/lit/ - Literature

>>5293974
What you (hopefully) define as feminism is the struggle for equal rights for men and women, which in itself is a noble cause.

What the term "Feminism" has come to mean to a lot of people today, is pic related. Where the struggle is no longer against laws forbidding women to vote, get certain jobs or do certain things, but to actively search for anything that can be called "sexism" and demonize it.

When people express opposition to Feminism, it is not the idea of women being of equal worth or deserving of equal rights as men, but opposition against ideas such as "women can have penises and disagreeing is offensive", the need for "trigger warnings" on books, the idea that traditional pronouns are in themselves sexist, against the idea that there is a male conspiracy actively working to keep women down, etc.

Feminists complain that not enough women are CEOs but how many of these feminists have actually tried to become a CEO in any company? The amount of women applying for certain studies that tend to lead to powerful positions within businesses (STEM, usually) is significantly lower than men. Is this because there is some invisible male hand preventing them from applying? If that was the case, why would the feminists themselves, apparently aware of this and seeking to fight it, apply for "gender studies" instead of business management?

When feminists argue that there should be a set % of women in positions of power, in business or in politics, are they not saying that discrimination is right? Should the more qualified person lose the job because he's a he and not a she? Wouldn't a truly equal system ignore the applicant's gender? Maybe I've not paid enough attention, but I've never seen feminists argue that name and gender should be hidden from a job application, just that women should get jobs on the basis of being women.