[–] Tnetennba 42 points Edited

Saying feminism is for everyone is the feminist equivalent of All Lives Matter.

Saying we should center trans women is like saying Blue Lives Matter.

[–] reignx67 33 points Edited

“why don’t you feminists talk about this group of men who suffers, and this group of men who also suffers, and-”

“if you don’t start centering men you will never destroy the patriarchy”

"why don’t you feminists talk about this group of men who suffers, and this group of men who also suffers, and-”

I always reply to this with, "Why can't all those MRAs crawl out of their parents' basements and do something to improve the lives of needy men?".

I swear, if internet MRAs redirected the energy they expell on hating feminists/women into advocating and aiding needy men; no man in America would ever go homeless or hungry again!

I was just talking to a woman in my life who is very concerned for how men are put in a box nowadays and is concerned for them. Which is fine. But as she was going into this big speech about what's happening to boys and men (at our women's group at that) it made me realize that no man would ever bring up women's issues in such a passionate way on their own, especially if it was in a men's support group. I don't understand why women are fighting for men. We have enough to combat, and men wouldn't do it for us. We see this time and time again. If men want to speak out respectfully about what they go through, I will listen and be an ally, only if they do the same for me. But the only time men speak out for themselves is when women have spoken out for themselves and the men want to compare and compete with our pain. I've also never seen one challenge the other men who put them through their problems. So it's empty to me, and I honestly don't care about their issues because of all of that.

"Feminism is for everyone" has a lot in common with the ever-changing pride flag. By including absolutely all comers, it waters down its original purpose, and eventually betrays it.

This is basically the problem I have with intersectionality. It was never cool to say "but what about something else entirely?", but intersectionality gave people a handy excuse for saying "but what about this AND that"?

Before you know it, it's a rare, strong person who can talk about feminism per se without being compelled to devote air time to issues that affect men too. Before you know it, a term for an unattractive middle-aged white woman who has an opinion in public is widely used, and the same people who once purported to care about women are fine with it.

The other day I even saw a thread in which several people used "white woman" as a quintessential example of a person who has never experienced any hardship in her life. No effort was made to explain why these people went for "white woman" rather than "white man" to exemplify the epitome of privilege. Because intersectionality gives cover to misogyny.

I don't even see that intersectionality has made significant contributions to knowledge, other than "more axes of oppression are harder". Factors are converging all the time in real life. It's impossible for society to catalogue every permutation of axes of oppression, and attempting to do that would obscure which axes of oppression society cares about and which it doesn't. Indeed, this is already happening.

Here's what I've come to conclude: most people lack empathy and gloat in their ignorance. I truly believe it's a majority of people at this point, rather than a loud and dangerous minority.

Authenticity is dead. It's all about image, and right now, it's not trendy to be a meanie.

Never thought about it that way! Intersectional "analysis" as it's being pushed now is a Trojan horse-penis for whataboutism-derailing.

I remember, many moons ago before all this nonsense started, I met this gay guy who started his own gay rights organization aligned with Stonewall. He was telling me about his vision for the future, and it included trans, queer, intersex, asexual and… disabled people??? At the time I was so perplexed, but with how off the rails everything has gotten these days, I wonder if he was some sort of prophet of things to come.

It's bizarre to me that the pride flag somehow also includes BIPOC. Those are largely separate issues.

They need as many allies as possible to make themselves look bigger and more legitimate than they actually are. If this was really a grassroots movement by a fraction of a percentage of the population, does anyone really think they’d have gotten this far?

See I've always wondered why they include disabled people. What is their obsession with disabled, and why do they feel compelled to include it? I also wonder if there's any correlation with how a good majority of these TRA's and wokies will have a wordsalad bingo card of their many disabilities listed in their bios.

Disability can provide an axis of oppression for incels to claim. "Their refusal to have sex with me is bigoted." Plus I've seen a lot of people using disabled men as an entry point to convince people "sex work" is a good thing... like charitable giving or something.

Even seen a few try talking about "employment opportunities" for disabled women, though that doesn't go so well with the mainstream. Thankfully.

I'm so tired of it. Even if we lived in a world where TIMs are actually oppressed (they're not, but let's pretend) we still shouldn't have to include them because why should feminism include everyone? You don't see, for example, East Asian people trying to take over Black Lives Matter. No, they let them have their own fucking movement and created "Stop Asian Hate". But meanwhile feminism has to include every type of human being imaginable? I'm so tired of it. Let the movement focus on adult human females.

I seem to remember a previous iteration of the BLM mission statement (a few years ago—the current one seems to hvae a much more clearly delineated scope) that covered basically everything but the kitchen sink. I think that kind of left the door open to East Asian people hitching their wagon to BLM and arguably even all lives matter gaining traction (if you're going to include everybody, why not include everybody?). I mean, I don't want to go in circles and blame racism on black people, but messaging really matters. Movements need to be allowed to be about things.

[–] Lilith-Fair 13 points Edited

All these woke mantras are so misleading. I used to think "Feminism is for Everyone" meant that everybody can be a supporter of feminism. I didn't realize they actually meant feminism is for women to do the grunt work of being for everybody else before themselves. I now believe it's a sinister plan to confuse people with words to support an agenda people never agreed with in the first place, much like "trans rights". I honestly think that a lot of women who aren't aware are duped into repeating this stupid mantra because they think they're widening public support for feminism.

Right?? I used to assume it meant that, or at least something along the lines of “feminism improves the world for everybody”.

Now people take it as feminism is obligated to go out of its way to cater to everyone. Don’t give men an inch or they’ll take 10,000 miles.

In a similar vein, I sometimes find myself wondering how many of the more casual "transwomen are women" crowd think they're talking about vagina-havers with short hair (TiFs). Because of course they belong in women's prisons, right? What sort of horrible homophobic bigot would suggest they should go in the men's?

... Yeah, I'm probably being too optimistic. But it does honestly get confusing when the TiMs start talking about their "periods".


People expect women/feminists to act as activism nannies for every cause under the sun (even the causes that directly contradict our interests). This nonsense is a big part of why I fell down the radfem rabbit hole.

No one on the left would tolerate, say, the United Negro College Fund being bullied into giving money to needy White kids. Or BLM being asked to give money to the families of murdered cops. But feminist movements like the Womens March often go down in flames because they're asked to include irrelevant shit like trans issues, male victims, BLM, the Israel/Palestine conflict, video games, etc. Mainstream feminist organizations are a joke because they spread themselves too thin and accomplish nothing.

I have a few counters... US-centric well because:

Women's Liberation Front (without them my life and material existence as an American woman: human female would be much darker); ❤️u WoLF

Save Women's Sports

Both have accomplished a lot - there are more I haven't listed but I think you get my drift.

UK organizations as well have helped ours in partnership and/or support:

Fair Play for Women

Standing for Women

Sure, most 'organizations' aren't getting a lot done but the aforementioned and a few more are literally spending sleepless nights fighting for us and the girls behind us.

Oh, WoLF and Fair Play are WONDERFUL! However, they sadly lack the influence and power of the mainstream feminist organizations that have sold us out to TRAs (ie NOW & Planned Parenthood).

The irony is that the trans rights movement is now starting to be affected by over-inclusiveness. There are TIMs who are annoyed that non-binary is a subset of trans, and are embarrassed by the whole "my pronouns are she/them/squeakself" thing.

Good. Let them eat their own.

Yeah, they've painted themselves into a corner. You can't bang on about how you're smashing "cisnormativity" or whatever and then distance yourself from non-binary people.

Feminism, the only social movement where centering the people it was made to advocate for is offensive.

And good luck getting any other leftist social cause to be anywhere near as inclusive in return, even if women in that community are uniquely affected.

I wish NOW felt that way.

I wish all “women-focused” organizations felt that way.

I wish all “women-focused” organizations felt that way.

And that they could express their female centric mission without getting dead rats nailed to their doors. 😥

[–] no- 5 points

The same is happening to the LGB community, the TQ+ is turning it into a literal dumpster for anything and anyone except same sex attracted people.

Actual text chat from an IRL friend of mine, who is a bit gender critical but is a man and thinks feminism should be inclusive:

Him: You swear to destroy inequality in the society by being a feminist. Hence IT IS contradictory to exclude other minorities from that fight against inequality.

Me: I never did I swore to destroy the patriarchy Idgaf about "equality" i care about equity. (sent picture)

Him: By destroying patriarchy you are intrinsically and conclusively calling for either of these 2: Matriarchy OR equality. If you are calling for Matriarchy then by definition you are patriarchy inverted. Nothing changes but gender flips. And if it's equality then by definition you must be entitled to preserve and support fellow freedom fighters who would love nothing but to have proper rights and a safe space to live in that society.

Me: I dont think a man should tell me the goal of feminism

Him: And I don't think you should contradict the definition of feminism itself.

Me: Radical feminism is not for others to define If you want equality go to liberal feminism BS

Him: Okay then. I hope you can find the logical error in your thinking because definitely you are not equitably justifying your stance but even more dedicated to committing ethical mistakes and have no problem with that despite my long-winged elaboration and request for further clarification of your stance, either way. Good talk and have a wonderful day.

Load more (3 comments)