5 ms·

Why millennial women don’t want to call themselves feminists

14 points by walterclifford 11y ago

angersock 11y ago
The entire appeal to women for Clinton by some of her folks is kinda tone-deaf, in my humble observation. It's basically saying "Hey, this person is a woman, you're a woman, therefore you should vote for her." This is the exact same sort of oversimplification pandering and objectification that a lot of women have fought very hard to separate themselves from. Additionally, the increasingly hardline message of "Fuck men because men" from certain radical feminists, both internet nutjobs and old-guard aging intellectuals, is not something that appeals to Millenials. Sanders doesn't rely on messages of hate, and doesn't rely on playing one population off against another. There's only one person who can do that effectively in the current race, and it's Trump. EDIT: (updated a little wording above on the first paragaph) The article, in my opinion rightly, points out a good point: there really isn't the same sort of systematic bias in the workplace and economy and culturally that there used to be (in the United States). Objectives achieved, one would expect the second-wave feminists to settle into the long haul to mop-up the last holdouts and to make sure that the next generation was vigilant to prevent backslides and to appreciate what they'd gotten. Instead, it seems that third-wave and later feminism failed to consolidate those gains and has instead begun descending into self-parody and besmirching the good name of feminism. This timing happened to coincide with the rise of social media, and as we all know, that makes the problem of isolating a movement's more radical elements even harder and serves to discourage moderate participation.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  Feminism as a social movement doesn't have "equal rights for women" as the goal of individual members. The goal is closer to something like "gain social status and prestige by fighting for the rights of women". In other words, achieving a particular state of the world isn't the central point: rather, it's a particular process of improving things for women. Consolidating things and entrenching a particular position doesn't visibly improve things for women, so there's no signalling benefit for doing it, so of course later prominent feminists don't do that. (Alternative explanation - consolidating the gains of feminism doesn't make any particular feminist prominent, so those who focus on that get marginalized from the movement).
- rdancer 11y ago
  The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state. Being a woman is her only redeeming quality, and she's not doing a very good job of that either.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    "The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state." BOOM! She's doing her job as a politician by trying to get votes from women with fake empathy. All of them will do that. So, for me, I'm pretty much organizing them in order of tyranny from most to least then voting for the least. Clinton and Trump are high up on the tyranny list. Sanders by default maybe. Far as feminism, all I see online in forums I'm on is the anti-male, SJW style. I'd love to see a moderate one that fights real abuse while allowing men to be men w/out tons of self-censorship. Know any articles by feminists pushing that?
mschuster91 11y ago
> The term “feminism” has been hijacked by a minority of vocal extremists who have redefined it as “gender feminism,” claiming that gender is a patriarchal social construct created in order to oppress women. Well, radfems have to justify their existence, after all.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I assume that you are aware that "radfem" is a distinct concept from "feminists with whom I disagree."
  - rdancer 11y ago
    "Disagreement" assumes a rational discourse. People who are not willing to subject themselves even to the most basic rules of logic and civility can only be opposed, and should be ridiculed.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      I was attempting to be generous.
justinclift 11y ago
The whole article seems to take the approach that these young women are wrong, and don't know what they're doing. Seems kind of an arrogant viewpoint? :(
- rdancer 11y ago
  Stop mansplaining!
  - justinclift 11y ago
    That's sarcastic yeah? ;)
    - rdancer 11y ago
      How could it possibly be a serious comment, what's wrong with you, people?
      - justinclift 11y ago
        Well, if I'm not sure I ask. And I wasn't sure. :p
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I agree and gave a specific example wrt Hillary in my above comment.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I like to think they barely give a crap about ideology. Especially the vocal minority of SJW's that seems to aggressively dominate discussion on "feminism" while not representing any consensus by majority of either feminists or women. They just want to have a chance of a good life with same opportunities as anyone else while minimizing any significant, rather than made-up, abuses. So, they focus on issues most likely to harm or help them instead of gender politics as usual. Thing that jumped out at me was that the writer implied women were stupid for thinking voting for Hillary was voting for "the Establishment." Hillary allegedly started in Watergate, tried to strip Constitutional protections in various ways, supported the torture program, supports dragnet spying, and recently (with Trump) mocked the concept of free speech. Most of her actions, like other tyrants, remove power from the voter and consolidate it in the federal government. So, yes, she's very Establishment and in pretty bad ways. Good to see a lot of women are noticing that. Maybe they'll vote better women into office or end up being one themselves.
michaelbuddy 11y ago
That's because a lot of women actually like men, The majority do. And the majority of men and women in western countries respect each other. And they don't see the premise invented by modern feminists. A premise that sadly PBS is also trying to push as well on their various cool hip properties. The conspiracy of the patriarchy just doesn't hold up. And people are discovering thankfully so that the most toxic people are modern feminists. Look at various movements that have been hijacked by feminism. Occupy wallstreet, the skeptic movement, video gaming and feminism itself have been ruined by feminism. If you want a better layout of the problem of feminism, see the recent videos by Thunderf00t. The sad thing is how modern feminists claim that in western cultures men hate women, but these same feminists completely ignore and therefore give a pass to muslim countries, where they actually should be campaigning for rights.

The entire appeal to women for Clinton by some of her folks is kinda tone-deaf, in my humble observation. It's basically saying "Hey, this person is a woman, you're a woman, therefore you should vote for her." This is the exact same sort of oversimplification pandering and objectification that a lot of women have fought very hard to separate themselves from. Additionally, the increasingly hardline message of "Fuck men because men" from certain radical feminists, both internet nutjobs and old-guard aging intellectuals, is not something that appeals to Millenials. Sanders doesn't rely on messages of hate, and doesn't rely on playing one population off against another. There's only one person who can do that effectively in the current race, and it's Trump. EDIT: (updated a little wording above on the first paragaph) The article, in my opinion rightly, points out a good point: there really isn't the same sort of systematic bias in the workplace and economy and culturally that there used to be (in the United States). Objectives achieved, one would expect the second-wave feminists to settle into the long haul to mop-up the last holdouts and to make sure that the next generation was vigilant to prevent backslides and to appreciate what they'd gotten. Instead, it seems that third-wave and later feminism failed to consolidate those gains and has instead begun descending into self-parody and besmirching the good name of feminism. This timing happened to coincide with the rise of social media, and as we all know, that makes the problem of isolating a movement's more radical elements even harder and serves to discourage moderate participation.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
Feminism as a social movement doesn't have "equal rights for women" as the goal of individual members. The goal is closer to something like "gain social status and prestige by fighting for the rights of women". In other words, achieving a particular state of the world isn't the central point: rather, it's a particular process of improving things for women. Consolidating things and entrenching a particular position doesn't visibly improve things for women, so there's no signalling benefit for doing it, so of course later prominent feminists don't do that. (Alternative explanation - consolidating the gains of feminism doesn't make any particular feminist prominent, so those who focus on that get marginalized from the movement).
rdancer 11y ago
The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state. Being a woman is her only redeeming quality, and she's not doing a very good job of that either.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state." BOOM! She's doing her job as a politician by trying to get votes from women with fake empathy. All of them will do that. So, for me, I'm pretty much organizing them in order of tyranny from most to least then voting for the least. Clinton and Trump are high up on the tyranny list. Sanders by default maybe. Far as feminism, all I see online in forums I'm on is the anti-male, SJW style. I'd love to see a moderate one that fights real abuse while allowing men to be men w/out tons of self-censorship. Know any articles by feminists pushing that?

mschuster91 11y ago

> The term “feminism” has been hijacked by a minority of vocal extremists who have redefined it as “gender feminism,” claiming that gender is a patriarchal social construct created in order to oppress women. Well, radfems have to justify their existence, after all.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
I assume that you are aware that "radfem" is a distinct concept from "feminists with whom I disagree."
- rdancer 11y ago
  "Disagreement" assumes a rational discourse. People who are not willing to subject themselves even to the most basic rules of logic and civility can only be opposed, and should be ridiculed.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    I was attempting to be generous.

justinclift 11y ago

The whole article seems to take the approach that these young women are wrong, and don't know what they're doing. Seems kind of an arrogant viewpoint? :(

rdancer 11y ago
Stop mansplaining!
- justinclift 11y ago
  That's sarcastic yeah? ;)
  - rdancer 11y ago
    How could it possibly be a serious comment, what's wrong with you, people?
    - justinclift 11y ago
      Well, if I'm not sure I ask. And I wasn't sure. :p
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I agree and gave a specific example wrt Hillary in my above comment.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I like to think they barely give a crap about ideology. Especially the vocal minority of SJW's that seems to aggressively dominate discussion on "feminism" while not representing any consensus by majority of either feminists or women. They just want to have a chance of a good life with same opportunities as anyone else while minimizing any significant, rather than made-up, abuses. So, they focus on issues most likely to harm or help them instead of gender politics as usual. Thing that jumped out at me was that the writer implied women were stupid for thinking voting for Hillary was voting for "the Establishment." Hillary allegedly started in Watergate, tried to strip Constitutional protections in various ways, supported the torture program, supports dragnet spying, and recently (with Trump) mocked the concept of free speech. Most of her actions, like other tyrants, remove power from the voter and consolidate it in the federal government. So, yes, she's very Establishment and in pretty bad ways. Good to see a lot of women are noticing that. Maybe they'll vote better women into office or end up being one themselves.

michaelbuddy 11y ago

That's because a lot of women actually like men, The majority do. And the majority of men and women in western countries respect each other. And they don't see the premise invented by modern feminists. A premise that sadly PBS is also trying to push as well on their various cool hip properties. The conspiracy of the patriarchy just doesn't hold up. And people are discovering thankfully so that the most toxic people are modern feminists. Look at various movements that have been hijacked by feminism. Occupy wallstreet, the skeptic movement, video gaming and feminism itself have been ruined by feminism. If you want a better layout of the problem of feminism, see the recent videos by Thunderf00t. The sad thing is how modern feminists claim that in western cultures men hate women, but these same feminists completely ignore and therefore give a pass to muslim countries, where they actually should be campaigning for rights.