Are people as threatened by civil rights or multiculturalism as they are by feminism?

Question

What is the supposed threat of various forms of human rights, particularly feminism?

Answer 1

"Are people as threatened by civil rights or multiculturalism as they are by feminism"?

I think the word suspicious is more applicable but I would say yes that people are as suspicious of multiculturalism and civil rights as they are of feminism.

"What is the supposed threat of various forms of human rights, particularly feminism"?

1) The belittling tone of the word 'supposed' suggests that there is no threat posed by a minority group. Power, however, is not to just be handed over lightly or without due cause. Feminists want to reshape society. Even with the best of intentions things can go disastrously wrong. Who is to say that once feminism truly gets it's way that they it will just disappear like a memory? It is impossible to say for certain. Who is to say that once anyone comes to power that they will bow out gracefully when there task is done? Simply put there is no guarantee and that is, in my opinion, one reason why people fight against feminism.

2) Waswissgirl is right however that racism is still around though takes on a more subtle tone. However, white people don't have a monopoly on all racism/sexism. I would be interested to see of any studies done that study racism/sexism amongst minority groups. I'm sure they are no angels as well.

3) Another problem that I think some, including myself, see with the modern civil rights movement is with the idea of tolerance. Feminists and other multiculturalists wish to be tolerant. Nothing wrong with that except for one thing. That means that you are going to have to tolerate intolerance in your midst. If you wish to completely eliminate racism/sexism then know that it is impossible mathematically, statistically, and logically. There is no way to do this. Here is where contention comes in. The only way to lower the effects of racism and sexism is to get rid of sexist/racist thoughts in people. No racist/sexist thoughts then you eliminate most racist/sexist actions except for 'accidental/percieved racism/sexism'. However, the only way you can go about doing this is through attempting to control the thoughts of others. Now that flies in the face of tolerance. So it seems that one cannot be tolerant of intolerance and hope to eliminate intolerance. The only way to get rid of intolerance is to seek to control peoples thoughts. Otherwise the behavior will continue to manifest itself covertly. One would have to walk a fine ethical line that I don't think any psychologist would dare touch.

4) Some (not necessarily me) see the modern civil rights movement as unnecessary for two reasons: a) equality, or as close as we can get to it, has been achieved so their mission is fruitless and/or b) activists seek priviledges under the guise of 'equality'.

5) Something that has worried me deeply since I saw it on here was the distinguishing of 'identical' and 'equal' rights. Now I'll give an example of a what some (not me) might consider a non-identical yet equal right. Civil unions give homosexuals the right to 'marry' anyone of the same sex that they see fit. However, the law treats them slightly differently (i.e. they can't marry a foreigner and have their spouse become an automatic citizen). So a feminist might argue that it doesn't treat homosexuals equally. Now there is confusion. If the feminists are right and treatment matters then treatment must always matter across the sexes. Otherwise laws start becoming inane. Potty Parity laws treat men and women differently so, following the logic I proposed, they too would be unequal and non-identical. There are other laws which follow this pattern as well. I think that trying to distinguish identical and equal rights is a dangerous and subversive notion. Such ideas seem to advocate different treatment under the banner of equality. If such is the case, then there is no end to where the laws can go. One could create a law granting white people $500 from the government simply because they are taller on average and require more food. Perhaps one could deny women the right to vote yet grant them the right to hold public office while denying the former and granting the latter to men. One could deny the right to vote to anyone as long as that group has a right of that is of 'equal value' to the right to vote. This can just get silly after awhile. This is linked to the idea of 'seeking priviledges and not rights' idea in that one can grant different right to different groups, some rights possibly favoring those groups, and still call it equality as long as 'equal value' is assigned to both. This also sounds like 'separate but equal' in it's nature.

6) Linked to the above is the idea of 'equal value'. Value is a construct and does not exist in the natural world. There are no tables in existence which grant value to all living things. So who is to say that two laws grant equal value to the sexes? The answer is human beings themselves. Which human beings are doing this? It seems that feminists are. Here is the contention. Some might feel that the rights that feminists are willing to grant men are not of equal value to those granted to women. So who is right? The feminists or those who disagree with them? I think it is the person being granted the rights who is to say whether or not they are of 'equal value' not the person granting them. But this is still a philosophical question to be debated. This is also linked to the 'seeking priviledges and not rights' idea in that one can arbitrarily assign any value to two rights, regardless of whether or not they are in fact equal, and start calling them equal.

7) Feminism seems to ignore others (i.e. men) most of the time. This makes people disillusioned with the idea and thus turn their back on it. Perhaps this is just bad PR though.

8) I think feminism sometimes has confusing goals. Let's take objectification for example. I have heard some on here claim that this is an area where there is still work to be done. Ok granted there may be work to be done here but how much? There is no use in trying to eliminate it as that is impossible which means we are going to have to tolerate some objectification. I know that sounds heartless but we don't live in a perfect world and we must all except this. So how much is tolerable? I don't think civil rights activists have clear goals or at least not goals that are clear enough most of the time.

9) Now I can get to the psychology of mulitculturalism. The irony of multiculturalism is that you are trying to separate people while bringing them together. Thus you are basically just throwing people together while drawing a distinction between them with nothing more than a verbal warning to 'get along'. The world doesn't work that way. If people are to work together they need to have common goals and need to feel like they are all part of the same team. If you begin to differentiate, then this creates and ironic reversal in people's minds where the only thing they are focusing on is the culture/gender of the other person and not the fact that they are a fellow human being. Once they have the idea of all these different cultures in their minds this might exacerbate the racist/sexist tendencies in their heads by widening the gap between the 'self' and the 'other' thus creating more stereotypes and prejudicial behavior in the person. I'd say that that is a threat to society.

10) I put this last because it is a possibility. Perhaps it is the case that those in power now feel less powerful than before. They wonder to themselves where all the power has gone to and when they find the culprits seek to punish them accordingly. However, I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence for this being a widespread phenomena. Instead it seems to possibly effect those die-hard racists/misogynists the most.

That's all. I hope that makes sense.

Answer 2

I think feminism is THE BIG THREAT to a lot of insecure so-called conservatives. Why Hillary Clinton is so abhorred -- a successful, competent woman -- that's against the Bible! (the one that deletes Ruth, Esther, Judith). Kill pussycat kill!

Second only to gay rights, which really gets these folks going. What a horror, to give a homosexual the same rights as a straight person -- as if these categories, like race, had any real meaning. Why, we might actually implement that clause in the Declaration about "all men are created equal". How friggin' unAmerican!

The peabrained male is threatened by the idea that a bright woman's conversation might be more interesting than his, or that he might not be entitled to the next promotion simply because he's a male. The religous nut pretends to great sympathy for the aborted child, but is unwilling to adopt it; the true agenda is sticking one's G*ddamned nose into other people's VERY PAINFUL AND DIFFICULT LIFE CHOICES and violating personal privacy in the interest of telling people what to do. Their insanity can be gauged by the way they swing so easily into violence.

What's really horrible is hearing young women denouncing feminism. Y'know kids, if it weren't for these feminist gals, you'd still be stuck at home knitting, have no jobs except nurse, secretary or teacher... and if you were unfortunate enough to be raped, the attitude of the cops would be, Well, you were asking for it because of the way you dressed... case dismissed.

Answer 3

Civil rights and multi-culturalism are not threats.

But as for feminism, this is an evil, hypocritical, nazi cult. (Sadly, even many of those who still call themselves feminists have not yet got the message. They're still into that "that's not what feminism is about" mode.)

I believe that the founders of feminism, the suffagettes, were sincere people. They were fighting for universal voting rights at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property. But the movement was later corrupted by hate-filled people in NOW and in the women's studies movement. (Read some of Erin Pizzey's books about the ugly way the feminista operates. Erin was a caring and courageous woman who was victimized and had death threats directed against her and her family for standing up to the feminista fanatics.)

I'm an equalist. That means that I believe that men and women are born different but equal, are of equal worth, and are deserving of fair treatment under just laws.

(I believe than equalism will edge both feminism and masculism out of the picture.)

Answer 4

Interesting question and very topically relevant considering the recent 'ban the burka' furore. I think human rights are more important than respecting other cultures. That's not to say we can't do both. The problem arises when criticisms of other cultures are attacked as being xenophobic or even racist. Although I respect most cultures I firmly believe that there are practices that can be described as, and are, savage and oppressive. While it's no ones job to tell other people how they should live it is humanity's duty to prevent such things as, for example, pharaonic circumcision (female genital mutilation often performed without anesthetic because the vagina offends virtue). I think it's important that when any given culture is transposed from one body of law to another that the culture is given the freedom to continue being practiced but within the boundaries of the body of law to which it has moved.

Answer 5

I'm nowhere near as concerned about misled versions of civil rights or multiculturalism. They aren't a threat to a peaceful house, a bank account, or a man's heart like a misled feminist or an opportunistic woman who benefits from misled feminism.

Answer 6

No not at all. People assume that if your anti feminist that your sexist or racist but that simply isn't the case. A lot of people would just prefer to work on civil rights and equality as a whole rather than focusing on one group. I prefer egalitarianism to feminism.

Answer 7

I think it's not as socially acceptable to be "openly" racist (we still are, we just know not to say it openly). Racism is alive and well, in spite of what whites say about it (btw: I'm white).

It is still more socially acceptable to be openly sexist and still very socially acceptable to be openly homophobic. Women are still devalued by many parts of our society, such as conservative politicians, conservative religious groups, and "traditional" family proponents. Men are still pressured to "act like a man" (whatever that means).

Why does it matter that it's still okay to mock and ridicule and harass gays? Because it's a common tactic to say that any woman who is acting _________ must be a man-hating lesbian. And it's also a common tactic to call any man who supports feminism or equality a homosexual. As long as it is "fun" to call people "gay" or a "les", homophobia will be used to inhibit both men and women from doing anything not deemed "appropriate" by conservative members of our society, and those that support their views.

Answer 8

People who supposedly support civil rights and multiculturalism can still be misogynists, because that's just politics. Their issues with women and "mommy" cut right to the core of their being. It's rooted in childhood and too deep for them to consider logically .

In the words of John Lennon "Woman is the N**ger of the World."

Answer 9

The "threat" is that things will change, and that some folks won't like the change. Some people are happy with the way things are, particularly those who have not been personally affected by prejudice or discrimination. These are people who don't understand what it's like to be on the opposite end of things. I think it's inherent in human nature to fear the unknown, and to strive for major sociological or political changes can result in entering territory that is unknown. For those who see no need for change, or who do not want to be affected by it, it can be a "scary" thing.

Answer 10

You know, I fully support the black civil rights movement, I fully support eliminating classes in society by providing things like public education and I think multiculturalism is great.. I have so many great friends from other cultures.

Feminism though sucks. You also look foolish flattering yourself when you say people are 'threatened' by feminism, it's about as threatening as allowing a horse to vote. It's just not a very good idea and unlike civil rights and multiculturalism, just doesn't work out.