this in the comment you replied to)

--- Divergence of opinion are awesome in equalist movement but prove that the feminist movement isn't workable?

No, not in the equalist movement. It would face the same problem as feminism does now. The egalitarian movement, which was what I was talking about, is a different matter though.

This is because it isn't one movement, it is several movements that all use the same word. This makes it abundantly clear to anyone within or without of the movement that a person who say they are an egalitarian may speak on behalf a particular section of the movement, but for another. These sections will also inevitably have conflicting viewpoints, and the movement will therefore actively argue against itself, which minimizes the growth of fringe ideas. While it isn't perfect. It is a lot better than the current model of feminism, where it is seen as a single movement, when in actuality it is a very splintered movement.

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash. In the 2012 Québec studient strike, there was demonization of strikers in most media...

I refer back to my first answer for the first part of your statement here.

The media problem is a problem that is extremely hard to work around because it is almost always the older generation that controls the media, and the older generation is in general a force that works against social progress (at least certain aspects of it). Personally I'd like to think my own generation will stay on the progressive side when we become the "older generation", but what is true for the older generation now, will most probably be just as true for my generation in the future.

---It is not a big problem, the bad part of it are byproduct of idendity politics. It is mostly diffamation by the elite (the second problem) that is the problem.

I'd say it is a huge problem, as they actively work against discussion and would much rather that everyone just conforms to their ideals, and seeing as progress is always gained through discussion, they're (unintentionally?) working against progress. They are also directly causing problem number two through social media exposure and the sheer ludicrousness of their argumentation, so solving this problem will automatically solve both problem number three and two.

If I understand you, you would think that if homosexual were to find a new name for themself, homophobia would cease to exist?

Homosexuality isn't a movement, so no. The only way homophobia will cease to exist is to battle the image homophobes are projecting onto homosexuals, proving it to be wrong.

Show that homosexuals are just as human as the homophobes are, and make the homophobes connect with homosexual on an empathic level. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes is the best way to create perspective.

Hope I didn't misunderstand any of your arguments.

[LeeBree]

I agree with the OP. I consider myself an equalist, not a feminist. Women don't need empowerment because we're not weak in the first place. [1] Our first world societies don't assume us weak by default either, this is 2014, female empowerment isn't needed in our kinds of societies, rather it's needed in places where females actually don't have rights. Females get paid less, I'll give that issue credit but otherwise, it is literally illegal to discriminate against women, and anyone who does is socially rejected. But if a man is discriminated against for his sex [2] , it's just and fair. Because men are never discriminated for being men, obviously (sarcasm here). Also, male rape does not get the attention it deserves, it's no less important than female rape or harassment. [3]

I'm tired of seeing men portrayed as idiotic sex animals in media, even if it was initially a form of empowerment, it's just downright insulting to any decent men nowadays. Not to mention how there always seems to be the ever popular "Lol, captain dumbass father is bad at handling children. Teehee, better get super mom to save the day because men are derpy fuck ups". No, fuck that, men can be great fathers and women aren't good mothers by default. #rant [4]

Anyway… there's also people like Anita who get support despite how blatantly selective she is with her representation of video games. And then I see the occasional nonsense, like trying to ban the five year old insult "bossy" from being directed at girls. Yea, that's empowerment, let's have girls whine and cry over a simple word that isn't even sexist.

There's also so much inconsistency, if a female character dresses promiscuously and has rather large breasts, it's objectifying females for the sex crazed men to lust over! How dare you portray the female body like that! Yet… we're not supposed to shame sluts… yet, no slutty female character is ever allowed to exist ever? What. Oh, but if a man is portrayed with little clothing and absurdly large muscles, that's male empowerment. Uh, no, actually, it's objectifying male bodies. Double standard much?

Feminism did have its uses in first world societies… a couple decades ago, but now it's just tainted with far too many feminazis who want to oppress men. [5] Of course feminists who are actual equalists still exist, but at this point I don't see why we need to keep the fem term. There really isn't the male and female species, we're all human and I don't care what people try to say, the genders shouldn't be treated differently. Which also reminds me of how men are expected, in a er, "classic" relationship, to basically do all the relationship work. He pays the bills, opens doors for her, takes her out, he does the proposing [6]… no. Just no. Anyone who wants, or doesn't want to do those things, male or female, should be able to without being considered socially abnormal. And I swear I die inside every time someone says to be more ladylike. Gender should be far less relevant than it currently is.

And here's a disclaimer, I don't claim all feminists are this way, but that's how I most often see feminism presented. Full of double standards, inconsistencies, and male shaming. This is why I think equalist is a better term for people who are actually equalists. To feminists who are actually for equality though, good for you!

Lastly, I don't think this is really an asexual problem, as gender is a separate matter. There are a lot of asexuals with gender neutrality though but… they are free to identify how they want to, expecting them to align with this or that belief system because of their gender is a problem in of itself. [7]

1 I would say that feminism is about destroying bloody patriarchy

2 gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, GENDER

3 There is something about women being seen as passive and men as active (patriarcat) behind it

4 The gendered expecation are more about brainwashing women in a opressed position and brainwashing men in a kapo position

5 Such critics were always there

6 And he have everything under his control

7 There is a too big correlation between non-binariness and asexuality to be not interconnected.

1. What patriarchy? All I see is a society where women have equal rights (save for the unequal pay issue). Go to a third world country where female oppression is still relevant and you might have a case for calling society patriarchal.

2. Why are you repeating the word "gender"? Are you saying I should have said "gender" instead of "sex"? Well, I meant "sex", and repeating "gender" doesn't at all explain what your counterargument is supposed to be.

3. Well, that stereotype is ridiculous and is unproductively supported when feminists overly concentrate on female rape, ignoring the issue of male rape.

4. Kapo position… er, so men are brainwashed to attack other men for female favour? Or is kapo brainwashing men in order to have women slave away in competition against other women to benefit men? Is this even close to what you mean? I'm kind of lost on the relevance of a concentration camp .-. Either way though, stereotypes work for and against both men and women. They do not exclusively benefit men and exclusively restrict women.

5. I didn't mean crazy man-hating women didn't exist before modern feminism, rather that's mostly what modern feminism is now. Feminism used to be mostly comprised of advocates for women's rights, in spite of a /few/ "enslave all men" crazies. But now these crazies are the norm, with only a few feminists who are actually for women's rights. But nowadays, women already have rights, so even the sane feminists aren't doing much good. Only those for equality, not for only empowering women or whatever, are being beneficial.

6. And great for the guys who want all the control. But some don't. Some are too timid to propose, some can't afford to take her out to nice places. Forcing the expectation of control onto someone just because they happened to be born with a penis is oppressive. Oppressive means to force hardship and constraint onto someone, and this is what every stereotype can do, including the one that men should have more power. It's unfair to expect leadership from someone based on biology. To expect responsibility and toughness from men, when many aren't comfortable in such a position, is not empowering men, it's forcing them to fit a stereotype they'd be happier not conforming to. Sure, some guys like control, but not all do. This controlling expectation for men does not benefit all men. Furthermore, it doesn't detriment all women, as some like to be doormats for their man, so long as he's happy. Point being, no stereotype empowers everyone of any group. It affects individuals in different ways. It benefits some men, detriments others, and the same applies to females. Having everything under your control does not by default benefit someone. Some are terrible and uncomfortable with handling power. Every single individual is different.

7. Non-binary gender and a lack of sexual attraction are still two separate things, and sexuals can have non-binary genders as well. Yes, a lot of asexuals have unconventional genders, but we still can't classify an asexual orientation as equivalent to an agender mindset. Nor can we say agenders or non-binary genders should be feminists or egalitarians just because of their gender identity.

[Diforto]

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash

Don't know if that statement is entirely correct, but for the sake of argument I will assume it is.

If a movement is getting reactionary backlash, that does not mean that the movement is successful.

If we go by this standard, groups like the westboro baptis church or the KKK would be hugely successful groups, which they are obviously not and never will be (let's all hope I didn't just jinx it by stating that)

--- Men right's activist are not an equality movement

Feminism have just as many outlandish and horrible suggestions as the mens right movement has.

This does not, in fact, discredit either movement though, but the members that forwarded these suggestions.

This in turn creates a problem within the movement that actively hinders it's progress, which the movement then has to work around. (I discussed this in the comment you replied to)

--- Divergence of opinion are awesome in equalist movement but prove that the feminist movement isn't workable?

No, not in the equalist movement. It would face the same problem as feminism does now. The egalitarian movement, which was what I was talking about, is a different matter though.

This is because it isn't one movement, it is several movements that all use the same word. This makes it abundantly clear to anyone within or without of the movement that a person who say they are an egalitarian may speak on behalf a particular section of the movement, but for another. These sections will also inevitably have conflicting viewpoints, and the movement will therefore actively argue against itself, which minimizes the growth of fringe ideas. While it isn't perfect. It is a lot better than the current model of feminism, where it is seen as a single movement, when in actuality it is a very splintered movement.

---Every successful progressit movement have such reactionnary backslash. In the 2012 Québec studient strike, there was demonization of strikers in most media...

I refer back to my first answer for the first part of your statement here.

The media problem is a problem that is extremely hard to work around because it is almost always the older generation that controls the media, and the older generation is in general a force that works against social progress (at least certain aspects of it). Personally I'd like to think my own generation will stay on the progressive side when we become the "older generation", but what is true for the older generation now, will most probably be just as true for my generation in the future.

---It is not a big problem, the bad part of it are byproduct of idendity politics. It is mostly diffamation by the elite (the second problem) that is the problem.

I'd say it is a huge problem, as they actively work against discussion and would much rather that everyone just conforms to their ideals, and seeing as progress is always gained through discussion, they're (unintentionally?) working against progress. They are also directly causing problem number two through social media exposure and the sheer ludicrousness of their argumentation, so solving this problem will automatically solve both problem number three and two.

If I understand you, you would think that if homosexual were to find a new name for themself, homophobia would cease to exist?

Homosexuality isn't a movement, so no. The only way homophobia will cease to exist is to battle the image homophobes are projecting onto homosexuals, proving it to be wrong.

Show that homosexuals are just as human as the homophobes are, and make the homophobes connect with homosexual on an empathic level. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes is the best way to create perspective.

Hope I didn't misunderstand any of your arguments.

1 KKK didn't had a reactionnary backlash, they where a reactionnary backlash themselves. They reacted to abolitionisme, a successful progressist movement. There is a definition of reactionnary.

2 I can find MRA citation demonizing each small step that feminist did, I can find a lot of MRA rape apologist (PUA), I can find MRA who are jerk to queer people, to ace, to trans, to racialized people, ect but can find MRA trying to fight prostate cancer for fighting prostate cancer does not demonize women.

3 OK

4 Media is a problem because it is controled by the elite.

5 Media is still controled by the elite, they would still find way to demonize feminism without it for they are against social progress. And I try to fight identity politics when I find it. Starting to zero will make you lose all their theoritical work.

6 Why can't we do that with feminism?