Is feminism a dirty word?

The problem with the term 'patriarchy', is that while it's a valid term and patriarchy does exist, it only examines/describes one type of bias in social organization, where it is aimed against women.
The term 'matriarchy' is just as valid, and there are matriarchal biases in social organization too - again, it is limited at just one type of bias.

What feminists/MRA types should focus on, and what egalitarians should already be focusing on (though I'm not sure all do), is intersectionality - this covers all types of bias in social organization, across gender/race/sex/class etc. - everything.

When you look at things from the point of view of intersectionality instead of patriarchy, you see that the issue isn't really about women being oppressed by men, but that the bigger-picture issue, is that those who have power over society, often seem to use that power to divide people and pit them against each other, to distract from and protect their power.

Stoking extremists on both sides of the feminist/MRA divide, and giving them a voice in the media, is an excellent way for creating political distraction, from comparatively 'boring' issues like economics/power/inequality, that affect pretty much everyone, and which having a more intersectional view on this, would put priority on - as it's way more important, and likely ties into a lot of the issues perpetuating bias against different parts of society.

Yurt! wrote: »

'Intersectionality' as a buzzword is another thing that irks me. It's feminism co-opting the struggles of people with far more genuine grievances (asylum seekers, marginalized working class people, LGBT) and developing an equivalence between them. It's a cheap way of lending credence and legitimacy to a tired dogma. If you're a middle class university educated white woman, you are the privileged. Comparing your 'struggles' to some of the above groups is a cheap tactic to wrap themselves blanket of victimhood. If you want to advocate for these people great, but don't compare your status to theirs. The demographic of the average feminist I've typically came across is an extremely privileged one.

I have stood an marched in LGBT events and advocated more times than I can remember, yet this 'intersectional' squaking makes me queasy.

I've seen far too many chauvinist women cloak themselves in feminism as a means to abdicate their responsibilities or seeking a reason and explanation why their life isn't going to plan. In a dead end job? It simply must be the patriarchy, looking within yourself for failings is something many cant do.

Eh? That's exactly what intersectionality isn't - it's got as much to do with feminism as it's got to do with mens rights, gay rights etc..

Yurt! wrote: »

It's a flimsy intellectual buzzword who seek to explain gender relations, biology, human evolution and natural selection and the world in extremely reductive terms.

When I hear someone say patriarchy, I file that person in my brain in the same category as those who talk about chem-trails and the Illuminati. You're seeking a simple overarching pseudo-intellectual solution that explains complex societal phenomena that actually require a lot more thought. And you've found it, its comforting, it requires little deductive reasoning, is impervious to criticism (just cup your ears and shout patriarchy and all the 'misogynists' disagree with you will get bored and go away) and it even delivers a bogeyman to blame: the 'cisgender hetero normative male'.

Patriarchy as a concept is a sacred cow. Unlike other sociological concepts It can not be criticized or questioned, we all must swallow it spoon and all. To do otherwise would undermine the very basis of feminism as a viable movement. And we cant have that can we?

Intersectionality is the exact opposite of your description of patriarchy here, being inclusive of all societal biases, so I don't get your opposition to insersectionality.

Also, people in these threads have a habit of redefining terms to mean something different to what they actually mean: Patriarchy may get misused as a catch-all term or buzzword by some feminists, in a simplified/false way, but its simply the study of societal bias where men (for whatever reason) have greater power and women have less, in certain ways/areas.

Yurt! wrote: »

I've only ever heard the word intersectionality deployed by feminists and it comes out of orthodox feminist thinking. (A quick google reveals surprise, the term was coined by a prominent feminist)

It's another rather meaningless cudgel from the university silo feminist stable.

You're just ignorant of the term and are trying to lump it in with feminism, because for whatever reason, you dislike it - true anti-intellectualism - the origins of its development, don't change the fact that it considers all societal biases, and isn't limited to feminism.