Not a bad attitude to have, but also realize that things can just vanish with the snap of the fingers. All that money you saved up can become worthless thanks to inflation, for instance. (This actually happened to a lot of my parents' friends in Soviet Russia in the late 80s) Besides, having kids isn't necessarily in everyone's plans. Some people just want to live the free existence of a moderately poor vagabond. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, and it doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of maturity. No, that's what feminism used to be, a good 40-50 years ago. Nowadays, a quick perusal of feminist "literature" (I use that term loosely here) indicates it's about something very different.
It's not inherently different, when using older definitions of the word "feminist", and working for the goals of suffrage, equal pay, maternity leave, and all that grooviness. However, more modern interpretations and "feminist" arguments strike a shit-ton of people as pseudointellectual masturbation over unimportant shit. Because "feminism", just from the root of the word, suggests a focus on women, using a word like "egalitarian" allows for an expression in the importance of equality without getting bogged down in the "blah blah all pornography is representative of male hatred to women" or "if you have sex with men/enjoy rough sex/want to make a choice that differs from my perspective of what a woman should be, you're enabling oppression or too dumb to know better" bullshit that is spewed by some people who call themselves "feminist". You yourself mention that some people are tainting the definition of "feminism". By not using the term, one removes themselves from the potential taint. TL;DR "feminism" has multiple definitions that may be opposed to each other. "Egalitarianism" does not. I'm an egalitarian. Paternity leave would be fantastic.
The problem is that feminism, like any other organic movement, lacks a clear purpose. Many people who call themselves feminists really mean they believe in true gender equity. But, there is another large segment that only cares about advancing women. Some of the worse culprits are men. Find any "new masculinity" blog, and the first thing you'll see is a post about how to stop violence against women. No mention of the fact that most victims of violent crime are men... But, getting back on topic, the best relationships I've had are the ones where my partner and I have treated each others as equals. I didn't think of her as the product of decades of sexual maltreatment and repression. I thought of her as a person with a personality I enjoyed spending time with, and body parts that liked I playing with. We did have a bit of the mature-women, immature-man dynamic though. Partly because she was a few years older than me. When I hooked up my Nintendo 64, for the sole purpose of playing Mario Kart, she thought I was being immature. I asked her to play a few rounds with me, and being a cool, respectful, nice girl, she obliged. And she freaking loved it. I think the new dynamics are no less masculine and feminine, they just bring out different characteristics. In the 1950s, women valued men for the security they provided, men valued women for the domesticity (also a sense of security). But now, why can't men enjoy women for their brand of level-headed adultness, while women enjoy men for their carefree childishness? I've heard a lot about how women mature faster than men, and this is praised, but you never hear the virtue of men holding on to their youth.
While not an active Feminist I did eat one once, so in some small way I like to think I'm part of the club. I suspect if this woman got what she wanted she wouldn’t want what she got. There's a supercilious tone to the whole article which when coupled with the portrait she chose to accompany it tells me she's already passed her judgement, and men have been judged unworthy. So the quality’s she is bemoaning the loss of are now to be considered “embarrassing”. Fuck.
What's wrong about a large segment of Feminists who only care about advancing women? When did it become the responsiblity of Feminism to advance and champion the rights of everyone in the world who feels oppressed in one fashion or another? I also think that Feminists should defend their turf, so to speak, from people who think they can come up with a way to rationalize anything as Feminist. There's an example in my mind that probably strays into verboten territory for TIB but suffice it to say if anything can be rationalized and anyone can be considered a Feminist then Feminism loses it's meaning. Personally, with regard to the article, I think the opposite of common thought is true: It's not Feminists that're responsible for the cultural backlash against Feminism but the actions of the non-Feminists. I know that might sound contradictory so let me explain. The outcome of the actions of the 2nd Wave Feminists was to eliminate a lot of inequality between men and women; however a lot of women who weren't Feminists or supporters of Feminism enjoyed the outcomes of the Feminist movement but were and are reluctant to relenquish the privileges they had under a Patriarchal system - They still wanted their chivalrous man who would woo them and sweep them off their feet and take care of them if they decided they didn't like being a career woman. I think this is where a lot of the backlash comes from, the women who want both the advantages of Feminism and Patriarchy. The article certainly seems to imply as much. The men the author seems to be decrying may have looked at the results of Feminism allowing women to shed their gender expectations and decided that hey - if the women can shed the expectations of their gender then I guess we can too. Freed from the obligation of working to obtain a good career solely so they can support a wife and children lots of guys decided to reward themselves for all their hard work.
Pish posh and twaddle. Feminists who only care about advancing women are the exact gender opposed versions of the males they denounce. It's a massive double standard. In no way does it make sense to protest something by using the exact same methods to do so. That, at least in part, is directly responsible for the backlash against feminism. It's not the responsibility of any one group to advance and champion the rights of everyone. It is expected, to be fair, that they will champion their cause with at least due regard to not disadvantaging another fair cause. No one, of clear mind, can rightly support a cause that states it wants equality but seeks to do so treating the participants inequitably. Before you state "I didn't say that, I only said "who only cares about..." and didn't mention anything about the way men are treated", or similar, bear in mind that in these matters all relevant things are connected. In advancing one area, there will be consequences in others. To ensure no negative effects, regard must be given to all factors. To only care about one factor, therefore not caring about all other factors, is tantamount to causing detriment to the others that the first is interconnected with when positive change is made for that particular factor. It's like a frickin' seesaw. As discussed, not all feminists are like this. So, direct these comments at femo-nazis or whatever other tag you want to place on them.
Yes, I know, God forbid you take a little time to write and check what you're writing. It might, you know, make you appear credible or smart. Wouldn't want that. As we all know, only people who "type shit out" all day are capable of proofreading what they wrote.
A lot of good stuff in this thread, my apologies beforehand if I rehash. Ultimately, authors such as the one of the particular article in the focus are pushing an agenda. That agenda in this case is an idealized version of what a man should be. While it's perfectly acceptable for her to say 'This is the type of man I want' I part company with her when she attempts to paint men as man-boys. Frankly, authors such as her miss the causation for their dilemma which was 60's feminism. Specifically the sexual revolution and the shift in the idea of what women could be. Let me be clear, feminism wasn't a bad thing, my point here is it had a consequence: By changing the dynamic, women changed men. Here's what I mean. When our grandparents and even parents got married, most of the time, the man moved from his parent's house where mom cared for him to a home with his spouse, where she would take care of the home, cook, clean, rear children, etc. This left men in the position of economic dominance. As women gained more equality (a good thing), and gained financial independence, it was no longer necessary that she marry (and right quick) to sustain her existence. So that leaves men in a different position, namely, they either stay at home (where mom takes care of them) or the learn to do the cooking, cleaning, etc. themselves. What this change in dynamic does is remove much of the pressure to marry young because both sides no longer are as dependent upon the other for their continued existence. The removal of this pressure leaves both men and women in a position where they can pursue their own ends at their leisure. I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. People, whatever their makeup, should be free to pursue their idea of masculinity or femininity in whatever fashion they see fit and stop telling everyone else what they should be.
Completely agree that this is a large part of the "problem," and that the sexes having more independence is a good thing, at least from a moral and ethical standpoint. But, it might still be a bad thing. If we're hardwired to desire certain traits in a mate, and the other sex stops exhibiting those traits, we're all worse off. You have fewer people to be attracted to, and fewer people attracted to you. The part of our brain that processes fairness and justice is pretty advanced. The part that handles getting turned on is still running Caveman for DOS.
How screwed up is that, then, when we look at the reason the other sex stops exhibiting the desired traits? Arguably, people do what they want to the extent that they can get away with it (either according to their own conscience, or within society's parameters). If doing what they want contravenes those desired traits, then is it the case that the dog and pony show of human attraction, by and large, has been a facade based on "fake it 'til you make it"? I think maybe yes, but it's late and my brain is fried.
This strikes me as akin to claiming that the problem with civil rights leaders was that they were inadequately concerned with white folk.
You can't do a "quick perusal" of feminist literature, and get a sense of what it's about. It's unfair to people who spend their lives on this. For the past 1.5 years or so, I've been reading feminist theory in depth; I've read a few books, talked to some people, and I have 6-7 feminist blogs that I read on a regular basis. And you know what? I'm just barely starting to understand the depth of the thoughts people are having. Skimming through a couple of books and pretending you know what feminism is about now is intellectually lazy and unfair. People LIVE THIS SHIT. There's some really high level thought going on, and sometimes it's enough to just to read and listen. Basically all of the best takes on gender I've read come from female feminists. You know why? Because they have to think about it. It's not a diversion or something to be "quickly perused". Man, this really is kind of 101 stuff. Being a woman and being a man aren't equal, and pretending that being explicitly pro-woman is the same as being implicitly anti-man is misleading. Did you ever notice that historically disadvantaged groups require a different sort of activism? Like queer shelters? Or the NAACP? Birthright? There's a reason for that. Look, we all have various degrees of intersecting privilege, but complaining that certain strains of feminism aren't concerned enough with men is the oldest troll in the history of the movement. Also, the vast majority of feminists believe that patriarchy hurts everybody; the same things you complain about in terms of expectations, they abhor too. Comparing high level feminist thought to ridiculous spear-rattling is like watching 20 minutes of Glenn Beck and dismissing conservatism.
Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant by "advancing." When you're in a hole, advancing the interests of your group and pursuing fairness look pretty much the same, as was the case in the civil rights era and earlier feminism. But, some segments of the feminist movement are no longer pursuing gender equity, and are instead just pro-women. For instance, there's a zillion campaigns fighting violence against women. Yet, men are the majority of victims of violent crime (and have a huge margin when it comes to murder). There's very little gender-neutral anti-violence campaigns. Anyways, this is getting off topic.
That's not what feminism is about, though. If feminism becomes so baggy as to include general anti-violence campaigns, well, it could include anything. It's not the responsibility of feminists qua feminists to care about every issue; however, I think you'll even find that the most pro-women feminists (if they're reasonable people) believe that patriarchy hurts everybody. Also, the vast majority of violent crimes against men are committed by men; surely this can't be the purview of feminism except in a broad "we should stop gendered expectations and a lot of these issues would go away" sense.
It actually is pretty baggy already. Feminism, under the campaign of "intersectionality" has started to take over critical race theory, discrimination against the disabled, and even animal rights (I shit you not, seen this on the feminist law profs blog). I agree it's not the responsbility for feminists qua feminists to care about every issue, especially men's issues. It's also not the KKK's responsibility to care about blacks. But, in either instance, it's still wrong to singularly promote the advancement of one group, especially when it is likely to come at a disadvantage to another. Removing unfair burdens = Good. Adding unfair privileges = Bad.
I agree about the bagginess of intersectionality; it's one of the reasons I can't fully identify as a feminist, despite the fact that all of my stances are basically those of a moderate feminist. I'd hate to see "feminist" become a label that communicates no information and is instead just used as insulation against criticism. You think feminism seeks to give women unfair privileges? I don't think there's anything fundamentally about it that does such. I think plenty of feminists have self-contradictory stances, but that's because they're people too, and sometimes people are self-serving and myopic.
This might be worth deleting as we've meandered so far from our original topic, but for what it's worth, the quoted bit isn't necessarily true if the latter group gained the rights/privileges in question illegitimately. If men gained a certain advantage as a result of gender privilege, it's not illegitimate for feminists to argue that such privilege should be abolished. To apply the same logic elsewhere, it wouldn't have been unfair for civil rights leaders to try to remove privileges granted to whites under Jim Crow laws.