Where Is The Line?

Here's a relatively new and strangely controversial topic for me: sexism/feminism. I'm going to start be giving my personal position on the spectrum of FEMINIST - CHAUVINIST. Personally, I'm nowhere. I don't use terms like feminist because, to me, feminism doesn't exist. It's a broad claim to make, but here's my reasoning. Feminism WAS a thing, but I believe that it, much like the punk ideology, has been dead for a long time. See, it was about equality with males back when it began. Since the women were so oppressed, it was a revolution, a movement to bring the female status to the same level as the male status. Undoubtedly, to some, that's what it still is. The reason I say the concept of feminism is dead is because of all the stretching and tugging that's been done to it. Now, I'm in support of gender equality. In that sense, some might call me a feminist. But it seems to me that feminism is a bit like a tree. It was a trunk, but as you go higher and higher (and time goes on and on) you hit branches, and now you're just at a shitload of divergences. However, the trunk ends. That's what's happened to feminism. Now that the gap between male and female is so close to being bridged, it's become more difficult to determine where the line is between equality and female superiority. 

I don't want to come off as one of those guys that says feminism is unfair. It's just that over the years, especially with the rise of the internet and Tumblr, it's too common to see "feminists" who are pretty much preaching the destruction of males. It's also a bit like Christianity. While the core basis is the idea of believing in God and Jesus Christ, there are so many different people doing different things under its label that it becomes hard to distinguish what it truly means to be Christian. You have Westboro Baptist Church, for example, who brandish hateful, anti-Semitic and anti-gay flags in the name of God. So to me, feminism seems to have stopped being about achieving this goal, and become just a clusterfuck of different people doing different things under its label. Some good, some bad.

One thing that strikes me, is the idea of the friendzone. See, it all really started as an internet joke. Another callback to punk here, I'm sorry, but many jokes on the internet were created as a way to offend certain people. Just like punk did in the '70s, these jokes were supposed to bait people into hating them, all for the sake of pissing people off. Friendzone was one of those things, a joke created by random people which would cause a stir. Whether they believed it or not, it was a joke on the internet. After a while, it became a highly debated topic between feminists and randoms. Many people, predominantly males, put across the point that girls often complain about never finding nice guys to date, but turn them down when they appear. Feminists counter that it's not a girl's responsibility to date a guy just because he asks, and has treated her like a human being. In my opinion, it's a concept that's been half-thought up and nobody even knows what the fuck it means. 

My interpretation is that it's a guy who gets to know a girl, likes her, decides to ask her out then gets turned down purely because he is too nice and she doesn't want to risk their friendship. This response is understandable and certainly wise. However, as previously stated, males often dislike it because the same girls sometimes complain about the lack of nice guys available. The understanding many feminists have is a case of a guy liking a girl, and so treating her nicely with the intention of asking her out in the future, and then guilting her if she declines.

Needless to say, there's a stark contrast in these ideas. Which brings me to my long-winded point: it's a pointless argument that's being focused on WAY too much by everyone. Much like this post itself, things like the friendzone take up a lot more space than necessary, when there's a greater point to be made.

Due to the internet, feminism has lost its way. While it was about equality, it's quickly morphed into a bizarre mass of contradictions and faux superiority. It seems to me that the internet has caused insignificant things such as the friendzone to appear much more important than they are. If feminists want to ever truly bring about enough change to level man and woman, it's not going to happen by putting all their effort into arguing pointless shit like friendzone. Feminism has become less about ultimate change, and has instead become an exclusive club, where people sit behind computer screens and debate semantics. Step outside the internet, and look at the whole scene. People arguing over an internet joke. Internet jokes are just stupid, irrelevant pieces of code. Arguing about them won't do anything except make the trolls posting them giggle as they get what the reactions they seek.

I should add a disclaimer. Like I said before, I'm not against feminism. I just don't believe it's either trying to do or doing what it was intended, which was to change things. It's now sort of just a police force against any slightly sexist internet jokes. 

I think that, if you're as devoted to bringing about the desired change as you put across in your arguments, you should probably shut down the computer and do something different. Something that isn't being done by half the white females in the world already. Internet arguments, no matter what the topic, are pointless. They're good for a laugh when it's Matt Mreulje or Jesse Marguglio, but that's about it. You won't change any minds through it. Instead, we need actions.