DC Koh, opening your mind to supporting and dissenting viewpoints, discussing alternative ideas rationally and accepting a personal lack of perfection take energy, knowledge, maturity and caring fewer and fewer people are willing to work for. It is easier to spout slogans and rhetoric, and humans can be very lazy.
If more feminists were like her feminism would die. Feminism only makes money by making headlines. The only way to do that is lie about data and lobby the media
Also, I find the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Hell" title hilarious, as a big astronomy nerd. Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, its typical surface temperature is around 850 degrees Farenheit, it has a constant sulfur cloud cover, and its desert-like landscape is constantly broken up by volcanic activity. It sounds an awful lot like Hell.
I completely disagree with the use of Feminism as a label, but that's partially because I'm 17, so my only interaction with the group is the pseudo-feminist garbage that passes for social activism in this day and age. I go by Egalitarian, because that's an existing label, but y-know what? I need to remove my biases against Feminists and acknowledge that people like you exist. You're outright awesome for your criticisms of radical feminism, and your nuanced stances on gender problems is refreshing in a venomous internet war. I wont pretend to not be an angry person who gets upset by this all, and may even contribute at times. I think you're an amazing example of how to do it right.
+TheGreatYukon You mentioned "radical feminism" and that's, I feel, exactly why she's not (and isn't) dropping the label. If feminists like her stop, then feminism will be radical by definition without even having the adjective attached to it. Feminists like her need to exist to differentiate who the radicals and who the logical ones are. There are many strands of feminism (some more vocal than others) but feminists like her stop the radicals from saying "if you agree with my extreme biased opinions, then you believe in gender equality". No actually, I can believe in that and still disagree with you.
Thing Thang That assumes that the label "feminism" is already necessary or beneficial. Why not drop it entirely because it's pointless anyways? It's a bad label, it's FEMInism. I don't think it accurate reflects what we should be going for anymore. I see no reason to keep it non-radical, but that's from the Egalitarian's perspective.
TheGreatYukon Because, like she said, female oppression and discrimination isn't completely outdated especially in other countries. Female empowerment is still important but the radicals are doing anything but being empowering women (everyone's a victim, everyone's an enemy, everything has a hidden meaning behind it).
Thing Thang Female oppression does not exist in America, I feel comfortable saying that outright. Discrimination? Yes, but it exists for both genders and I see no compelling reason to think it's substantially against women, at least enough to warrant a title like "Feminism". As for feminism in other countries, that's not really relevant to what you call yourself HERE. They could use empowerment but now that's irrelevant. Women should not be "empowered" any more than anyone else, and especially shouldn't feel like they're special because they're women, which is what I hear quite often whenever someone wants to empower others (you may have a less idiotic view of the concept). I'm curious, what do you view empowerment as anyways? Every time I hear it I find it offputting, likely due to my biases against radicals.
TheGreatYukon Oh no, I completely agree with exactly what you said. Both about discrimination existing for both genders and women not being oppressed not only in America but in a lot of the western world. I still believe that certain pockets of the western world, though, (and this is not based on any study, just my personal view, so take it with a grain of salt) haven't completely caught up but they will eventually. As for Christina Hoff Summers not dropping the label. I feel she can still call her self a feminist since she holds the same values she did in the 70s/80s when feminism served a purpose. Just because she doesn't have to fight as a feminist now, doesn't mean that those values have changed. More importantly, I can see why people are confused with her still calling herself a feminist but personally I think it's important she keeps the label since it shows the radical feminists of today what their movement once was and what it stood for and continues to stand for. True, fair, equality.
so 1) "freedom feminism" you grew up with which actually had good cause and not wanting to give that up 2) 3rd world countries need feminism 3)More targeted ways needed for helping homeless women/children. That is honestly the most rational thing i have ever heard from a feminist.
I'm actually glad that you label yourself a feminist. Because when some stupid feminist is bitching about "patriarchy", "male privilege" and "rape culture", I can always use you as an example of what a feminist SHOULD be. Someone who is GENUINELY concerned with equality and is concerned with facts and logic rather than ideological bullshit and rhetoric. Also, when I inevitably get called a "misogynist" for disagreeing with one of these brainwashed ideologues, I can always say, "but Christina Hoff Sommers is not only a woman, but also a feminist, and I agree with almost everything she says." It used to kind of annoy me that you labelled yourself a feminist. But thanks to rational feminists like you and Camille Paglia, I can piss the not so rational feminists off much more easily. And that has to be a good thing ;-)
PacificRimNZ Aah, the fast talking and equally brilliant Camille Paglia. I've not watched, or read anything by her for some time now. She makes me smile just thinking about her, actually. I remember her saying ... "pwne, pwne, pwne, and I blasted Gloria Steinem and all their feminist arguments outta the water" .. Haha, or something along those lines. I'll salute Christina and Camille, with you. If we're handing out salutes to "feminists" I've also got one for Wendy McElroy. Have you come across her, too?
NOISEDEPT One of my favourite quotes by Camille Paglia was when she said that she was sick of feminists blaming "patriarchy and all that crap". That was awesome :-) Yes, you're not the first to mention Wendy McElroy. I recently read her "The Big Lie of a 'rape culture'" article, which I enjoyed.
PacificRimNZ I haven't read her article but I watched her presentation against the notion of "rape culture" which is on her TH-cam page. Greetings from England, by the way. I'd like to visit NZ, one day. It's a long walk and bit of a swim, though. I watched a good NZ film, recently, called "What We Do in the Shadows". Haha, funny film.
NOISEDEPT I've literally just finished watching her presentation :-) It was really amazing. I look forward to seeing more from her. I was born in England. My parents are Kiwis but they were living in the UK when I was born. Dad worked there. Do you like "Flight of the Conchords"? It has the main vampire from "What We Do in the Shadows" in it. It's hilarious!
Haha. That was a strange coincidence, eh? All this talk of Wendy Mac makes me think I should go over to her iFeminists site. I haven't been there for, well, too long, really, bless her. When I began reading about all this nonsense, she really was one of the lights in the darkness. I was burdened by my own Leftist/socialist political outlook back then (difficult not to when you've grown up where I have) but I've always seen Feminisms paradoxes and falsehoods. Nowadays I subscribe to much of Libertarian philosophy. I don't have a TV, mate. I threw it away about twelve years ago, so I haven't seen Conchords. But In the Shadows was def a funny one. I do like the Kiwi humour, and the Aus, too. I think we Brits find your silliness resonates with ours. So, as it turns out, your an English brother, anyway .... B-)
She might actually be onto something. Imagine the shit stir it would create if say anti-feminists today just started to call themselves feminists. It might actually make the work of the gender ideologues really hard.
Totally agree, abandoning feminism as a whole isn't as bold a statement as many edgy anti feminists believe. It's like when tons of black actors decided to boycott the oscars in protest of racial diversity. If you see the movement going in the wrong direction, the right thing to do is take the reins and do everything you can to make it into the movement you believe in
@bea haxby The basic and continuing problem is that the very feminists that are regarded as leaders of feminism regard Christina and others like her as outsiders, people who are not welcome in the movement. For not blindly following the dictates of the leadership, she's relegated to sideshow status. Basically excommunicated and a feminist in name only, because they can't stop her from calling herself one. Taking the reins of the movement requires what the leadership of feminism would regard as essentially a mutiny. Far too many moderates in the movement try telling the rest of us to ignore the "feminazis," "they're not real feminists," they protest. The rest of us who aren't feminists look at that like we're seeing an insane person trying to pet a rattlesnake coiled to strike. Honestly, feminism needs to clean house and tell the man-hating members that this isn't welcome anymore. They need to start talking like real human beings again, instead of shouting jargon like "patriarchy," "rape culture," "male privilege," "mansplaining," "sexual agency," "cis-gendered," among other buzzwords that the rest of us can barely recognize as human language. I don't see this as actually possible. It just appears that too many people (there are men who claim to be feminists) that seem to get off on the shock value they see when they engage.
Kiran Maktoum Fortunately, we no longer live in the days of Socrotese where you can be forced to eat hemlock for speaking the simple truth and making fact based arguments.
I'm glad that you've kept the Feminist Title. Feminism needs a strong example to represent it and you're my favourite representative of the feminist movement, you're the reason why I still have faith in feminism as a whole. I agree with the fact that the world needs Feminism, the west doesn't need Feminism as much and out of all the Feminists in the world, I reckon that you have the Chutzpah and Moxie to direct Feminists to fight for the rights of women being oppressed in misogynistic countries. The World needs more Feminists like you Christina.
I've often wondered why phrases like "women and minorities" or "women and children" get used so often, other than the rhetorical prestidigitation that's afoot; viz., the conjunction of women (already the majority in the United States) and any other group serves to make the numerical representation of the group larger than just women and thereby to give the implication that the problem of the other group is shifted upon and borne by women. Why not, say, 'women and murderers?' Or 'women and rapists?' Or 'women and poor people?' Or 'women and alcoholics?' The answer is, or so I guess, the reason that when animal activist groups make advertising campaigns they choose cute and cuddly creatures rather than, say, malaria carrying flies. It's a gimmick, and is designed to maximize the return on their investment. Similarly, feminists, of all stripes, play at this rhetorical shuck and jive. Whenever there's the rare occasion that one hears about the problems facing men and boys, it's simply delineated 'men and boys'; it's never, or almost never, 'men and children'. Whereas, it's perfectly ordinary to hear talk of both (a) women and girls, and (b) women and children. So, the problems that face women and girls are the problems that face women and girls and boys; thus, whatever the scope of the problem one is actually claiming exists can be tremendously broadened and become an even more severe rhetorical burden of women. However, even people who speak of having a care for issues of men and boys tend to use language that creates a smaller group affected, and thus minimizes the scale of that problem. In reality, what one should say instead of "women and minorities" is the "majority and some minorities" and when discussing men "men and _other_ minorities". Alas, feminists of any stripe will refuse to knock this shit off.
I can see why minorities and children are lumped in with women -- they're often disadvantaged solely because of who they are, be it from gender, background, skin color, or sexuality. That said, there's a more disingenuous side to it lately in that this current wave of feminism, some people have taken these other groups, like the LGBT community for example, under their wing as a ubiquitous and largely successful (in the west) movement. This is ostensibly to give these smaller or more marginalized groups and movements a better platform. Unfortunately in some corners of the internet especially, It's instead used as a tactic to add legitimacy to this brand of feminism: "See, we don't hate everyone, and you can't hate us or you'll not only be a woman-hater but an intolerant gay and lesbian hater too!" It's almost kind of funny in a sick way to see how the feminist-branded LGBT subsect is collapsing in on itself as people within it are now trying to define who's "actually" trans, and who is "allowed" to identify as what gender or you're not really either part of the community or a legitimate trans-identifying person. I've read several people say that being a homosexual man is a form of woman hating, and that while you don't choose which gender you are, if you "choose" to identify as male and you were born a woman, you're committing the ultimate act of internalizing patriarchal misogyny. Those are somewhat common. What I hope isn't common is the one comment I read that stated that if you use hormone treatment or surgery to change your sex, you are abandoning the trans community because you hate them, since physically becoming the sex you feel you actually are is basically saying that there is something wrong with trans people that needs to be fixed.
Eric Matney really, they're disadvantaged solely because they're women? Have any evidence to support that proposition? It's a nice and easy line to declare, but people who propose it seem to be conspicuously thin on examples of women being treated poorly solely because they're women.
Eric Matney Oh dude, I have actually experienced something a little like this. Well, I wasn't told I couldn't identify as trans (I am gender fluid BTW,) but the level of feminist fuled BS I saw in one of the transgendered communities I got on was absolutely apalling. I think, fortunately, it was just a few particular idiots who wanted to attack me about being an MRA. The mods never got on to me about any of my arguments, I was 100% civil and my arguments were all backed by proper facts while they were the ones being irrational witch the mods likely recognized, so that kept my faith in humanity a little. But seriously, it is very sad to see the damage that feminism is doing to the trans community by trying to "take it under its wing." The interesting part in all this, these individuals I was arguing with acnowledged that radical feminism was bad, then imediately after making that statement they turn around and start making rad-fem style arguments. Yes, people know radical feminism is bad. But when you are a radical feminist, it seems you are not even aware of the fact yourself. I think this statement needs to be made somewhere, the level to witch radical feminists are blind to their own status. BTW: the topic of discussion was male privilage Vs. female privilage. They were trying to argue there was no such thing as female privilage because any advantages women get in society is just a result of male privilage backfiring. My counter assertion was that both existed to an extent, but male privilage could basically be summed up as being treated like an adult while female privilage could be summed up as being treated like a child. If you want to end this, the solution is to stop granting special favors to women. The gender that is being treated like a child will be thought of like a child. Start treating women like adults and hold them accountable for their actions and they will start being treated in equal standings to men.
The Justicar I am subscribed to you and I really love your content and I actually agree with all that you wrote here, but don't succumb to the "shirtgate" effect when this woman is in question:) Yes, all what you are challenging, I agree with you, as a male anti-feminist (so, not a non-feminist, an antifeminist). Likewise, I think that if you choose to side with a label, you allow yourself to fall under that label. But, even so, as a person who gets allergic when he hears "feminism" to be justified as an equality movement by some mental gymnastics, I still have to give a giant credit and nothing but thanks for this woman and the work she's been doing for MEN lately. So, even though I am one of the more "anal" ones when it comes to feminism in any way shape or form, I am willing to set it aside in this case, as something I can agree I disagree on with her. And I mean completely. Because, when weighted against, it's a minuscule, in any way, practical, ideological, subliminal or theoretical, spec compared to what she's propagating, writing and doing to support men specifically. And yes, when I see "factual feminits" written, I look somewhere else and go "tralala nothing was written" because defense mechanism, but I endure that and listen to her on many subjects and see only support and a voice for things I support and don't have the voice she has (as a male who can only circlejerk with other males lest be shut down automatically for being a cislord or whatever is the word these days:) ). I mean, she even said she's tempted to change the label, I think that's very (even overly) respectful and I mean, she was an active feminist back then. If you haven't, watch her other videos, about gamergate or catcalling... And all these comments about "enemy of my enemy isn't my friend"... I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think she's an enemy of my enemy, I do believe she's an honest friend. Some differences aside. But the practical influence and work she's being doing outweigh that by far. Which is, well, important, even when some things might irritate you. Even people like Straughan, a very active anti-feminist have nothing but respect for her, and that's for a reason.
I really don't get why it bothers so many people that she calls herself a feminist. If there is one thing that a lot of feminists don't get its the plasticity of language and the importance of context. She is always very clear in the way she speaks and is not ambiguous in the slightest; if there was ambiguity then perhaps people would have a point, but as it is; its making a mountain out of a molehill.
71SgtMom Just because you're not "50s kid" doesn't make you the authority of feminism, it's bigoted to suggest so. Whilst feminism has turned into a complete circus, first wave and second wave feminists (apart from a few bad apples which exist in every ideology) were nothing like the ones we have today. They had concrete objectives. Thanks to those feminists things like birth control and maternity leave are available to women like me.
I'm never going to agree 100% with anyone (or even myself at times) but I have no major quarrel with her brand of feminism. If only other feminists were like this, we wouldn't have such a strong impediment against men's rights.
71SgtMom Yet the feminist movement was started by a group of men. Very wealthy and influential men who purposely created tv ad campaigns showing women smoking etc, and encouraging men to go to war. Women were sucked right into the plot. The idea was to "give" women the "right" to work and vote because they needed more votes and more taxes. This nefarious group broke up families, created latch-key kids ...
I think you would be well-served to acknowledge that figures on poverty often erase men; men are the majority of the homeless population by far, and they frequently die as a result of it, frequently by their own hand. And even in the third world, it's good to look at where women are treated badly but it's important to look at where men are treated badly because the horror stories there are huge and deserve attention too; in most of these supposedly "male dominated" societies men are frequently beaten to death, tortured, enslaved--and yes, women play a role in that. As a long-time admirer and someone who has even learned from you, I would like you to address that some time if you can.
***** I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand that some things are absolute. What she described is ABSOLUTELY not feminism and is ABSOLUTELY egalitarianism.
See, I keep reading this and everytime I do, I wonder why those two seem to be perceived as mutually exclusive. It seems like it has become this compulsive need for some people (don't know about you, I have no idea who you are) to discredit feminism because they get angry at the mere thought of it - which is sad, but understandable nowadays, with a specific image in mind. The thing you need to understand is that "actual" feminism, or "Freedom Feminism" as it's being called here, should not focus on elevating women above men, but to look at certain social issues from a feminist perspective. That doesn't mean there aren't other perspectives. It also doesn't mean that feminists don't want men or any other social justice movement to be treated equally. I just don't think it's the most constructive approach to tell people what terminology to use for what they believe in if they have reasons for which they label themselves that way, when we should be talking about what we believe. I, for one, label myself feminist, but that doesn't make me anti- or non-egalitarian - quite the contrary, actually. Just like if I was a cardiologist, that obviously wouldn't contradict me being a doctor. You get my point?
Deutsch für Euch Feminism is mutually exclusive of egalitarianism because it focuses solely of women and intentionally disparages men. Feminism seeks to give women rights that only women can enjoy, often at the expense of men. Feminism spouts nonsensical social theories such as "rape culture" and "Patriarchy" in order to paint all men as oppressors of all women. I judge feminism on its actions and goals as expressed through the actions and inactions of its leaders. There are plenty of channels here on TH-cam that have done a great job of documenting the many, for lack of a better term, "sins" of feminism P.S. Keep up the great work on your channel. I really enjoy the German lessons.
I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but it is the most cogent defense of the label feminist I have heard. I would fact check on poverty, though. Most of the homeless are men. www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
Like so many policy issues, it all depends on how you define poverty, what you use to measure it, what scope you are using and where you draw the poverty line. publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb99-1-homelessness/composition-e.htm (Canadian study from the 90s though). Women in poverty, for instance, find themselves co-habitating with men because they feel (and probably are) much less safer on the streets.
There are a lot of stats out there to skew these perceptions. For instance, you'll find that they say "those in households below the poverty line are mostly women and children" and "most of the sheltered homeless are female." Most women are in HOUSEHOLDS below the poverty line because most men living below the poverty line don't have households. Most of the SHELTERED homeless are women because men are often rejected from homeless shelters. Peter Marin wrote a good article in his studies of homelessness,Look up "Jill gets welfare, Jack becomes homeless."
You can slice the stats anyway you want but what I hear in this video is the intention to deliver those slices to women exclusively. It's one thing to point out the suffering of males it's another to include them within the solutions. I'm not hearing that. Maybe your not ready to give up your feminist title but I am. Thanks for coming out to describe the water men are drowning in.
I just don't know how the feminist label can ever remedy itself. Personally i think it has become tainted beyond recognition. Unless people make a huge active effort to know the difference between feminists and the self righteous bigots that now own the label. Which i don't really see happening soon. Though feminist discontent of you identifying with that label is pretty funny.
That would be giving in to all the nutters that have hijacked feminism. I see where you are coming from, but to get a levelheaded view of feminism is a good reminder of what it was always supposed to be about.
When I think of it, it seems she almost has to keep the feminist label to bridge a lot of bridges -- bridges from the past, and bridges to those younger feminists who many be more moderate and still able to hear reason; and maintaining ties to other who still hold similar view of what feminism should be, I think something like gender egalitarian would be a good name for a replacement movement for new generations, but Christina would actual loose a lot in terms of potential out reach if she dropped "feminism."
***** Thank you, this rant made me take a moment to weep for humanity and where we are as species. The assumptions you make, the tangential diatribe, it is like the spiraling track of a neutrino, skewing from reality into incoherent space (blogs-images.forbes.com/brucedorminey/files/2012/04/9902017.jpeg) Reply ·
***** BTW you need to look up the definition of the word staunch. You misuse it. "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Mark Twain
***** Sorry you are incorrect. "Staunch" is an adjective used to describe an individual. For example: "He has shown himself to be a staunch supporter of gay rights." You could use the word "disloyal" to describe the opposite: "He has shown himself to be a disloyal supporter of gay rights." However it would be as improper to to say that "there are disloyal differences between the sexes" as it is to say that "there are staunch differences between the sexes." (Unless you wish to use the word staunch as a verb to mean the stoppage of the flow of liquid such as blood) Your welcome for the vocabulary lesson. As to the rest of your content there are no points worthy of my time. Your ramble assumes too much and yields nothing meaningful.
Wow, pretty much outlined my struggle with identifying as a feminist to a T. I've been flip-flopping in my mind for the biggest time, "Maybe I should start saying equalist or egalitarian." But Sommers has a good point, the only way to even out feminism is to change it from the inside out. Better than running away!
I agree with you. Feminism does have a legitimate place in modern, first world culture, as long as feminists can accept that men have their own issues and deserve their own spaces to talk about those issues. One serious issue is that feminism has always (until very recently) been a rights-based movement interested in securing equal legal status. Now that women have, in almost all cases, equal legal status with men, the bus has hit a wall and scattered. Now the movement is interested in culture and interpersonal issues. It's a little bit lost in the mess. On the other hand, MRM is a rights-based movement interested in securing equal legal status. And somehow, that's seen by 3rd wave feminists as less valuable than "man-spreading." My mind is blown.
"It bothers the gender warriors at Jezebel even more" That is amazing. The best defence of the feminist label to date. However, the issue really isn't that you need to distance yourself from the Warriors for your own sake, but the fact that you use the same label protects them from being ideologically attacked. The way I see it, is like you are the Bishop Shelby Spong of feminism. He's a christian that doesn't believe in god and wants to save Christianity from monotheism, just like you want to save feminism from this anti-male rhetoric. I don't think either of you will succeed, but I have some serious respect that you try. But a fruit rotten at its core can't be saved. It was a defect ever since the movement started. The view that men oppressed women is like god. Without it, the ideology has no underpinning. You can see this by your audience. A much higher audience of self-identified egalitarians support you, and even MRAs like myself and Paul Elam are very much on your side. I can understand your emotional attachment to the label, but it's just a label. Nothing more.
This comment is directed to the person in the video... Exactly what form of "equality" are you interested in? There are two types of equality in particular. One of them is an equality of treatment, and the other is the equality of outcome. The two are fundamentally incompatible and either of them can only function at the expense of the other. So the question remains, exactly what kind of equality are you interested in?
Dichotomy? Rights are an artificial social construct. Egalitarianism is a contaminate also. I was an egalitarian for most of my life but had to abandon egalitarianism because it's incompatible with the inconvenient truth. People's perception of "equality" is heavily clouded by seeing the world the way they want to see it, and thus they can't see it the way it really is or functions, therefore they are not able to realistically resolve anything.
***** Think of it like athletics, with an equality of treatment, all runners would start at the same exact line for the 100 meter dash and the best athletes will cross the finish line the soonest. But with equality of outcome, the slowest runners would be given a head start so that all runners could reach the finish line at the same time. Equality of treatment and equality of outcome are fundamentally incompatible and one can be achieved only at the expense of the other. Notice the type of "equality" that feminism tries to achieve, it goes for the equality of outcome, which disadvantages men and tries to give advantage to the females so that an equal result can occur. However, although this appears to many people as a form of misandry, it is perhaps a hidden misogyny done by feminists, because the attempted equality of outcome method would be confirming that the male is superior and thus needs to be disadvantaged in order for the female to have equal results with the male.
man slave I've seen a bit of her other media (presentations, debates, interviews etc) and I THINK I remember her saying she supports equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But hopefully she can clarify that in her later videos.
There's also the trouble, in the latter, of scale. I've seen numerous people insist that since "white men have run the show for a thousand years" (however untrue that might be) that equality can't be reached until white men are excluded from positions of power for a thousand years. You can see a similar scale problem when it comes to colleges, how it keeps being insisted that we need to get more women in STEM while ignoring women are a significant majority in the rest of the university system. The former in your comment is a principle that can be enacted almost immediately. The latter, well... can be manipulated to always make the selected group get benefits, as long as you can look at it just so.
I'm not a feminist, but you're probably my favorite feminist. You speak truth and you seem more like an egalitarian, than a feminist. I'm not telling you what you are, I'm just saying that your views goes along egalitarianism. You're great.
thank you very much miss Sommers. I (along with other, no doubt) have wondered, why you call yourself a feminist, since you haven't shown any traits (from how I have experienced feminists) of being a feminist, like you have (as far as I have noticed) never blamed male problems on a patriarchy. and here you have quite nicely explained to us why. :) thank you again.
The answer to that first question... Thank you so much. It's weird that I almost teared up from this, but that was everything I had ever hoped a true feminist would say. You admit how hard it is with these radical feminists soiling the name of feminism, but the fact you still believe in the name and the movement really shows something to me. When I try to explain to people that real feminism isn't the misandrist Tumblr people who everyone know of, they can't seem to understand that fully. However, your videos are the perfect tool to prove people wrong and to show the facts rather than just opinion. Fantastic video, cheered up my day.
+Will Baker That is in the US. I think she said in many poorer countries that was the case. Unlike many spoiled brat US feminist she wants to help all women.
+BuddhaAtheist29 Do you really belive that? Do you really believe that in some place in the world men are richer then woman? She is just saying that woman are more important then man. Nothing else.
+Mauricio zappa "She is just saying that woman are more important then man. Nothing else." I can only assume you're extremely unfamiliar with Christina Hoff Sommers
Star in the Box trust me she is a feminist. A prudent one. Camille paglia, karen straughan, they are what anti-feminism truly is. I dont see Sommers starting to talk about male disposability.
Actually Christina, I think you have done a fine job of distancing yourself from the extremists in the movement, considering that you do not tow the party line in regards to rape culture and all the other rubbish we hear from the feminist camp these days. You are a living proof of NAFALT so well-done. Here's a question that was posed for you on A Voice for Men which I also would like to see you address: It’s fair enough for there to be a women’s movement, but given the horrors men frequently face that are as bad as what you describe, is there also not a need for a strong men’s movement that looks after the interest in men and boys as well?
As a vehement female anti feminist, I dont mind at all that you hang on to the label. Its what you preach and what you practice that matters. Personally, I dont call myself one because of the supposed obligation most feminists say I have as a woman to call myself that. Too "Love Big Brother" for me.
Funnily enough, the planet Venus is quite literally a hell. Toxic gasses, extreme temperatures and 24/7 deadly storms. No one in there right mind would ever wanna live on the surface. Lol
+Jacob Normington I don't think she was saying "there are more homeless women," she was just pointing out that there need to be outlets specifically for homeless women and children. A lot of homeless organizations are aimed toward either just homeless folks in general, veterans (mostly male war veterans) or other homeless men (which is understandable, more men are homeless). But it's good to have targeted outreach programs for both demographics.
+Lynne the Trendy Tetraodontiforme This is also false. There are outlets specifically for homeless women and children. What is lacking or non-existent are outlets for homeless men and their children. Even though most homeless are men, most abuse against children comes from their own mothers or mother's boyfriend and fathers have little to no protection for them or their children. If a father reports that he or his children are victims of domestic violence, it is standard procedure to make the father homeless and leave the children with the abusive mother.
+Jacob Normington Be wary of statistics. Men make up a much higher percentage of the uncounted "sleeping in the rough" homeless, so the numbers are usually lowered in the way they tally homeless to favor a higher percentage of women.
I admire your belief in your feminism and it's noble to not give it up. This radical feminism right now is sadly overshadowing your genuine cause. You might be the only feminist I support.
Snacks Lve111 Thank you for showing me this. I made this last year, as you can see, and as I've done further research, I found the statistic that you just posted. It was my mistake, and actually, men just make up the majority of the homeless, not the majority of the poor.
Yes it does have a noble history, but that's just it. HISTORY. The feminism of today is not the feminism of yesterday. Atleast not the "feminism" that the media keeps on shoving in my face. I believe in true equality, and that's why i'm sticking with Equalism.
Well if you want to try a save feminism then go ahead, be my guest. However, as far as I'm concerned feminism is a lost cause, and trying to save it is like trying to refloat and repair the Titanic... it's just not going to happen, that ship has long been sailed and sank. As much as I like seeing Feminists at jezebel (or wherever) as annoyed as they can get, I just think it's more important to not give them false legitimacy by people such as yourself waving a flag that looks almost identical to the one they're waving. But... that being said, whatever crowd you claim to represent, I guess that doesn't matter as much as your actual actions. But FYI, your stats on poverty and homelessness are way wrong. I mean, come on, you should know what the true mechanics of these statistics are by now.
Agree she needs to drop the feminist label. Haha. But from what I understood there is a kind of nostalgia and personal attachment to it. As I study feminism, it is becoming clear that it was really never about equal rights, but about sexual revolution. Rights feminists attribute to the movement were actually concessions made by men because as western society evolves, guess what? So do our practices and we stop to analyze our wrong doings. Right to work was never a right, but an obligation. Women started working outside of the home for necessity during war times and as the industrial revolution happened it also changed the economic landscape of our societies. Poor women have always worked. Education was also brutal to boys, and no one can deny that a privileged girl from a wealthy family would be better educated than a poor boy. From texts from one of the earliest feminists, Mary Wollstonecraft the seeds of fluid gender ideology can already be seen since she states her belief that men and women would be equal in their roles and aspirations if only girls were educated the same way as boys. (Claiming female and male differences to be a social construct) Which we know it's not true, but it is still pushed as the "gender is a social construct narrative". In my opinion, the whole feminist movement has always been rotten. I don't believe the movement deserves someone as Christina, even back then, when it wasn't as blatantly nefarious. The only difference is that now their agenda is clearly out in the open, unlike a few decades ago. Reading feminists' works makes this very obvious.
While I understand wanting to redeem the movement you grew up in, there also comes a time when you must accept that it isn't what you thought it was, or that it became something you don't agree with anymore. However there is something to be said for pissing off the Jezebel idiots.
I love the balance The Factual Feminist provides. Not only in statistics and logic, but in topic choice. Whether it's education and incarceration rates, or a trending commercial and hashtags.
I've actually looked up to you for not giving up the feminist label in spite of what other feminists say and do. It really shows strength to me, a strength that I didn't have.
@ 3:13 This. This is the primary reason I still call myself a feminist. There are others, and this used to be quite peripheral, but in the last five years it has became the ultimate reason. I refuse to be chased out of feminism by a cadre of harpies who frankly are one of the most detrimental forces *towards women* in the west. I am not giving it up without a fight. I do disagree with some of the things you say, but that is to be expected. Please continue to speak truth to power.
there is like 1k comments so nobody will probably see this but amyways, love your channel. Very good arguments in all of the videos, and i understand that you wont just give up the same movement you fought for in the hope it will change. I do as well hope for this, but under todays circumstances of the movement I will not call myself a feminist
I think the Factual Feminist is one of the few people who has the right to claim, "Not all feminists are like that." She has a clear, well-defined idea of what feminism should be, and she's willing to correct other feminists, not just MRAs and anti-feminists when they point out the results of feminism. I still consider myself an anti-feminist, but I respect the Factual Feminist's opinions and the fact that she justifies them, instead of just trying to shame people who disagree with her.
I absolutely love this one! To me this is feminism! What the original meaning and purpose of feminism was. Not whats it's come to be these days where women give themselves special rights and call that feminism. Where is the equality in blaming men for everything wrong with this world? Is feminism not about equality between the genders instead of special rights for one? How can some of these extremist even justify calling themselves feminist when the entire time they bash on the male sex, blame men for oppressing women? I have never felt oppressed by a man and not because they haven't tried but simply because I know I am as capable as them in anything and everything. There's a difference in BEING ABLE to do something, and WANTING to do something. It's what we all set our own minds to do. And if we want something bad enough, ma;e or female, we can achieve it regardless of our gender. That is what equality is. A simple straight line with both genders on the same level. No special lines branching out specifically for women or men. Simple even the entire way through. We humans change it to our own convenience.
Christina, I only wish you were the standard of what a feminist is today. One thing I have noticed, when attempting to shed light on the madness you've mentioned, is that many self-proclaimed feminists won't even look at or acknowledge research or observations unless these come from "feminist sources", instantly distrusting anything that lacks the feminist label. Until such a time when the mainstream culture accepts that there are other groups pushing for equality in a peaceful way, we need people such as yourself Christina to put a voice of logic and reason in place for people who would listen to nothing else. Thank you for your work. I only hope more mainstream feminists take notice of it and not just those of us who have already been put off by the more toxic people of the current movement.
In a way, it really shouldn't matter whether someone calls themselves "feminist" or no. Good policy analysts look at a topic issue from a variety of perspectives and ideologies and tries to understand the discourse behind all the various opinions, whether feminist, libertarian, pragmatist, liberal, conservative, or whatever. The frustrating part, admittedly, is that it's not really prudent to turn government upside down in order to make some important policy happen, so slow, incremental change is often (but not always) the rule.
I so appreciate seeing a feminist who is willing to give an objective point of view on touchy subjects. My experiences with feminists have been awful in that you can't debate with them. Most feminists go into an argument so steadfast in their beliefs that they quickly exhausted of any points and have to resort to insults or claims of sexist/misogynistic treatment just to escape having to admit they're wrong. You have to employ a special set of "kid gloves" rules when dealing with feminists. How does that help women feel equal?
I call myself an MRA for the same reason. Men and women both face specific problems and it isn't wrong to focus on one or the other. Just make sure you are not spreading ideas of superiority while doing so
When I first found you and herd you call yourself a feminist I was worried. I checked everything you said carefully and looked everything up. Well you passed all my tests and I found it very refreshing to hear someone other then a white male talk about the same issues I have. I feel sort of limited by my sex because I'm not taken seriously. Having someone take the "historical" feminist stance that I've always admired is fantastic to me and helps me feel my message is herd by the people that matter the most. Keep it up and don't drop the feminist title! I think what people are really worried about is that you are lending credibility to feminists, but really I think that's hard to do when you spend most of your time badmouthing all the things they do wrong.
Oh finally, you are fantastic. Well educated, well spoken, and not radical. I am definitely subscribing. And I love the fact that you piss off those terrible modern tumblr feminists. Anything that pisses them off is worthwhile.
I'd never call myself a feminist but I'd never stand in your way. As a "feminist" you are a giant among ants. You've got your reasons, and I wouldn't doubt them.
***** I remember seeing your name and user image a lot. It must have been a long time ago though, possibly on another website, in which case, my user name must have been different. I don't remember exactly when, but I do remember you.
***** Same :) I mostly lurked since the beginning. I made an account about three years in, but I suppose it wasn't until recently that I really started commenting on videos and contacting other people.
I have only recently discovered your channel & i like (A LOT) what i've seen so far & couldn't agree more that changing something from within is the way to go. Only cowards run away from problems, the true hero's are those that stick around to fight. On a personal note, i've always had empathy towards Feminism until it's take over by the perpetual middle-class, western entitlement SJW's & it's failure to fight the real misogyny that exists overseas & in the very poorest of places.
I have to give you a huge thank you for your work here. I label myself as a feminist and many of my high school piers are extremely quick to point out that feminism is just "crazy man-hating women on their periods" (everything in that phrase is already stupid) and that since I'm what they'd consider "the one good one" that I should drop the label entirely. People seem to forget that the loud minority does not represent the majority or what this movement stands for, and I thank you for pointing out the truth, lies and exaggerations of this movement to clear up confusion. I sincerely look forward to more content from you.
While this is by far the best argument I've heard for the feminist label, I still believe that "egalitarian" or "equalize" are better terms, and not because feminism has gained a bad reputation. There are plenty of gender issues on both sides that need to be addressed, and keeping a label alive that caters to one side's issues is not good enough for me. The fact that the men's rights and women's rights movements are so separated is what breeds so many one-sided people in the first place.
Dr. Sommers, let me start bay saying, I love you and your show (and your talks). I was first turned onto you by Milo, and I'm grateful for it. I understand why you call yourself a feminist and of course you are more than welcome to label yourself whatever you wish (you've earned it, and I can't deny I love the spite aspect). I think of you more as a "factualist" only concerned with the truth. I agree with you that sensationalism and made up "facts" doesn't help anyone, it divides us when we should be working together, and detracts from when there are TRUE issues that need to be resolved (feminist that cried wolf). It's like a breath of fresh air to hear your viewpoints, I love that you look at men and women as a team, not one against the other. Of course, every large group has their bad apples that make the rest of the group rip their hair out and scream, but by in large, I feel that other men like me LOVE women and take NO pleasure in seeing women harmed in ANY way. We love strong, smart, confident women (and yes being attractive doesn't hurt). Most men don't see women as their adversary, we want those women on our team. At the same time, we don't appreciate being labeled as misogynistic, rapists, oppressors, abusers...etc. One can see how being constantly attacked by those labels would make one unsympathetic to a cause (in this case the modern feminism "cause"). So again, thank you for saying what I am feeling. I'm not sure in many circles I would be able to get away with saying the things you do...not to mention you say them much more eloquently than I do. I love you and your shows, as long as you keep making them, I will keep watching. P.s. As somewhat of a sidenote...I feel I know your opinion well enough that I don't lump you in with what I am about to say...but in general, whenever someone segregates themselves with a label based on a non-intellectual quality i.e. Black Lives Matter, Feminist...etc. My first instinct is NOT to believe that the said person is "fighting for equality", but more their own personal interests. I acknowledge that in many cases, those labels are in direct correlation to a specific concern those people feel needs to be addressed and those people may have the best of intentions. It's not a major gripe of mine, I will still listen to their viewpoints and judge from there, but I admit it puts me off just a little at first. My train of thought is always "in this time when we should ALL be pulling together to fight an injustice...why do you distinguish yourself into a smaller group? ...then act amazed when people treat you differently?"
As a 15 year old boy who has to constantly deal with the real-life tumblrites at my school jumping down my throat for criticising them, i can safely say that I love you and your videos. The immature young women i'm exposed to that use feminism as a badge and shield should take notes from you :)
Equality, on all fronts, is a cause worth fighting for. But you can't make real progress based on manipulation and bigotry. This sort of factual clear representation is refreshing and is exactly what the world needs more of.
This made me laugh along with you, especially the comment about the SJWs at Jezebel! These videos are excellently done and a much needed breath of fresh air in this country where #welivetheonion, and you are a delight to listen to, I'd love to take a class from you or sit down and have a drink and a stimulating and hilarious conversation with you.
Well, you talk about the comments section and how great your comments are and I'm a big commenter. You'll notice that there aren't many comments from me because you said it all. The way you put it is always perfect.
I prefer the term "egalitarian". It's not a hated word in many circles, and also I'm a guy, so I feel the term "feminism" doesn't describe my beliefs and values. Of course, your reasoning makes enough sense, and the "factual" part pretty much negates the typical assumptions around the word "feminist".
It's like asking Luther why he still called himself a Christian even though he had several disagreements with the Church. You hold to the original belief structure, the source, not this muddled, watered down version of hypocrisy. Good for you for standing up. I might say I'm not a feminist, but I do wholly support your stance. (*Edit: it took me ten months to realize I forgot the word "not." ..... Well shit.)
I was involved in feminism in the 70s. It was never about equality. I believed it was, but it wasn't. I attended a women's rally in 1977 and heard the leader make a speech stating that men were evil and were cause of all the worlds ills. I remember thinking that she was about to get howled down by the equality believing fair-minded women. But she wasn't. She was cheered. It was then I realized feminism was a hate group. Later that year, at a feminist education center, things would get very violent for me. I was 9.
"Your comments and questions are great. Maybe the best on the internet." Oh youuuuuu, you charming thing~ Also, I get why you call yourself a feminist. You can't change how people view it for the better if you abandon it. As somebody on the inside, it's important to represent what is still valuable in an idea, even if others try to corrupt it or have a bad view of it. Eventually, hopefully, the bad will be chipped away so that what is good and correct about an idea will remain.
Though I sympathize with what is being argued, the argument is about a word, a term, and a highly charged one at that. The word itself, however, being built of "femin-" plus "-ism," is fundamentally problematic when held in light of the idealized definition. We could define any term any way we want, giving a positive emphasis to almost anything, but taking these two elements and joining them together to create the term "feminism" cannot help but be weighted improperly towards an "ideology of femininity." The idealized definition will always be at odds with the word itself. Yes, there is a lot of good that has come from what has been labeled "feminism" in the past, but the good came not from the word.
I love your series. It gives me hope. I have often said I would identify as both a feminist and men's rights actitivist if it weren't for everyone else in those groups. Thank you for reminding me that sane intelligent feminists exist.
If you made a video for people involved in the Men's Rights Movement, what would you say to them? I say this because you have attracted the attention of Paul Elam, one of the leaders of A Voice For Men (AVFM).
Thank you for that brilliant reply. I was raised by a 70s feminist and the "Tumblr feminists" (a term I've borrowed from atheist commentors who have faced off with the radials) can often make me ashamed to identify with that term but I was taught what "feminist" really means and I can't say I want to give that up
this is probably the best reason i have heard for someone to still retain the title of feminist even when they knew full well of how it has been tarnished by modern feminism. i can respect the fact that you want to save it from going down in history as a bad term over the term it use to be which was a symbol of equality and respect no matter your gender. but to me its a futile act and whether or not it goes down in history admirably or detestably the fact is that gender equality is not really a problem anymore. at least not in the developed world and even in places with less equality i still find something like humanism a far better term because you not simply stopping some horrible act because its against women but because it is against a human being. its basically saying no matter who you are black,white,male, female it doesn't matter you deserve the same rights as everyone else. i know you support this and the only disagreement is on the title of the group which does seem a bit silly but if you want people to support your movement i think a title that shows you care about everyone is a much better symbol.
Frankly, I don't blame Christina for clinging to her preferred brand of feminism. To see something you've loved and fought for so passionately and for so long become so utterly hateful and so murderously toxic in such a short amount of time has got to sting. It's not easy to jettison such a large part of yourself, especially if you're getting on in years like Christina is.
"I'm just not ready to give it up!" This reminds me of a (not related to feminism) comment from Christopher Hitchens; I think it is in the "four horsemen" video. " I used to have this when I was young, ongoing arguments with members of the Communist Party. They sort of knew that it was all up with the Soviet Union. Many of them have suffered a lot, and sacrificed a great deal, and struggled, you know, manfully to keep what they thought was the great ideal life. Their mainspring had broken, but they couldn’t give it up, because it would involve a similar concession. But certainly, I mean, if anyone said to me, “how could you say that to them about the Soviet Union? Didn’t you know you were going to really make them cry and hurt their feelings?” I would’ve said don’t be ridiculous! Don’t be absurd!" I think the analogy is pretty good here - I hope it's clear enough without further context. Also, I noticed you saying "the world still needs a *women's* movement". Herein lies one of my main critiques of "feminism": is it a *women's movement* or a *gender equality movement*? Many claim it is the second, while in name and practice it appears to be the former. I think the difference is crucial, and is largely why modern feminism is so poisonous: promoting pro-female sexism under the guise of equality. I'd like to ask whether you notice this yourself and/or ensure you are consistent on this? Thank you for your time.
She should definitely call herself a feminist. She is a role model for young women and in labeling herself as a feminist she is a a shining light of truth in a social environment that is honestly pretty messed up. I respect her a lot. I also respect her courage to staying very sensible in the face of a lot of hostility against many of those with whom she identifies.
I just discovered your series yesterday and I'm already a big fan. :D I would like to point out one area where women have recently made huge strides based entirely on merit. I love NHRA drag racing. Over the last five years or so we have seen a huge increase in the number of women engaging in and winning national championship drag races. The thing that I really love about it is that the women are competing and winning on a level playing field. Women aren't segregated into a women's league. Women aren't given a head start in the races. These races are completely unbiased and women are making a real name for themselves winning championship after championship. I love to see the ladies competing with men in a fair competition. NHRA drag racing is the best and women are earning a lot of recognition and races.
Dear Christina! Thank you very much for your videos, they gave me so much new information, and most of all, I've realised I have a lot of learning to do in many different subjects, and I haven't really developed my critical thinking enough. Thank you very much again for making these videos, I'm glad there's people out there speaking out against the kind of feminism that wants to destroy masculinity in men. I very much like masculine men, and I want them to stay :) I hope you keep on making more and more of these videos and I'll keep on watching them! Have a good day xxx
I very much appreciate the video Christina. I have come to believe that a large part of the problem with modern feminism is that young impressionable girls and, to a lesser extent, boys are allowing their personal identities to be built foundationally around the notion of being a feminist. Clearly the word itself imposes a priority on the betterment of women, or the feminine, above men. And once a person's identity is inextricably bound to that word, and the implied axiomatic notion of womens' victimhood or subjugation, those people will surely be less quick to consider the struggles and issues of inequality from any other perspective. It can be seen in large city centers, or university towns, that there now exists a very distinct subculture of feminism. There are art galleries, cafes, restaurants, bars, and so on which, while on occasion they have feminist political agendas, more often they simply cater to the *apolitical aesthetics* of the feminist subculture. Feminism now has a style, fashion, music, and art, which again, are all often apolitical in nature, but are associated abstractly with feminism, and work to bolster and reinforce the identity-as-feminist for the entire community by making it broader, and more life-encompassing, even for overlapping communities. The effect is that there is simply too much invested in people's personal perception of themselves, and their place in their community, in the notion of women being socially disadvantaged in every imaginable way. They cannot take the risk to consider another possibility! In and around these enclaves, which largely influence all of youth culture nationally, it is completely socially taboo, even viscerally offensive, for people to even suggest that the oft-repeated misinformation of modern feminist dogma is incorrect without being socially ostracized, or even threatened with violence. As a man I often feel threatened or in danger by other men (and hey I am statistically at four times higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger), but I have never felt as frightened as when criticizing fem dogma. I really think it is time we start to do away with identifying as feminists. However, if you keep calling yourself a feminist, it makes it way easier for me to point my friends to your work and have them take it seriously. I just wanted to explain my views and experiences on the word, and the subculture that I am surrounded by every day and every moment of my life. *edit:* I couldn't finish this post without commenting on your statement that poverty roles are disproportionately women and children. Does that somehow not include the homeless? Especially the "invisible poor"? I have never seen any research that shows that men are not the vast, overwhelming majority of the poorest people in the Western world. Thanks, and keep up the good content!
Recently I went on a reading binge. Some how I found myself reading blogs about "how to raise a proper feminism son". Sadly the major theme is "teach your son to be respectful of their sister becasue trhey are girls." And girls deserve respect full stop. In none of these blogs does anything saying that you should teach your daughter to be respectful towards their brother. They also say "tell thyour son it's okay to show your emotions." yet none of them mention it's okay that he's angry.
Hi, Christina! I was just wondering if you would ever make another feminism-positive video? I know this one has made people happy, just with by your passion. Thank you :)
Hi Christina, I would first like to say I’m a a fan of your content. Your sensibility, common sense and fact backed presentations are a breath of fresh air amongst what seems to be a world of extremes. I find it reasonable as to why you still call yourself a feminist. To keep this short, I think by now the majority of people view modern feminism as quite petty however, it (even in its shrinking numbers) still holds a large platform. My question for you is, would directing feminists energy onto the mistreatment of women in the third world and or, Muslim countries be a much better use of their resources? If one is to fix a big problem should you not start at where it is at its worst? My belief is if feminism is to restore its once noble title it must have to achieve a much more noble task. What could be more noble than bringing equality to the far far less fortunate women of the third world? Perhaps you could be the starting point Christina, you have a growing following and great potential to achieve this.
I think the difference between Traditional (for lack of a better word) Feminism and Modern Feminism can be summed up with one word: Empowerment. Traditional Feminism seems to have been about empowering women, telling them they can do what the men do, whereas modern feminism seems to be about disempowering them, telling them they are victims and they need to be afraid.
I've watched enough of your videos, to seriously ask myself that same question. I'm glad you have made this video. I personally believe the title of feminist has been poisoned by ill informed people. The word/title cannot be repaired so long as there's mostly ignorant, aggressive, sexist, perverse, disgusting, and overall psychotic people that brand themselves with it. And it's NOT a club that one can determine "who gets in". ANY crazy and irrational person can just "join"! I believe your personal fight to actually be honest, and genuinely about equality. But you have people hiding under your noble history umbrella. That umbrella being the past meaning of the word "Feminist". I can't help but feel your battle to repair the name, is a losing one. I'm sure I'm not alone on this. I laughed at the part where you mentioned the social justice warriors, and what THEY think of you. That fact alone makes me think: "Keep calling yourself a feminist. If not for yourself... Do it in spite of those jerks!" *Evil laughter* Keep doing what you're doing. You're an amazing person! Thank you!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
"And just remember: if it bothers you that I call myself a feminist, _just remember it bothers the gender warriors at Jezebel even more_"
DROP THE MIC
I immediately started calling myself a feminist after this video
Why can't modern feminists be like her? Unbiased and just! Noble and outspoken!
Because that would be too difficult, and it would mean that they would have to work as hard as anyone else...
DC Koh, opening your mind to supporting and dissenting viewpoints, discussing alternative ideas rationally and accepting a personal lack of perfection take energy, knowledge, maturity and caring fewer and fewer people are willing to work for. It is easier to spout slogans and rhetoric, and humans can be very lazy.
If more feminists were like her feminism would die. Feminism only makes money by making headlines. The only way to do that is lie about data and lobby the media
Also, I find the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Hell" title hilarious, as a big astronomy nerd.
Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, its typical surface temperature is around 850 degrees Farenheit, it has a constant sulfur cloud cover, and its desert-like landscape is constantly broken up by volcanic activity. It sounds an awful lot like Hell.
And if there is no hell. Well then that makes us much better.
+Len the Trendy Tetraodontiforme Its the godess Venus anology. I know you know it, but still worth mentioning.
+Len the Trendy Tetraodontiforme Don't forget its acid rain.
There is 500°C in Venus and 180°C in Hell
I completely disagree with the use of Feminism as a label, but that's partially because I'm 17, so my only interaction with the group is the pseudo-feminist garbage that passes for social activism in this day and age. I go by Egalitarian, because that's an existing label, but y-know what? I need to remove my biases against Feminists and acknowledge that people like you exist.
You're outright awesome for your criticisms of radical feminism, and your nuanced stances on gender problems is refreshing in a venomous internet war. I wont pretend to not be an angry person who gets upset by this all, and may even contribute at times. I think you're an amazing example of how to do it right.
+TheGreatYukon You mentioned "radical feminism" and that's, I feel, exactly why she's not (and isn't) dropping the label. If feminists like her stop, then feminism will be radical by definition without even having the adjective attached to it. Feminists like her need to exist to differentiate who the radicals and who the logical ones are. There are many strands of feminism (some more vocal than others) but feminists like her stop the radicals from saying "if you agree with my extreme biased opinions, then you believe in gender equality". No actually, I can believe in that and still disagree with you.
Thing Thang That assumes that the label "feminism" is already necessary or beneficial. Why not drop it entirely because it's pointless anyways? It's a bad label, it's FEMInism. I don't think it accurate reflects what we should be going for anymore. I see no reason to keep it non-radical, but that's from the Egalitarian's perspective.
TheGreatYukon
Because, like she said, female oppression and discrimination isn't completely outdated especially in other countries. Female empowerment is still important but the radicals are doing anything but being empowering women (everyone's a victim, everyone's an enemy, everything has a hidden meaning behind it).
Thing Thang Female oppression does not exist in America, I feel comfortable saying that outright. Discrimination? Yes, but it exists for both genders and I see no compelling reason to think it's substantially against women, at least enough to warrant a title like "Feminism". As for feminism in other countries, that's not really relevant to what you call yourself HERE. They could use empowerment but now that's irrelevant.
Women should not be "empowered" any more than anyone else, and especially shouldn't feel like they're special because they're women, which is what I hear quite often whenever someone wants to empower others (you may have a less idiotic view of the concept). I'm curious, what do you view empowerment as anyways? Every time I hear it I find it offputting, likely due to my biases against radicals.
TheGreatYukon
Oh no, I completely agree with exactly what you said. Both about discrimination existing for both genders and women not being oppressed not only in America but in a lot of the western world. I still believe that certain pockets of the western world, though, (and this is not based on any study, just my personal view, so take it with a grain of salt) haven't completely caught up but they will eventually.
As for Christina Hoff Summers not dropping the label. I feel she can still call her self a feminist since she holds the same values she did in the 70s/80s when feminism served a purpose. Just because she doesn't have to fight as a feminist now, doesn't mean that those values have changed. More importantly, I can see why people are confused with her still calling herself a feminist but personally I think it's important she keeps the label since it shows the radical feminists of today what their movement once was and what it stood for and continues to stand for. True, fair, equality.
so
1) "freedom feminism" you grew up with which actually had good cause and not wanting to give that up
2) 3rd world countries need feminism
3)More targeted ways needed for helping homeless women/children.
That is honestly the most rational thing i have ever heard from a feminist.
I'm actually glad that you label yourself a feminist. Because when some stupid feminist is bitching about "patriarchy", "male privilege" and "rape culture", I can always use you as an example of what a feminist SHOULD be.
Someone who is GENUINELY concerned with equality and is concerned with facts and logic rather than ideological bullshit and rhetoric.
Also, when I inevitably get called a "misogynist" for disagreeing with one of these brainwashed ideologues, I can always say, "but Christina Hoff Sommers is not only a woman, but also a feminist, and I agree with almost everything she says."
It used to kind of annoy me that you labelled yourself a feminist. But thanks to rational feminists like you and Camille Paglia, I can piss the not so rational feminists off much more easily. And that has to be a good thing ;-)
PacificRimNZ
Aah, the fast talking and equally brilliant Camille Paglia. I've not watched, or read anything by her for some time now. She makes me smile just thinking about her, actually. I remember her saying ... "pwne, pwne, pwne, and I blasted Gloria Steinem and all their feminist arguments outta the water" .. Haha, or something along those lines.
I'll salute Christina and Camille, with you. If we're handing out salutes to "feminists" I've also got one for Wendy McElroy. Have you come across her, too?
NOISEDEPT One of my favourite quotes by Camille Paglia was when she said that she was sick of feminists blaming "patriarchy and all that crap". That was awesome :-)
Yes, you're not the first to mention Wendy McElroy. I recently read her "The Big Lie of a 'rape culture'" article, which I enjoyed.
PacificRimNZ
I haven't read her article but I watched her presentation against the notion of "rape culture" which is on her TH-cam page.
Greetings from England, by the way. I'd like to visit NZ, one day. It's a long walk and bit of a swim, though.
I watched a good NZ film, recently, called "What We Do in the Shadows". Haha, funny film.
NOISEDEPT I've literally just finished watching her presentation :-) It was really amazing. I look forward to seeing more from her.
I was born in England. My parents are Kiwis but they were living in the UK when I was born. Dad worked there.
Do you like "Flight of the Conchords"? It has the main vampire from "What We Do in the Shadows" in it. It's hilarious!
Haha. That was a strange coincidence, eh? All this talk of Wendy Mac makes me think I should go over to her iFeminists site. I haven't been there for, well, too long, really, bless her. When I began reading about all this nonsense, she really was one of the lights in the darkness.
I was burdened by my own Leftist/socialist political outlook back then (difficult not to when you've grown up where I have) but I've always seen Feminisms paradoxes and falsehoods. Nowadays I subscribe to much of Libertarian philosophy.
I don't have a TV, mate. I threw it away about twelve years ago, so I haven't seen Conchords. But In the Shadows was def a funny one. I do like the Kiwi humour, and the Aus, too. I think we Brits find your silliness resonates with ours.
So, as it turns out, your an English brother, anyway .... B-)
ha, if it annoys Jezebel its got to be worth it.
She might actually be onto something. Imagine the shit stir it would create if say anti-feminists today just started to call themselves feminists. It might actually make the work of the gender ideologues really hard.
Thermic Light Maybe AVFM should drop the MHRM label - and start calling themselves equity feminists.
the enemy of your enemy is not always a friend, friend.
Then again, what's wrong with sacrificing a few radicals to keep the good name of the Feminist Hive intact?
***** "the enemy of your enemy is not always a friend, friend."
Precisely!
The USA and the USSR during WWll, is such an example.
Totally agree, abandoning feminism as a whole isn't as bold a statement as many edgy anti feminists believe. It's like when tons of black actors decided to boycott the oscars in protest of racial diversity. If you see the movement going in the wrong direction, the right thing to do is take the reins and do everything you can to make it into the movement you believe in
+bea haxby True but the taste of defeat is close, the cause is so damaged that it might be forgotten forever as a good thing.
@bea haxby
The basic and continuing problem is that the very feminists that are regarded as leaders of feminism regard Christina and others like her as outsiders, people who are not welcome in the movement. For not blindly following the dictates of the leadership, she's relegated to sideshow status. Basically excommunicated and a feminist in name only, because they can't stop her from calling herself one.
Taking the reins of the movement requires what the leadership of feminism would regard as essentially a mutiny. Far too many moderates in the movement try telling the rest of us to ignore the "feminazis," "they're not real feminists," they protest. The rest of us who aren't feminists look at that like we're seeing an insane person trying to pet a rattlesnake coiled to strike.
Honestly, feminism needs to clean house and tell the man-hating members that this isn't welcome anymore. They need to start talking like real human beings again, instead of shouting jargon like "patriarchy," "rape culture," "male privilege," "mansplaining," "sexual agency," "cis-gendered," among other buzzwords that the rest of us can barely recognize as human language.
I don't see this as actually possible. It just appears that too many people (there are men who claim to be feminists) that seem to get off on the shock value they see when they engage.
"Women are from Venus, men are from hell". Top comment.
"I think the movement should be reformed from within!"
As long as there are feminists like this in the world, I have hope for the movement.
I am actually afraid that some gender warriors will rather kill her then let her do any good
Kiran Maktoum
Fortunately, we no longer live in the days of Socrotese where you can be forced to eat hemlock for speaking the simple truth and making fact based arguments.
***** Yes but we do not need that today anymore. A little bomb would do the work as well
I'm glad that you've kept the Feminist Title. Feminism needs a strong example to represent it and you're my favourite representative of the feminist movement, you're the reason why I still have faith in feminism as a whole. I agree with the fact that the world needs Feminism, the west doesn't need Feminism as much and out of all the Feminists in the world, I reckon that you have the Chutzpah and Moxie to direct Feminists to fight for the rights of women being oppressed in misogynistic countries. The World needs more Feminists like you Christina.
I've often wondered why phrases like "women and minorities" or "women and children" get used so often, other than the rhetorical prestidigitation that's afoot; viz., the conjunction of women (already the majority in the United States) and any other group serves to make the numerical representation of the group larger than just women and thereby to give the implication that the problem of the other group is shifted upon and borne by women.
Why not, say, 'women and murderers?' Or 'women and rapists?' Or 'women and poor people?' Or 'women and alcoholics?' The answer is, or so I guess, the reason that when animal activist groups make advertising campaigns they choose cute and cuddly creatures rather than, say, malaria carrying flies. It's a gimmick, and is designed to maximize the return on their investment. Similarly, feminists, of all stripes, play at this rhetorical shuck and jive.
Whenever there's the rare occasion that one hears about the problems facing men and boys, it's simply delineated 'men and boys'; it's never, or almost never, 'men and children'. Whereas, it's perfectly ordinary to hear talk of both (a) women and girls, and (b) women and children. So, the problems that face women and girls are the problems that face women and girls and boys; thus, whatever the scope of the problem one is actually claiming exists can be tremendously broadened and become an even more severe rhetorical burden of women. However, even people who speak of having a care for issues of men and boys tend to use language that creates a smaller group affected, and thus minimizes the scale of that problem.
In reality, what one should say instead of "women and minorities" is the "majority and some minorities" and when discussing men "men and _other_ minorities". Alas, feminists of any stripe will refuse to knock this shit off.
This reminds me of the treatment of victims in the news. It's always either "X women died" or "X people died" (even when all the victims are male)
I can see why minorities and children are lumped in with women -- they're often disadvantaged solely because of who they are, be it from gender, background, skin color, or sexuality.
That said, there's a more disingenuous side to it lately in that this current wave of feminism, some people have taken these other groups, like the LGBT community for example, under their wing as a ubiquitous and largely successful (in the west) movement. This is ostensibly to give these smaller or more marginalized groups and movements a better platform. Unfortunately in some corners of the internet especially, It's instead used as a tactic to add legitimacy to this brand of feminism: "See, we don't hate everyone, and you can't hate us or you'll not only be a woman-hater but an intolerant gay and lesbian hater too!"
It's almost kind of funny in a sick way to see how the feminist-branded LGBT subsect is collapsing in on itself as people within it are now trying to define who's "actually" trans, and who is "allowed" to identify as what gender or you're not really either part of the community or a legitimate trans-identifying person. I've read several people say that being a homosexual man is a form of woman hating, and that while you don't choose which gender you are, if you "choose" to identify as male and you were born a woman, you're committing the ultimate act of internalizing patriarchal misogyny. Those are somewhat common. What I hope isn't common is the one comment I read that stated that if you use hormone treatment or surgery to change your sex, you are abandoning the trans community because you hate them, since physically becoming the sex you feel you actually are is basically saying that there is something wrong with trans people that needs to be fixed.
Eric Matney really, they're disadvantaged solely because they're women? Have any evidence to support that proposition? It's a nice and easy line to declare, but people who propose it seem to be conspicuously thin on examples of women being treated poorly solely because they're women.
Eric Matney
Oh dude, I have actually experienced something a little like this. Well, I wasn't told I couldn't identify as trans (I am gender fluid BTW,) but the level of feminist fuled BS I saw in one of the transgendered communities I got on was absolutely apalling.
I think, fortunately, it was just a few particular idiots who wanted to attack me about being an MRA. The mods never got on to me about any of my arguments, I was 100% civil and my arguments were all backed by proper facts while they were the ones being irrational witch the mods likely recognized, so that kept my faith in humanity a little.
But seriously, it is very sad to see the damage that feminism is doing to the trans community by trying to "take it under its wing." The interesting part in all this, these individuals I was arguing with acnowledged that radical feminism was bad, then imediately after making that statement they turn around and start making rad-fem style arguments. Yes, people know radical feminism is bad. But when you are a radical feminist, it seems you are not even aware of the fact yourself. I think this statement needs to be made somewhere, the level to witch radical feminists are blind to their own status.
BTW: the topic of discussion was male privilage Vs. female privilage. They were trying to argue there was no such thing as female privilage because any advantages women get in society is just a result of male privilage backfiring. My counter assertion was that both existed to an extent, but male privilage could basically be summed up as being treated like an adult while female privilage could be summed up as being treated like a child. If you want to end this, the solution is to stop granting special favors to women. The gender that is being treated like a child will be thought of like a child. Start treating women like adults and hold them accountable for their actions and they will start being treated in equal standings to men.
The Justicar I am subscribed to you and I really love your content and I actually agree with all that you wrote here, but don't succumb to the "shirtgate" effect when this woman is in question:)
Yes, all what you are challenging, I agree with you, as a male anti-feminist (so, not a non-feminist, an antifeminist). Likewise, I think that if you choose to side with a label, you allow yourself to fall under that label. But, even so, as a person who gets allergic when he hears "feminism" to be justified as an equality movement by some mental gymnastics, I still have to give a giant credit and nothing but thanks for this woman and the work she's been doing for MEN lately.
So, even though I am one of the more "anal" ones when it comes to feminism in any way shape or form, I am willing to set it aside in this case, as something I can agree I disagree on with her. And I mean completely. Because, when weighted against, it's a minuscule, in any way, practical, ideological, subliminal or theoretical, spec compared to what she's propagating, writing and doing to support men specifically.
And yes, when I see "factual feminits" written, I look somewhere else and go "tralala nothing was written" because defense mechanism, but I endure that and listen to her on many subjects and see only support and a voice for things I support and don't have the voice she has (as a male who can only circlejerk with other males lest be shut down automatically for being a cislord or whatever is the word these days:) ).
I mean, she even said she's tempted to change the label, I think that's very (even overly) respectful and I mean, she was an active feminist back then.
If you haven't, watch her other videos, about gamergate or catcalling...
And all these comments about "enemy of my enemy isn't my friend"... I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think she's an enemy of my enemy, I do believe she's an honest friend. Some differences aside. But the practical influence and work she's being doing outweigh that by far. Which is, well, important, even when some things might irritate you.
Even people like Straughan, a very active anti-feminist have nothing but respect for her, and that's for a reason.
Feminists should follow your lead.
well i rather they don't follow any lead lol. we're all fallible people after all. i do wish more people watch these.
I love how calm and well spoken you are. Please keep making these amazing videos :)
I really don't get why it bothers so many people that she calls herself a feminist. If there is one thing that a lot of feminists don't get its the plasticity of language and the importance of context. She is always very clear in the way she speaks and is not ambiguous in the slightest; if there was ambiguity then perhaps people would have a point, but as it is; its making a mountain out of a molehill.
71SgtMom Just because you're not "50s kid" doesn't make you the authority of feminism, it's bigoted to suggest so. Whilst feminism has turned into a complete circus, first wave and second wave feminists (apart from a few bad apples which exist in every ideology) were nothing like the ones we have today. They had concrete objectives. Thanks to those feminists things like birth control and maternity leave are available to women like me.
I'm never going to agree 100% with anyone (or even myself at times) but I have no major quarrel with her brand of feminism. If only other feminists were like this, we wouldn't have such a strong impediment against men's rights.
71SgtMom Yet the feminist movement was started by a group of men. Very wealthy and influential men who purposely created tv ad campaigns showing women smoking etc, and encouraging men to go to war. Women were sucked right into the plot. The idea was to "give" women the "right" to work and vote because they needed more votes and more taxes. This nefarious group broke up families, created latch-key kids ...
Because feminism has a poor track record with the concept of equality. Because it is 100% gynocentric.
I think you would be well-served to acknowledge that figures on poverty often erase men; men are the majority of the homeless population by far, and they frequently die as a result of it, frequently by their own hand. And even in the third world, it's good to look at where women are treated badly but it's important to look at where men are treated badly because the horror stories there are huge and deserve attention too; in most of these supposedly "male dominated" societies men are frequently beaten to death, tortured, enslaved--and yes, women play a role in that. As a long-time admirer and someone who has even learned from you, I would like you to address that some time if you can.
What you have described here is not feminism. It is called egalitarianism.
You can call it whatever the hell you want.
***** I can call a dog a cat, but it wouldn't make it an accurate description.
***** I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand that some things are absolute. What she described is ABSOLUTELY not feminism and is ABSOLUTELY egalitarianism.
See, I keep reading this and everytime I do, I wonder why those two seem to be perceived as mutually exclusive. It seems like it has become this compulsive need for some people (don't know about you, I have no idea who you are) to discredit feminism because they get angry at the mere thought of it - which is sad, but understandable nowadays, with a specific image in mind. The thing you need to understand is that "actual" feminism, or "Freedom Feminism" as it's being called here, should not focus on elevating women above men, but to look at certain social issues from a feminist perspective. That doesn't mean there aren't other perspectives. It also doesn't mean that feminists don't want men or any other social justice movement to be treated equally. I just don't think it's the most constructive approach to tell people what terminology to use for what they believe in if they have reasons for which they label themselves that way, when we should be talking about what we believe. I, for one, label myself feminist, but that doesn't make me anti- or non-egalitarian - quite the contrary, actually. Just like if I was a cardiologist, that obviously wouldn't contradict me being a doctor. You get my point?
Deutsch für Euch Feminism is mutually exclusive of egalitarianism because it focuses solely of women and intentionally disparages men. Feminism seeks to give women rights that only women can enjoy, often at the expense of men. Feminism spouts nonsensical social theories such as "rape culture" and "Patriarchy" in order to paint all men as oppressors of all women.
I judge feminism on its actions and goals as expressed through the actions and inactions of its leaders. There are plenty of channels here on TH-cam that have done a great job of documenting the many, for lack of a better term, "sins" of feminism
P.S. Keep up the great work on your channel. I really enjoy the German lessons.
I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but it is the most cogent defense of the label feminist I have heard.
I would fact check on poverty, though. Most of the homeless are men.
www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
Like so many policy issues, it all depends on how you define poverty, what you use to measure it, what scope you are using and where you draw the poverty line. publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb99-1-homelessness/composition-e.htm (Canadian study from the 90s though). Women in poverty, for instance, find themselves co-habitating with men because they feel (and probably are) much less safer on the streets.
There are a lot of stats out there to skew these perceptions.
For instance, you'll find that they say "those in households below the poverty line are mostly women and children" and "most of the sheltered homeless are female."
Most women are in HOUSEHOLDS below the poverty line because most men living below the poverty line don't have households. Most of the SHELTERED homeless are women because men are often rejected from homeless shelters.
Peter Marin wrote a good article in his studies of homelessness,Look up "Jill gets welfare, Jack becomes homeless."
You can slice the stats anyway you want but what I hear in this video is the intention to deliver those slices to women exclusively. It's one thing to point out the suffering of males it's another to include them within the solutions. I'm not hearing that. Maybe your not ready to give up your feminist title but I am. Thanks for coming out to describe the water men are drowning in.
I think with this kind of feminism we could all live.
John Galt you can not give up something you never had. Or did you ever claim to be a feminist ?
I don't care what someone calls themselves so long as they can respond to a disagreement.
I just don't know how the feminist label can ever remedy itself. Personally i think it has become tainted beyond recognition. Unless people make a huge active effort to know the difference between feminists and the self righteous bigots that now own the label. Which i don't really see happening soon. Though feminist discontent of you identifying with that label is pretty funny.
You should just be the Factual Egalitarian.
That would be giving in to all the nutters that have hijacked feminism. I see where you are coming from, but to get a levelheaded view of feminism is a good reminder of what it was always supposed to be about.
When I think of it, it seems she almost has to keep the feminist label to bridge a lot of bridges -- bridges from the past, and bridges to those younger feminists who many be more moderate and still able to hear reason; and maintaining ties to other who still hold similar view of what feminism should be, I think something like gender egalitarian would be a good name for a replacement movement for new generations, but Christina would actual loose a lot in terms of potential out reach if she dropped "feminism."
Really need to start calling ourselves HUMANISTS. We don't need a women's movement, we don't need a men's movement we just need a people movement
Until feminists like this 'one' start to achknowledge male issues as just as important as female issues, the gender war continues.
***** Thank you, this rant made me take a moment to weep for humanity and where we are as species. The assumptions you make, the tangential diatribe, it is like the spiraling track of a neutrino, skewing from reality into incoherent space (blogs-images.forbes.com/brucedorminey/files/2012/04/9902017.jpeg)
Reply
·
*****
BTW you need to look up the definition of the word staunch. You misuse it.
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
Mark Twain
*****
Sorry you are incorrect. "Staunch" is an adjective used to describe an individual. For example: "He has shown himself to be a staunch supporter of gay rights." You could use the word "disloyal" to describe the opposite: "He has shown himself to be a disloyal supporter of gay rights."
However it would be as improper to to say that "there are disloyal differences between the sexes" as it is to say that "there are staunch differences between the sexes."
(Unless you wish to use the word staunch as a verb to mean the stoppage of the flow of liquid such as blood)
Your welcome for the vocabulary lesson.
As to the rest of your content there are no points worthy of my time. Your ramble assumes too much and yields nothing meaningful.
*****
nonsense.
Wow, pretty much outlined my struggle with identifying as a feminist to a T. I've been flip-flopping in my mind for the biggest time, "Maybe I should start saying equalist or egalitarian." But Sommers has a good point, the only way to even out feminism is to change it from the inside out. Better than running away!
I agree with you. Feminism does have a legitimate place in modern, first world culture, as long as feminists can accept that men have their own issues and deserve their own spaces to talk about those issues.
One serious issue is that feminism has always (until very recently) been a rights-based movement interested in securing equal legal status. Now that women have, in almost all cases, equal legal status with men, the bus has hit a wall and scattered. Now the movement is interested in culture and interpersonal issues. It's a little bit lost in the mess.
On the other hand, MRM is a rights-based movement interested in securing equal legal status. And somehow, that's seen by 3rd wave feminists as less valuable than "man-spreading." My mind is blown.
"It bothers the gender warriors at Jezebel even more"
That is amazing. The best defence of the feminist label to date.
However, the issue really isn't that you need to distance yourself from the Warriors for your own sake, but the fact that you use the same label protects them from being ideologically attacked.
The way I see it, is like you are the Bishop Shelby Spong of feminism. He's a christian that doesn't believe in god and wants to save Christianity from monotheism, just like you want to save feminism from this anti-male rhetoric. I don't think either of you will succeed, but I have some serious respect that you try. But a fruit rotten at its core can't be saved. It was a defect ever since the movement started. The view that men oppressed women is like god. Without it, the ideology has no underpinning. You can see this by your audience. A much higher audience of self-identified egalitarians support you, and even MRAs like myself and Paul Elam are very much on your side. I can understand your emotional attachment to the label, but it's just a label. Nothing more.
This comment is directed to the person in the video...
Exactly what form of "equality" are you interested in?
There are two types of equality in particular.
One of them is an equality of treatment, and the other is the equality of outcome.
The two are fundamentally incompatible and either of them can only function at the expense of the other. So the question remains, exactly what kind of equality are you interested in?
This is a great question, actually.
Dichotomy?
Rights are an artificial social construct. Egalitarianism is a contaminate also. I was an egalitarian for most of my life but had to abandon egalitarianism because it's incompatible with the inconvenient truth.
People's perception of "equality" is heavily clouded by seeing the world the way they want to see it, and thus they can't see it the way it really is or functions, therefore they are not able to realistically resolve anything.
***** Think of it like athletics, with an equality of treatment, all runners would start at the same exact line for the 100 meter dash and the best athletes will cross the finish line the soonest.
But with equality of outcome, the slowest runners would be given a head start so that all runners could reach the finish line at the same time.
Equality of treatment and equality of outcome are fundamentally incompatible and one can be achieved only at the expense of the other.
Notice the type of "equality" that feminism tries to achieve, it goes for the equality of outcome, which disadvantages men and tries to give advantage to the females so that an equal result can occur. However, although this appears to many people as a form of misandry, it is perhaps a hidden misogyny done by feminists, because the attempted equality of outcome method would be confirming that the male is superior and thus needs to be disadvantaged in order for the female to have equal results with the male.
man slave I've seen a bit of her other media (presentations, debates, interviews etc) and I THINK I remember her saying she supports equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
But hopefully she can clarify that in her later videos.
There's also the trouble, in the latter, of scale. I've seen numerous people insist that since "white men have run the show for a thousand years" (however untrue that might be) that equality can't be reached until white men are excluded from positions of power for a thousand years. You can see a similar scale problem when it comes to colleges, how it keeps being insisted that we need to get more women in STEM while ignoring women are a significant majority in the rest of the university system.
The former in your comment is a principle that can be enacted almost immediately. The latter, well... can be manipulated to always make the selected group get benefits, as long as you can look at it just so.
I'm not a feminist, but you're probably my favorite feminist. You speak truth and you seem more like an egalitarian, than a feminist. I'm not telling you what you are, I'm just saying that your views goes along egalitarianism. You're great.
thank you very much miss Sommers. I (along with other, no doubt) have wondered, why you call yourself a feminist, since you haven't shown any traits (from how I have experienced feminists) of being a feminist, like you have (as far as I have noticed) never blamed male problems on a patriarchy. and here you have quite nicely explained to us why. :) thank you again.
The answer to that first question... Thank you so much. It's weird that I almost teared up from this, but that was everything I had ever hoped a true feminist would say. You admit how hard it is with these radical feminists soiling the name of feminism, but the fact you still believe in the name and the movement really shows something to me. When I try to explain to people that real feminism isn't the misandrist Tumblr people who everyone know of, they can't seem to understand that fully. However, your videos are the perfect tool to prove people wrong and to show the facts rather than just opinion. Fantastic video, cheered up my day.
You said that proverty dispropotionally is women[and children}, but the fact is Christina, the majority of the homeless are males/men?
+Will Baker That is in the US. I think she said in many poorer countries that was the case. Unlike many spoiled brat US feminist she wants to help all women.
+BuddhaAtheist29 Do you really belive that? Do you really believe that in some place in the world men are richer then woman?
She is just saying that woman are more important then man. Nothing else.
Mauricio zappa The fact that in some places women are not much above property and can't have property by law. Yes I do.
+Mauricio zappa "She is just saying that woman are more important then man. Nothing else." I can only assume you're extremely unfamiliar with Christina Hoff Sommers
Star in the Box trust me she is a feminist. A prudent one. Camille paglia, karen straughan, they are what anti-feminism truly is. I dont see Sommers starting to talk about male disposability.
3:18
Ok, I have to say, I let out the most sadistic, evil laugh upon hearing that. Messing with those loons is so much fun.
Actually Christina, I think you have done a fine job of distancing yourself from the extremists in the movement, considering that you do not tow the party line in regards to rape culture and all the other rubbish we hear from the feminist camp these days. You are a living proof of NAFALT so well-done.
Here's a question that was posed for you on A Voice for Men which I also would like to see you address:
It’s fair enough for there to be a women’s movement, but given the horrors men frequently face that are as bad as what you describe, is there also not a need for a strong men’s movement that looks after the interest in men and boys as well?
As a vehement female anti feminist, I dont mind at all that you hang on to the label. Its what you preach and what you practice that matters.
Personally, I dont call myself one because of the supposed obligation most feminists say I have as a woman to call myself that. Too "Love Big Brother" for me.
Funnily enough, the planet Venus is quite literally a hell. Toxic gasses, extreme temperatures and 24/7 deadly storms. No one in there right mind would ever wanna live on the surface. Lol
Sounds like a nice vacation considering, as a man, I'm from Hell.
Since I'm a gay man, Hell is practically home to me.
"Factual Feminist" is a great name. It differentiates you from just "Feminist".
Wow this gal is pretty awesome! Rock on.
"I think it's hard to say who's better off. It's a complicated mix of burdens and benefits."
Preach!
Actually, in America at least, significantly more men suffer from poverty. Not to mention the fact that about 70% of homeless people are male.
+Jacob Normington I don't think she was saying "there are more homeless women," she was just pointing out that there need to be outlets specifically for homeless women and children.
A lot of homeless organizations are aimed toward either just homeless folks in general, veterans (mostly male war veterans) or other homeless men (which is understandable, more men are homeless). But it's good to have targeted outreach programs for both demographics.
+Lynne the Trendy Tetraodontiforme And this is going to happen for non veteran men when?
+Lynne the Trendy Tetraodontiforme This is also false. There are outlets specifically for homeless women and children. What is lacking or non-existent are outlets for homeless men and their children. Even though most homeless are men, most abuse against children comes from their own mothers or mother's boyfriend and fathers have little to no protection for them or their children. If a father reports that he or his children are victims of domestic violence, it is standard procedure to make the father homeless and leave the children with the abusive mother.
America, the continent, or America, the incorrectly named country?
+Jacob Normington Be wary of statistics. Men make up a much higher percentage of the uncounted "sleeping in the rough" homeless, so the numbers are usually lowered in the way they tally homeless to favor a higher percentage of women.
I admire your belief in your feminism and it's noble to not give it up. This radical feminism right now is sadly overshadowing your genuine cause. You might be the only feminist I support.
I thought that all of this was really great, but men are the majority of the poor and homeless, not women.
I found this:
kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/
Only in the USA tho.
Snacks Lve111
Thank you for showing me this. I made this last year, as you can see, and as I've done further research, I found the statistic that you just posted. It was my mistake, and actually, men just make up the majority of the homeless, not the majority of the poor.
Yes it does have a noble history, but that's just it. HISTORY.
The feminism of today is not the feminism of yesterday.
Atleast not the "feminism" that the media keeps on shoving in my face.
I believe in true equality, and that's why i'm sticking with Equalism.
Well if you want to try a save feminism then go ahead, be my guest. However, as far as I'm concerned feminism is a lost cause, and trying to save it is like trying to refloat and repair the Titanic... it's just not going to happen, that ship has long been sailed and sank.
As much as I like seeing Feminists at jezebel (or wherever) as annoyed as they can get, I just think it's more important to not give them false legitimacy by people such as yourself waving a flag that looks almost identical to the one they're waving. But... that being said, whatever crowd you claim to represent, I guess that doesn't matter as much as your actual actions.
But FYI, your stats on poverty and homelessness are way wrong. I mean, come on, you should know what the true mechanics of these statistics are by now.
Agree she needs to drop the feminist label. Haha. But from what I understood there is a kind of nostalgia and personal attachment to it. As I study feminism, it is becoming clear that it was really never about equal rights, but about sexual revolution. Rights feminists attribute to the movement were actually concessions made by men because as western society evolves, guess what? So do our practices and we stop to analyze our wrong doings. Right to work was never a right, but an obligation. Women started working outside of the home for necessity during war times and as the industrial revolution happened it also changed the economic landscape of our societies. Poor women have always worked. Education was also brutal to boys, and no one can deny that a privileged girl from a wealthy family would be better educated than a poor boy. From texts from one of the earliest feminists, Mary Wollstonecraft the seeds of fluid gender ideology can already be seen since she states her belief that men and women would be equal in their roles and aspirations if only girls were educated the same way as boys. (Claiming female and male differences to be a social construct) Which we know it's not true, but it is still pushed as the "gender is a social construct narrative". In my opinion, the whole feminist movement has always been rotten. I don't believe the movement deserves someone as Christina, even back then, when it wasn't as blatantly nefarious. The only difference is that now their agenda is clearly out in the open, unlike a few decades ago. Reading feminists' works makes this very obvious.
I would say "reclaiming." Although triggering the loons at Jezebel is reason enough for her to retain the label.
While I understand wanting to redeem the movement you grew up in, there also comes a time when you must accept that it isn't what you thought it was, or that it became something you don't agree with anymore. However there is something to be said for pissing off the Jezebel idiots.
I love the balance The Factual Feminist provides. Not only in statistics and logic, but in topic choice. Whether it's education and incarceration rates, or a trending commercial and hashtags.
For the most part, that was the best possible answer you could have given. Kudos to you, Ms. Sommers!
Great video. Glad to see there are some feminists out there who use the term correctly. The world needs more of you. :)
I've actually looked up to you for not giving up the feminist label in spite of what other feminists say and do. It really shows strength to me, a strength that I didn't have.
@ 3:13 This. This is the primary reason I still call myself a feminist. There are others, and this used to be quite peripheral, but in the last five years it has became the ultimate reason. I refuse to be chased out of feminism by a cadre of harpies who frankly are one of the most detrimental forces *towards women* in the west. I am not giving it up without a fight.
I do disagree with some of the things you say, but that is to be expected. Please continue to speak truth to power.
Your videos are amazing. I spread your videos quite often. You are absolutely amazing, and it is so helpful to hear a sane voice among the screaming.
there is like 1k comments so nobody will probably see this but amyways, love your channel. Very good arguments in all of the videos, and i understand that you wont just give up the same movement you fought for in the hope it will change. I do as well hope for this, but under todays circumstances of the movement I will not call myself a feminist
Jøran Ekse there's so many feminist that do acknowledge men’s issues....
I think the Factual Feminist is one of the few people who has the right to claim, "Not all feminists are like that." She has a clear, well-defined idea of what feminism should be, and she's willing to correct other feminists, not just MRAs and anti-feminists when they point out the results of feminism. I still consider myself an anti-feminist, but I respect the Factual Feminist's opinions and the fact that she justifies them, instead of just trying to shame people who disagree with her.
I absolutely love this one! To me this is feminism! What the original meaning and purpose of feminism was. Not whats it's come to be these days where women give themselves special rights and call that feminism. Where is the equality in blaming men for everything wrong with this world? Is feminism not about equality between the genders instead of special rights for one? How can some of these extremist even justify calling themselves feminist when the entire time they bash on the male sex, blame men for oppressing women? I have never felt oppressed by a man and not because they haven't tried but simply because I know I am as capable as them in anything and everything. There's a difference in BEING ABLE to do something, and WANTING to do something. It's what we all set our own minds to do. And if we want something bad enough, ma;e or female, we can achieve it regardless of our gender. That is what equality is. A simple straight line with both genders on the same level. No special lines branching out specifically for women or men. Simple even the entire way through. We humans change it to our own convenience.
This video is literally all my feelings. Thank you so much.
Christina, I only wish you were the standard of what a feminist is today.
One thing I have noticed, when attempting to shed light on the madness you've mentioned, is that many self-proclaimed feminists won't even look at or acknowledge research or observations unless these come from "feminist sources", instantly distrusting anything that lacks the feminist label.
Until such a time when the mainstream culture accepts that there are other groups pushing for equality in a peaceful way, we need people such as yourself Christina to put a voice of logic and reason in place for people who would listen to nothing else.
Thank you for your work. I only hope more mainstream feminists take notice of it and not just those of us who have already been put off by the more toxic people of the current movement.
In a way, it really shouldn't matter whether someone calls themselves "feminist" or no. Good policy analysts look at a topic issue from a variety of perspectives and ideologies and tries to understand the discourse behind all the various opinions, whether feminist, libertarian, pragmatist, liberal, conservative, or whatever. The frustrating part, admittedly, is that it's not really prudent to turn government upside down in order to make some important policy happen, so slow, incremental change is often (but not always) the rule.
I so appreciate seeing a feminist who is willing to give an objective point of view on touchy subjects. My experiences with feminists have been awful in that you can't debate with them. Most feminists go into an argument so steadfast in their beliefs that they quickly exhausted of any points and have to resort to insults or claims of sexist/misogynistic treatment just to escape having to admit they're wrong.
You have to employ a special set of "kid gloves" rules when dealing with feminists. How does that help women feel equal?
I call myself an MRA for the same reason. Men and women both face specific problems and it isn't wrong to focus on one or the other. Just make sure you are not spreading ideas of superiority while doing so
When I first found you and herd you call yourself a feminist I was worried. I checked everything you said carefully and looked everything up. Well you passed all my tests and I found it very refreshing to hear someone other then a white male talk about the same issues I have.
I feel sort of limited by my sex because I'm not taken seriously. Having someone take the "historical" feminist stance that I've always admired is fantastic to me and helps me feel my message is herd by the people that matter the most. Keep it up and don't drop the feminist title! I think what people are really worried about is that you are lending credibility to feminists, but really I think that's hard to do when you spend most of your time badmouthing all the things they do wrong.
Oh finally, you are fantastic. Well educated, well spoken, and not radical. I am definitely subscribing. And I love the fact that you piss off those terrible modern tumblr feminists. Anything that pisses them off is worthwhile.
I'd never call myself a feminist but I'd never stand in your way. As a "feminist" you are a giant among ants. You've got your reasons, and I wouldn't doubt them.
I'd say Cristina calling herself a feminist is worth it just to watch Jezebel get pissed off.
***** Hello there, old friend :)
leo16mmiv Yo. Do I know you?
***** I remember seeing your name and user image a lot. It must have been a long time ago though, possibly on another website, in which case, my user name must have been different. I don't remember exactly when, but I do remember you.
leo16mmiv Oh well that's cool. I've been on youtube for years and years. :P
***** Same :) I mostly lurked since the beginning. I made an account about three years in, but I suppose it wasn't until recently that I really started commenting on videos and contacting other people.
I have only recently discovered your channel & i like (A LOT) what i've seen so far & couldn't agree more that changing something from within is the way to go. Only cowards run away from problems, the true hero's are those that stick around to fight. On a personal note, i've always had empathy towards Feminism until it's take over by the perpetual middle-class, western entitlement SJW's & it's failure to fight the real misogyny that exists overseas & in the very poorest of places.
I have to give you a huge thank you for your work here. I label myself as a feminist and many of my high school piers are extremely quick to point out that feminism is just "crazy man-hating women on their periods" (everything in that phrase is already stupid) and that since I'm what they'd consider "the one good one" that I should drop the label entirely. People seem to forget that the loud minority does not represent the majority or what this movement stands for, and I thank you for pointing out the truth, lies and exaggerations of this movement to clear up confusion. I sincerely look forward to more content from you.
A breath of fresh air and sanity. I thank you Ms. Hoff-Sommers.
0:15 Yes! You brought the intro jingle back!
"It's a complicated mix of burdens and benefits"
If only everybody saw it this way, we would make much faster progress.
While this is by far the best argument I've heard for the feminist label, I still believe that "egalitarian" or "equalize" are better terms, and not because feminism has gained a bad reputation. There are plenty of gender issues on both sides that need to be addressed, and keeping a label alive that caters to one side's issues is not good enough for me. The fact that the men's rights and women's rights movements are so separated is what breeds so many one-sided people in the first place.
Dr. Sommers, let me start bay saying, I love you and your show (and your talks). I was first turned onto you by Milo, and I'm grateful for it. I understand why you call yourself a feminist and of course you are more than welcome to label yourself whatever you wish (you've earned it, and I can't deny I love the spite aspect). I think of you more as a "factualist" only concerned with the truth.
I agree with you that sensationalism and made up "facts" doesn't help anyone, it divides us when we should be working together, and detracts from when there are TRUE issues that need to be resolved (feminist that cried wolf). It's like a breath of fresh air to hear your viewpoints, I love that you look at men and women as a team, not one against the other. Of course, every large group has their bad apples that make the rest of the group rip their hair out and scream, but by in large, I feel that other men like me LOVE women and take NO pleasure in seeing women harmed in ANY way. We love strong, smart, confident women (and yes being attractive doesn't hurt). Most men don't see women as their adversary, we want those women on our team. At the same time, we don't appreciate being labeled as misogynistic, rapists, oppressors, abusers...etc. One can see how being constantly attacked by those labels would make one unsympathetic to a cause (in this case the modern feminism "cause"). So again, thank you for saying what I am feeling. I'm not sure in many circles I would be able to get away with saying the things you do...not to mention you say them much more eloquently than I do. I love you and your shows, as long as you keep making them, I will keep watching.
P.s. As somewhat of a sidenote...I feel I know your opinion well enough that I don't lump you in with what I am about to say...but in general, whenever someone segregates themselves with a label based on a non-intellectual quality i.e. Black Lives Matter, Feminist...etc. My first instinct is NOT to believe that the said person is "fighting for equality", but more their own personal interests. I acknowledge that in many cases, those labels are in direct correlation to a specific concern those people feel needs to be addressed and those people may have the best of intentions. It's not a major gripe of mine, I will still listen to their viewpoints and judge from there, but I admit it puts me off just a little at first. My train of thought is always "in this time when we should ALL be pulling together to fight an injustice...why do you distinguish yourself into a smaller group? ...then act amazed when people treat you differently?"
As a 15 year old boy who has to constantly deal with the real-life tumblrites at my school jumping down my throat for criticising them, i can safely say that I love you and your videos. The immature young women i'm exposed to that use feminism as a badge and shield should take notes from you :)
i call it second wave feminism
UndertaleSkeleBros Jesus finally a comment that is not a year or more years old. Liked it your first like
Equality, on all fronts, is a cause worth fighting for. But you can't make real progress based on manipulation and bigotry. This sort of factual clear representation is refreshing and is exactly what the world needs more of.
This made me laugh along with you, especially the comment about the SJWs at Jezebel! These videos are excellently done and a much needed breath of fresh air in this country where #welivetheonion, and you are a delight to listen to, I'd love to take a class from you or sit down and have a drink and a stimulating and hilarious conversation with you.
Well, you talk about the comments section and how great your comments are and I'm a big commenter. You'll notice that there aren't many comments from me because you said it all. The way you put it is always perfect.
I prefer the term "egalitarian". It's not a hated word in many circles, and also I'm a guy, so I feel the term "feminism" doesn't describe my beliefs and values. Of course, your reasoning makes enough sense, and the "factual" part pretty much negates the typical assumptions around the word "feminist".
It's like asking Luther why he still called himself a Christian even though he had several disagreements with the Church. You hold to the original belief structure, the source, not this muddled, watered down version of hypocrisy. Good for you for standing up. I might say I'm not a feminist, but I do wholly support your stance. (*Edit: it took me ten months to realize I forgot the word "not." ..... Well shit.)
I was involved in feminism in the 70s. It was never about equality. I believed it was, but it wasn't.
I attended a women's rally in 1977 and heard the leader make a speech stating that men were evil and were cause of all the worlds ills. I remember thinking that she was about to get howled down by the equality believing fair-minded women. But she wasn't.
She was cheered.
It was then I realized feminism was a hate group. Later that year, at a feminist education center, things would get very violent for me. I was 9.
"Your comments and questions are great. Maybe the best on the internet." Oh youuuuuu, you charming thing~
Also, I get why you call yourself a feminist. You can't change how people view it for the better if you abandon it. As somebody on the inside, it's important to represent what is still valuable in an idea, even if others try to corrupt it or have a bad view of it. Eventually, hopefully, the bad will be chipped away so that what is good and correct about an idea will remain.
You have described a form of feminism I can support.
Though I sympathize with what is being argued, the argument is about a word, a term, and a highly charged one at that. The word itself, however, being built of "femin-" plus "-ism," is fundamentally problematic when held in light of the idealized definition. We could define any term any way we want, giving a positive emphasis to almost anything, but taking these two elements and joining them together to create the term "feminism" cannot help but be weighted improperly towards an "ideology of femininity." The idealized definition will always be at odds with the word itself. Yes, there is a lot of good that has come from what has been labeled "feminism" in the past, but the good came not from the word.
I love your series. It gives me hope. I have often said I would identify as both a feminist and men's rights actitivist if it weren't for everyone else in those groups. Thank you for reminding me that sane intelligent feminists exist.
If you made a video for people involved in the Men's Rights Movement, what would you say to them?
I say this because you have attracted the attention of Paul Elam, one of the leaders of A Voice For Men (AVFM).
Her: Your comments are great. Maybe the best in the world.
Me: Tell me about it. No, really! Tell me more about it.
[Johnny Bravo]
Thank you for that brilliant reply. I was raised by a 70s feminist and the "Tumblr feminists" (a term I've borrowed from atheist commentors who have faced off with the radials) can often make me ashamed to identify with that term but I was taught what "feminist" really means and I can't say I want to give that up
this is probably the best reason i have heard for someone to still retain the title of feminist even when they knew full well of how it has been tarnished by modern feminism.
i can respect the fact that you want to save it from going down in history as a bad term over the term it use to be which was a symbol of equality and respect no matter your gender.
but to me its a futile act and whether or not it goes down in history admirably or detestably the fact is that gender equality is not really a problem anymore. at least not in the developed world and even in places with less equality i still find something like humanism a far better term because you not simply stopping some horrible act because its against women but because it is against a human being.
its basically saying no matter who you are black,white,male, female it doesn't matter you deserve the same rights as everyone else.
i know you support this and the only disagreement is on the title of the group which does seem a bit silly but if you want people to support your movement i think a title that shows you care about everyone is a much better symbol.
This woman has it right! Please, don't stop what you're doing
Frankly, I don't blame Christina for clinging to her preferred brand of feminism. To see something you've loved and fought for so passionately and for so long become so utterly hateful and so murderously toxic in such a short amount of time has got to sting. It's not easy to jettison such a large part of yourself, especially if you're getting on in years like Christina is.
Hey there. First off, love the videos. I believe the term you were thinking of was Egalitarianism, of which I call myself.
"I'm just not ready to give it up!"
This reminds me of a (not related to feminism) comment from Christopher Hitchens; I think it is in the "four horsemen" video.
" I used to have this when I was young, ongoing arguments with members of the Communist Party. They sort of knew that it was all up with the Soviet Union. Many of them have suffered a lot, and sacrificed a great deal, and struggled, you know, manfully to keep what they thought was the great ideal life. Their mainspring had broken, but they couldn’t give it up, because it would involve a similar concession. But certainly, I mean, if anyone said to me, “how could you say that to them about the Soviet Union? Didn’t you know you were going to really make them cry and hurt their feelings?” I would’ve said don’t be ridiculous! Don’t be absurd!"
I think the analogy is pretty good here - I hope it's clear enough without further context.
Also, I noticed you saying "the world still needs a *women's* movement". Herein lies one of my main critiques of "feminism": is it a *women's movement* or a *gender equality movement*? Many claim it is the second, while in name and practice it appears to be the former. I think the difference is crucial, and is largely why modern feminism is so poisonous: promoting pro-female sexism under the guise of equality. I'd like to ask whether you notice this yourself and/or ensure you are consistent on this?
Thank you for your time.
She should definitely call herself a feminist. She is a role model for young women and in labeling herself as a feminist she is a a shining light of truth in a social environment that is honestly pretty messed up. I respect her a lot. I also respect her courage to staying very sensible in the face of a lot of hostility against many of those with whom she identifies.
I just discovered your series yesterday and I'm already a big fan. :D
I would like to point out one area where women have recently made huge strides based entirely on merit. I love NHRA drag racing. Over the last five years or so we have seen a huge increase in the number of women engaging in and winning national championship drag races. The thing that I really love about it is that the women are competing and winning on a level playing field. Women aren't segregated into a women's league. Women aren't given a head start in the races. These races are completely unbiased and women are making a real name for themselves winning championship after championship. I love to see the ladies competing with men in a fair competition. NHRA drag racing is the best and women are earning a lot of recognition and races.
Dear Christina! Thank you very much for your videos, they gave me so much new information, and most of all, I've realised I have a lot of learning to do in many different subjects, and I haven't really developed my critical thinking enough.
Thank you very much again for making these videos, I'm glad there's people out there speaking out against the kind of feminism that wants to destroy masculinity in men. I very much like masculine men, and I want them to stay :)
I hope you keep on making more and more of these videos and I'll keep on watching them!
Have a good day xxx
I very much appreciate the video Christina.
I have come to believe that a large part of the problem with modern feminism is that young impressionable girls and, to a lesser extent, boys are allowing their personal identities to be built foundationally around the notion of being a feminist.
Clearly the word itself imposes a priority on the betterment of women, or the feminine, above men. And once a person's identity is inextricably bound to that word, and the implied axiomatic notion of womens' victimhood or subjugation, those people will surely be less quick to consider the struggles and issues of inequality from any other perspective.
It can be seen in large city centers, or university towns, that there now exists a very distinct subculture of feminism. There are art galleries, cafes, restaurants, bars, and so on which, while on occasion they have feminist political agendas, more often they simply cater to the *apolitical aesthetics* of the feminist subculture. Feminism now has a style, fashion, music, and art, which again, are all often apolitical in nature, but are associated abstractly with feminism, and work to bolster and reinforce the identity-as-feminist for the entire community by making it broader, and more life-encompassing, even for overlapping communities.
The effect is that there is simply too much invested in people's personal perception of themselves, and their place in their community, in the notion of women being socially disadvantaged in every imaginable way. They cannot take the risk to consider another possibility!
In and around these enclaves, which largely influence all of youth culture nationally, it is completely socially taboo, even viscerally offensive, for people to even suggest that the oft-repeated misinformation of modern feminist dogma is incorrect without being socially ostracized, or even threatened with violence. As a man I often feel threatened or in danger by other men (and hey I am statistically at four times higher risk of being assaulted by a stranger), but I have never felt as frightened as when criticizing fem dogma.
I really think it is time we start to do away with identifying as feminists.
However, if you keep calling yourself a feminist, it makes it way easier for me to point my friends to your work and have them take it seriously. I just wanted to explain my views and experiences on the word, and the subculture that I am surrounded by every day and every moment of my life.
*edit:* I couldn't finish this post without commenting on your statement that poverty roles are disproportionately women and children. Does that somehow not include the homeless? Especially the "invisible poor"? I have never seen any research that shows that men are not the vast, overwhelming majority of the poorest people in the Western world.
Thanks, and keep up the good content!
Recently I went on a reading binge. Some how I found myself reading blogs about "how to raise a proper feminism son". Sadly the major theme is "teach your son to be respectful of their sister becasue trhey are girls." And girls deserve respect full stop. In none of these blogs does anything saying that you should teach your daughter to be respectful towards their brother. They also say "tell thyour son it's okay to show your emotions." yet none of them mention it's okay that he's angry.
Hi, Christina! I was just wondering if you would ever make another feminism-positive video? I know this one has made people happy, just with by your passion. Thank you :)
Hi Christina,
I would first like to say I’m a a fan of your content. Your sensibility, common sense and fact backed presentations are a breath of fresh air amongst what seems to be a world of extremes. I find it reasonable as to why you still call yourself a feminist. To keep this short, I think by now the majority of people view modern feminism as quite petty however, it (even in its shrinking numbers) still holds a large platform. My question for you is, would directing feminists energy onto the mistreatment of women in the third world and or, Muslim countries be a much better use of their resources? If one is to fix a big problem should you not start at where it is at its worst?
My belief is if feminism is to restore its once noble title it must have to achieve a much more noble task. What could be more noble than bringing equality to the far far less fortunate women of the third world? Perhaps you could be the starting point Christina, you have a growing following and great potential to achieve this.
I think the difference between Traditional (for lack of a better word) Feminism and Modern Feminism can be summed up with one word: Empowerment. Traditional Feminism seems to have been about empowering women, telling them they can do what the men do, whereas modern feminism seems to be about disempowering them, telling them they are victims and they need to be afraid.
I've watched enough of your videos, to seriously ask myself that same question.
I'm glad you have made this video.
I personally believe the title of feminist has been poisoned by ill informed people. The word/title cannot be repaired so long as there's mostly ignorant, aggressive, sexist, perverse, disgusting, and overall psychotic people that brand themselves with it.
And it's NOT a club that one can determine "who gets in".
ANY crazy and irrational person can just "join"!
I believe your personal fight to actually be honest, and genuinely about equality.
But you have people hiding under your noble history umbrella. That umbrella being the past meaning of the word "Feminist".
I can't help but feel your battle to repair the name, is a losing one. I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
I laughed at the part where you mentioned the social justice warriors, and what THEY think of you.
That fact alone makes me think:
"Keep calling yourself a feminist. If not for yourself... Do it in spite of those jerks!" *Evil laughter*
Keep doing what you're doing. You're an amazing person! Thank you!
Thank You! Thank you! Thank you! I couldn't agree more with this and thank you for for giving me a RATIONAL voice to relate to!
Thank you so much for your videos. I will share with my daughters when they get older.