'There is no need for feminism in first world countries because females are no longer oppressed...'

[TinyRick]

And apparently we have 'more rights than men now'.

One example of many - www.debate.org/opinions/women-are-not-oppressed-in-first-world-countries

I was going to post this on the Feminism boards but I have heard this from females too so thought I would post here to see views from those who do think this and agree with it.

I'm on a social media site and this comes up quite often. Yes, quite presumably from young males but I have also read about the 'Red Pill' and the 'MGTOW' movements which are mostly populated by the older males.

Aibu to think that Feminism in the first world is still needed and as relevant as ever? And amongst our 'luxuries' we are still the oppressed class?

If anybody is reading this, STFU is wildly misrepresenting the men's mental health thread. She is doing the same actually on the thread now. Please check for yourself.

I'm finding the men's MH thread interesting, Bertrand, and I recommend anyone with experience or an interest join in the discussion. Anyone reading either thread can evaluate STFU's contributions for themselves.

Absolutely Prawn. I haven't misrepresented anything.

STFU has the most ironic username, as it is exactly what they should tell themself (and listen to).

As for the thread that has been mentioned, I don't see how it is in any way, shape or form women's problem that men have created a society wherein men are more likely to commit suicide.
If men want that changed, they can do something about it.
It is not women's or feminism's job to fix the problems men have created and are maintaining for themselves and each other.

Who are you talking to Vestal?

If men want something changed and mention it they are told they are MRAs.

No one has said feminists should change anything, in fact, remember 1 in 5 people consider this an insult let alone expect them to be the saviours.

STFU
If men want something changed and mention it they are told they are MRAs.

Thats an outright lie. Mens Rape Crisis is aided by Rape Crisis. Its run by and for men. There are other examples of men getting on with it.

You're entirely correct, Vestal. We live in a society that is still largely male dominated, so any suggestion that the male suicide rate is the fault or responsibility of women a nonsense.

This current thread has eloquently demonstrated that first world countries still need feminism. The other thread is exploring the effects on men of toxic masculinity which is, essentially, another bite at the same cherry.

Patriarchy is the ball, gender is the chain. The chain sometimes trips men up, but the ankle it is fastened to is always female.

Patriarchy is the ball, gender is the chain. The chain sometimes trips men up, but the ankle it is fastened to is always female.

Beautiful metaphor.

And I suppose, staying in this metaphor, MRAs would like for the ball to be directly fastened to women's ankles, so that there's no chain that can trip them up.

Thanks, Vestal. It's not original, I saw it somewhere else. And you're exactly right about MRAs. They wouldn't leave any chain around to pose a tripping hazard. To further expand the metaphor, I expect they'd force women to agree that we deserve, even desire, the security of a heavy weight to anchor us in an uncertain world.

the vast majority of anything of substance has been produced by men

What utter and complete bollocks. Men, for millennia have restricted women's opportunities and made it borderline impossible for them to contribute in a way that is considered of any worth by men When they do produce anything that men consider worthwhile, they do their damndest to ignore their contributions or claim them for themselves.

For a more modern example, go and see Hidden Figures which is probably still showing at a cinema near you.

Or read a bit of history

Absolutely, Slug. This level of ignorance should perhaps be tackled in schools, so kids appreciate the importance of sexual equality.

No woman can be fired for getting pregnant and in most circumstances, a ramp and rearrangement of offices would allow someone in a wheelchair (if they were the best applicant) to get the job and flourish. That's what I mean by equality of opportunity.

I realise this STFU comment is from way back at the beginning, but it triggered a question for me. If the person in the wheelchair was not the best applicant, but was best equal with a non-wheelchair user, how many companies would choose the wheelchair user?

If it required changes to the workplace that would cost money, I suspect most would choose the non-wheelchair user.

Do you really believe there is equality of opportunity?

There was a discussion earlier about equalising working hours to remove some of the career obstacles. It's certainly the case here in Norway. Both men and women are expected to take parental leave. By six months, most women will be physically able to return to work.

It is normal for men and women to expect job flexibility. Very few people work over their contracted hours.

When families split, the norm here is 50/50 childcare.

There's no reason this could not work in the U.K., other than that those at the top are mostly men and child-free women who (I suspect) don't see it as important because it doesn't impact on them.

I do think though, that the suggestion that feminism needs rebranding might be worth looking at. There is a fundamental difficulty with equating equality or egalitarianism with a gendered name. It gives those who are misogynistic a stick to beat feminists with.

I suspect there is also a similar problem as there is with trans rights. A few very aggressive individuals and a click-bait hungry media mean that views become skewed and quickly entrenched.

However, this is a fight that is, on the whole, more in the interests of women than men. It is still largely going to be a Women's Movement.

Perhaps 'Women for Equality, would work better than 'Feminist'?

There is a fundamental difficulty with equating equality or egalitarianism with a gendered name.

The problem is that because of biology and history women tend to be disadvantaged in very specific ways that don't apply to men. Also there aren't currently any societies where men aren't allowed to drive and men haven't historically been the property of women on marriage.

When one group is particularly disadvantaged you might as well be honest about it.

It should be quite possible to also advocate for men and boys without battling women.

Hmmm. I was told I wasn't being considered for a promotion when I was about 22 because "I was a woman, and would probably want to leave work and have babies soon anyway."

At the same job there was a young man the same age as me working and being paid the same as me. The general consensus amongst the older (female) staff was that it was "no wage for a man".

I did my dissertation on children's views on gender and how they shaped the expectations of 10 year olds - and they do. hugely. Children are aware that in theory they can do anything - but in practice they know very well what box they belong in and how stepping outside that box is often viewed.

Yes, the issues around gender inequailty are less earthshattering in most "developed countries" than in "developing countries" but they do still exist.

Perhaps 'Women for Equality, would work better than 'Feminist'?

It would certainly be a more honest name for those women who want to centre and prioritize males in their fight for equality.

I know quite some "feminists" who believe that feminism should prioritize the fight against gender roles that mildly inconvenience men before the liberation of women.

Those women would be better called "women for equality" as that is a perfect description of what they do. (But why just women for equality? Because fighting for equality is a thankless and unpaid task, and so should be done by women? )

Meanwhile, feminism should focus on liberating women.

The problem is that because of biology and history women tend to be disadvantaged in very specific ways that don't apply to men.

Yes. I was more or less thinking aloud. I wasn't in any way arguing there was no need for women to fight for equal rights.

I believe there might be a 'brand' problem with 'feminism'. Partly that is personal. When I was younger, I didn't want to admit to being a feminist as I perceived that as being something very angry. Now I'm older, I can see that perhaps I was naive (I read other women's life pathways-feeling empowered when young, but now seeing things differently).

Actually, in contrast with what STFU is arguing, I thought that feminism had actually become rather more mainstream again with Emma Watson and other young women advocating for it. I don't necessarily think that rebranding is such a bad idea though.

I believe the word for the system we live under is capitalism not patriarchy. Of course able-bodied men are generally better off than women, children, the aged and infirm, because because they don't require any investment and don't entail much expense. Companies and governments want to shirk off the expense of reproducing society (bringing up children) and looking after those who cannot work. Women are caught in between because they can work but have that nasty habit of getting pregnant (a lifestyle choice according to some).

I thought that feminism had actually become rather more mainstream again with Emma Watson and other young women advocating for it. I don't necessarily think that rebranding is such a bad idea though.

What has happened is that "feminism" is now mainstream, but means "women doing hard for to advocate for everyone's human rights, but without inconveniencing males".

This sort of "feminism" needs to be re-named because feminism no longer accurately describes it.

I believe the word for the system we live under is capitalism not patriarchy

And how do you think capitalism ever managed to develop? Do you think it was invented to benefit women?

Of course able-bodied men are generally better off than women, children, the aged and infirm

Not necessarily.

There are fewer jobs for unskilled workers and they are less likely to rely on physical strength.

New jobs might be in call centres, shops and health care, which rightly or wrongly are often seen as 'pink collar jobs' for women.

Incidentally, I had forgotten I wanted to comment on the original question.

I think that the argument has been reframed, using the word 'oppressed' in a way that is deliberately designed to create bias.

Many women in the U.K. (and here in Norway) do not feel 'oppressed' so they would answer that women are not oppressed.

The argument then includes a straw man /non sequitur. 'Therefore feminism is no longer required.

Feminism is not fighting for non-oppression. It is fighting for equality.

Words are important. Ours are being twisted.

Interesting that capitalism gets a mention. When I outlined the Norwegian working patterns and family rights, I almost mentioned the fact that I thought unions had done more good than feminists. But then I stopped, because I was unsure where the influence came from.

When I outlined the Norwegian working patterns and family rights, I almost mentioned the fact that I thought unions had done more good than feminists. But then I stopped, because I was unsure where the influence came from.

Probably from feminists organizing in unions.

Feminism has always struggled with the problem that most women lack class consciousness, and are loyal first and foremost to males.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that males by themselves would have come up with advocating for more parental leave and the like. But if there's enough feminists in the unions, I can see how that could work.

And how do you think capitalism ever managed to develop? Do you think it was invented to benefit women?

VestalVirgin that is a particularly obtuse comment from someone whose opinion I generally respect. Capitalism wasn't invented, obviously, it evolved as financial power because concentrated in fewer hands and people were rendered landless and therefore more available for waged labour. As for being for the benefit of women, it is for the benefit of the capitalists, nowadays the banks.

Anyway this is just an attempt on my part to understand the problem.