Theres a lot of strains of feminism, but i reject all of it due to their fundamental belief of patriarchy and men as oppressors. That's something I can never stand.
I want to talk a bit about intersectional feminism because the discourse around this is heavily distorted when it could've been beneficial. The idea of intersection accounts for different experiences based on cultural upbringing and distinct issues faced by each culture, as well as different cultures clashing with each other. I think of someone that grew up in a 3rd world country, comes to the West for a better life, yet find struggles there like language barriers, cultural gaps, facing economic disadvantages that affects quality of education. Even someone born in the west but to an immigrant family faces some level of conflicted upbringing growing up due to facing different cultural influences and needing to survive (if theyre not as economically well off). I think intersectionality in this sense captures real struggled perfectly.
The problem with intersectional feminism and how its applied is that its turned into oppression Olympics based on your identity. It judges different types of oppression one might face just because of your identity. They dont actually ask about your experience, only assume it. If you're a brown gay man, then you must face more oppression than a white hetero woman because of theyre more privileged on the basis of their skin color, not account that said brown gay man might actually not be that oppressed at all.
The problem with any of these analyses is that they are simplistic. People do not have a property called power with some having more than others. In some situations a person can have more power than others. A man who is a director in a company might be treated as the little brother in his family meetings. Power is a function of a situation, and is not always the main thing going on. Feminist women got the Prohibition act into power, before they had the vote.
Women love to say that men have power, but in the dating apps for example men are far less able to get what they want than women are. It's not even close. And since the most important aspect of a person's life is generally the family he or she forms, that is more important than any supposed pay gap, of the fact that most CEOs are male.
Asians migrants would perhaps be seen as having the disadvantage of being a minority, but that are entering high status professions at higher rates than the incumbent, supposedly privileged whites. The same applied to women. And to Nigerians. Gay men earn more than hetero men. The whole concept is useless, the idea that you can make useful generalisations about people based on identity characteristics.
And yet every branch of feminism relied totally on that.
Theres a lot of strains of feminism, but i reject all of it due to their fundamental belief of patriarchy and men as oppressors. That's something I can never stand.
I want to talk a bit about intersectional feminism because the discourse around this is heavily distorted when it could've been beneficial. The idea of intersection accounts for different experiences based on cultural upbringing and distinct issues faced by each culture, as well as different cultures clashing with each other. I think of someone that grew up in a 3rd world country, comes to the West for a better life, yet find struggles there like language barriers, cultural gaps, facing economic disadvantages that affects quality of education. Even someone born in the west but to an immigrant family faces some level of conflicted upbringing growing up due to facing different cultural influences and needing to survive (if theyre not as economically well off). I think intersectionality in this sense captures real struggled perfectly.
The problem with intersectional feminism and how its applied is that its turned into oppression Olympics based on your identity. It judges different types of oppression one might face just because of your identity. They dont actually ask about your experience, only assume it. If you're a brown gay man, then you must face more oppression than a white hetero woman because of theyre more privileged on the basis of their skin color, not account that said brown gay man might actually not be that oppressed at all.
The problem with any of these analyses is that they are simplistic. People do not have a property called power with some having more than others. In some situations a person can have more power than others. A man who is a director in a company might be treated as the little brother in his family meetings. Power is a function of a situation, and is not always the main thing going on. Feminist women got the Prohibition act into power, before they had the vote.
Women love to say that men have power, but in the dating apps for example men are far less able to get what they want than women are. It's not even close. And since the most important aspect of a person's life is generally the family he or she forms, that is more important than any supposed pay gap, of the fact that most CEOs are male.
Asians migrants would perhaps be seen as having the disadvantage of being a minority, but that are entering high status professions at higher rates than the incumbent, supposedly privileged whites. The same applied to women. And to Nigerians. Gay men earn more than hetero men. The whole concept is useless, the idea that you can make useful generalisations about people based on identity characteristics.
And yet every branch of feminism relied totally on that.