Just to clarify: when yesterday I posted that message criticizing some radical positions on Fediverse, I expected a debate and I'm proud I got it; but not those saying that feminism has ruined society. Not this. I won't support that kind of position at all. My position, to be clear, I'm proudly a feminist. But feminism is a label which is highly abused.
One claiming to be feminist and who hates men, is not a feminist; she applies the same abuses which oppressed women for centuries, and it's not the right way to go.
Someone making you feel guilty because you keep a child despite a rape or whatever, is not better than a so-called "pro life" who fights against legal and safe abortion.
Feminism can't be recognized in a single movement, it's so easy to define yourself "feminist" then condemn a self-determined woman who chooses a lifestyle opposite than yours.
Btw I'm scared, I hear lots of girls attracted by those romance books where men humiliate women and overall vice-versa. No idea if that Felicia Kinsley is internationally known, I think so. But how she talks about men is shameful. If it was the opposite, someone would have called it sexism. It's against men, it's sexism anyways.
@elettrona Feminism is all about gender discrimination. Of course they don't openly advertise it as such, but the message is hidden in the rhetoric. For example they say "world would be better if it was led by women", which implies some kind of gender superiority. If you claim to be for gender equality, as I am myself, then you cannot be a feminist too. That is like saying I support freedom and I'm a Fascist
@pepintheshort That you talk about, is radical feminism; a world guided by women only, would have failures like the one guided by men only. Maybe different, but failures and inequities anyways.
I have used the word "feminism" because it's the one I have. Unfortunately there is not another proper word; "feminism" term was born when women had no rights at all, and the issue is that it has never changed.
The ones wanting no men around, a world guided by women, etc, I name them feminazi. That's appropriate. Maybe they are against nazi, but behave the same way
@elettrona I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't attach a slightly mis-fitting label to myself just for lack of a better one. Although I see the need for one, especially on short online communication with strangers such on here
@pepintheshort and talking of labels again, for me it's even hard to say "progressive" and "conservative" about people's way of thinking, at least in the form these terms are meant. Because there are many who label themselves "progressive" who then reason like conservatives during debate: "how did you do before this technology existed?" Rejecting the philosophy of searching better solution, especially when disability is involved.
They reason like the ones "gays shouldn't ask for marriage rights, because so and so [random nonsense]"
@pepintheshort Labels should not be needed. Feminist, right-wing, left-wing, we should start considering ideas rather than names. Because labels could change their meaning, we see it with the word "woke", and with "feminism" itself. Opponents trying to group an infinite variety of movements, in a single movement. No, not exactly, a single enemy. From the opposite? Patriarcy. This one is to categorize oppressors, but the word itself, involves men only. Even if there are women as well, behaving the same way.
However, unfortunately, a label is also what indicates that a person (or a group) exists. Or a phenomenon exists. Say "social justice warrior", say "keyboard warrior", you define a precise phenomenon. Say blind, or low vision, you are defining two groups, to keep track of individual specific needs -a blind has not same needs of a low vision-, or similar.
