It seems that, whenever I see something posted on Facebook about feminism, there are a lot commenters who seems to be rather opposed to it for various reasons. This is something which really quite confuses me, I certainly find it to be a very agreeable movement and do indeed consider myself a feminist, but it seems that the majority of people have some false beliefs about feminism and have objections to it that are really not valid at all (that is, assuming that these comments are an accurate reflection of common consensus, which they indeed may not be). So for today's blog entry I'm going to write out each of the objections I've come across and then write a rebuttal to each of them.


1. Feminists are just women who want female supremacy.

This is wrong in two ways. First, it assumes that feminists are all female and, second, it assumes that it's about giving more power to either one of the two sexes. Feminism is about equality of the sexes, that's pretty much the very core of it and to suggest it's about favouring women is plain wrong. In fact, feminists do indeed try and help males as well in the areas where they are at a disadvantage. For example, in divorces cases, the child is more often than not given into the custody of the woman than the man. 70% of the time, the woman is given custody of any children after a divorce, simply because the law favours her as a 'mother' and therefore as a better parent. Feminists are therefore against this as, clearly, men and women are not treated equally here.


2. In the past when women were treated unfairly, feminism was needed, but now they're equal and it's just pointless.

Anyone who believes this to be true has either a naive or oblivious outlook on things. No matter how you look at the facts, men are still treated better than women. There are small examples of this, and big examples. For a small example, I bet you can't spend a day browsing the internet without coming across a silly 'make me a sandwich' or 'stay in the kitchen' joke like this (these jokes don’t have a male equivalent). For a big example; even today a woman who does a job will probably be paid less than a man who has the same job... Which is absolutely shocking, really.


3. Women say 'sexist' things about other women too, so how can it be sexism?

This is, perhaps, one of the silliest arguments. Now, let's take the argument of 'sluts' for this one. It is sexist and anti-feminist to call somebody a slut because it is a word which is inherently connected to a double standard against women, namely the old "If a woman dresses suggestively and has lots of sex, she is morally corrupt, whereas if a man does it, there's something wrong with him" when, really, so long as the sex is conducted nice and safely, what on Earth is wrong with two consenting adults having sex together? Absolutely nothing. Yet a woman who has had lots of sexual partners will be criticised for being a 'slut'. The argument against this is that other women are probably just as likely to call a woman a 'slut' as men might be and so therefore it isn't sexist. But that's wrong; women can be sexist towards other women just as men can! Just because you are a member of a group, it doesn't mean that nothing you say can be offensive towards the other members.


4. Feminists are just sensitive. Everybody gets insulted about things; they're just making a fuss about it.

Well, as I mentioned before, feminism isn't just about insults, jokes and the language, women are, on average, paid less than men for the same jobs (and here's another source for that). And there are lots of other examples too, for example, street harassment. The Twitter page EverydaySexism is completely full of Tweets from women who have had creepy, sexual, objectifying things shouted at them on the streets or who have, in worse cases, been physically touched or grabbed by random men. I would absolutely hate it if I came across things like that directed at me on a regular basis, and it's another clear example of how women are not equal in our society. From the point of view of the men who do this, it's perfectly fine, because that's just the way they view women as a result of the sexism in our society. This is something I've observed in real life too, several female friends of mine have given me anecdotal stories about it, so it is clearly something that affects a very large number of women.
    I also see this brought up quite often too, only to be followed with a point along the lines of "Well, a lot of women are asking for it!" which, again, is a very sexist comment and, in fact, is quite damaging to both sexes. It suggests that, when a woman is wearing a revealing outfit, a man is suddenly relieved of all responsibilities and transformed into a lust powered beast that can't control or be held accountable for whatever comes out of his mouth (which, no man ever is). It's basically the same as if a school bully said "Well, it's not my fault I beat up Dwain, he was answers all the questions in class, he was just ASKING to be hurt!" when somebody does something to somebody, they are responsible for it; it is never the other way around.


So, I hope that clears up any misconceptions people may have about feminism, and that it was also, at least, slightly interesting!

This book is a non-fictional philosophical work in which Jean-Jacques Rousseau sets out the ways in which he believes a state should be correctly run. Interestingly enough, it was one of several things which sparked off the French Revolution.
    In the book, he discusses the different types of government and the way that each of them would work best. You can see, at several times, that he is rather critical about the way most monarchies tend to turn out. While it is nice to hear what he has to say about monarchies, today the criticisms are quite dated since the idea that somebody has a 'God given right' to rule a country is pretty much discarded by most of the western world.
    On the other hand, some things Rousseau has to say are still very important in today's world. For example, there is one point where he talks about dictatorships and how they are sometimes necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the state and its people, which is rather interesting.
    Furthermore, as well as containing philosophical ideas, you can also learn a little about history in this book. There is a particularly good chapter where he discusses the formation of Rome and its early days. He also will often back up his arguments with examples from history.
    The best part of the book, for me, was a lengthy chapter at the end where he discusses the role that religion plays in the politics of many states.  To put is very basically, he says that all religious views should be accepted, aside from those which are intolerant of other perspectives. He says that it is quite damaging to a state when intolerant views are allowed to grow within it. He argues from a Christian perspective and says that true Christians should have no objection to people believing/practising other belief systems and should definitely not preach that they will be condemned to Hell for them. Weirdly though, he says that this ‘true Christianity’ existed in the past, whereas it seems to be more of a modern evolution of the religion.
    On the whole, this book is definitely worth reading, but it does have a few flaws. As well as the fact that a few of his points now seems somewhat dated, the older language style occasionally makes reading slightly hard, and there are also a couple of chapters which are really just a bit boring.
    Rating: 7/10

(buy it here)

(I do not own the copyright of the cover image)

While I haven't been keeping up with it very well, you may remember that I have the challenge of writing more blog entries on philosophers and countries than my friend’s blog, The Kite Still Flies. Last time I did Socrates and I said that I would probably do Plato next and so that's exactly what I'm doing now!
    The name Plato actually means 'broad shoulders' and I like to think that that wasn't his name at all. It amuses me to think of him meeting people at Ancient Greek parties and such and saying to them "Hey, my name's Broad Shoulders" when really he had a really ridiculous name. But, anyway, that's a little bit of a silly tangent. His name isn't very important, though it is the source of the word 'platonic'.
    At the centre of all of Plato's writing is one person: Socrates. Socrates was Plato's teacher and friend, and so Plato was, quite understandably, pretty sad when he was executed. As such, Plato wrote down all of the ideas which came from Socrates, and he did this in the form of dialogues. These dialogues were always pieces of writing where some philosophers would have a discussion with Socrates; Socrates brings up his point of view, and then verbally destroys all of their counter-arguments. The Socrates of these writings was also used as a mouthpiece for Plato's own ideas. Strangely enough, despite the fact that some of these dialogues may well be based on real discussions, Plato is never in them himself, and sometimes they stop and say "Hey, where's Plato?" and somebody will just say "Oh, he's down at the gym working out" or something like that, and then they'd just carry on.
    The most important of Plato's philosophical ideas, or at least the best known, is that of the World of Forms, or the Intelligible Realm as he called it. Plato basically argues that there is a higher plane of existence where there is a perfect version of everything and that this is the place where human souls come from. Everything in the real world is a shadow of something in the Intelligible Realm and is not really worth studying (art, he says, is a shadow of a shadow, and so worthless). He believes that this exists, because if somebody is asked to picture, say, a chair, they will be able to do so and this is the perfect chair. He says the reason they can picture it, is because they can remember having seen it before their soul came to Earth, we never learn, merely remember. The most important thing in the Intelligible Realm is the Form of the Good, which is basically perfect morality. Through philosophy, says Plato, we will learn about the Form of the Good. Many believe this to have been inspiration for Christian ideas of Heaven and God.
    So that's an outline of Plato. It may also interest you to know that the legends of Atlantis stem from Plato's writing, or at least, that the earliest mention of Atlantis comes from him. It's generally accepted that he just made it up though. When I get round to it, the next philosopher entry will be on John Locke.