Would it be consistent for feminists to advocate for equal treatment of women, while disregarding marginalized groups like the unattractive?
The underlying principle of feminism is that people cannot choose to be born a man or woman, so we must treat them equally.
If we don’t choose to be born with asymmetrical and disproportionate facial structure and body parts, then why should feminists deny that immutable marginalized condition as requiring intervention to ensure equality of treatment?
- FoofaLv 72 months ago
If their mission statement was to advocate for all the world's downtrodden, sure. But it's right there in the name "feminism". They're here to champion women and women only. There are other groups to work on the causes that affect you...and feminists aren't it.
- robin_lionheartLv 72 months ago
No more inconsistent than the LGBT rights movement doing nothing about the marginalization of Australian aborigines. Other groups are not their focus. Nobody's stopping you from getting involved with two movements, though. You can be in more than one.
"The unattractive" is a poorly defined, inconsistent 'group'. But feel free to join an anti-lookism movement.
Update: No, that's not "why we must treat them equally". If you could be born the sex of your choice, you should be treated equally whatever you chose. Feminism's underlying principle is justice.
- lizLv 72 months ago
Inconsistent perhaps. Although it would be difficult to establish a campaign of support for unattractive people. It could be seen as patronising or offensive and few people would want to say it applies to them because they are unattractive. In the same way, men would not be likely to say they need advocacy for their uglinesss. It’s basic human psychology not to want to call attention to our personal fears and insecurities.
But this is one of the fundamental reasons why feminists go on about objectification. Because women often do feel insecure and we are all more than just our looks. Also what some people call “ fat acceptance “, which is really about acceptance of your body regardless how others see it is aimed at supporting women with these issues. Accepting your own body, warts and all, or body positivity, is a concept that feminists do talk about and these are ways of supporting “unattractive” women.
Your claim that feminists have disregarded “ unattractive “ women is therefore quite plainly nonsense.
- .Jerry.Lv 72 months ago
"Would it be consistent for feminists to advocate for equal treatment of women, while disregarding marginalized groups like the unattractive?"
It is wholly inconsistent for feminists TODAY to advocate for equal Rights for women when they already have had that for their entire lives now. This is the main point of contention to begin with.
IF prominent feminists would tell us the truth ... that they are advocating for radical social change that is in alignment with cultural Marxist values, then we can end the charade of pretending that today's feminism is 100 year old Classic feminism that is needed to lift women out of servitude by emancipating women into agency and giving them basic legal Rights, like the right to vote for example. This is a laugh ... see how dumb it sounds when just reading it?
But at least if the feminist movement was straight with us, then we could decide if we supported them under their new direction. The problem is that prominent feminists are using women as fodder for their radical social change. They don't want to discuss that change, or even have us notice that they use the canard of calling their opponents "sexists", "misogynists" or even "woman haters" when all of their current feminist operations have little to do with actual women's advocacy any more.
UPDATE: This answer is referencing WESTERN FEMINISM as most of us are usually talking about here, unless otherwise stated.