Welcome to Gaia! ::

Feminism is about equality of the sexes. That we, to a large extent, now have that equality doesn't mean feminism is dead or over, it just means that it is the norm. And frankly, tearing down men is, I feel, counter to the values of feminism. (Having said that, there's a lot of variation within feminism and a lot of different types of feminism.)

If you have a problem with the lecturer, complain to someone in the university.

I don't really have much of worth to say, except that I wholeheartedly agree with you. By blaming one colour of skin for the horrible things that go on in the world, we are only encouraging racism.

Also, I'm a feminist, but not one of those man-hating feminazis that go around saying that they're better than men. I believe that we are equal, for both sexes have strengths and weaknesses.

OP: I forgot to mention, while your lecturer seems a bit warped, it's also possible that you're not really aware of your privilege. There are articles on male and white privilege on wikipedia, though their neutrality is disputed, so take from them what you will.



Because it started as a movement for women's rights. It's about equality, but to get that equality, feminine rights were what needed to be fought for. There are still places in the world that are not gender-equal.... well indeed, many places are not gender-equal.

Check out this study on gender equality. They - that is, the World Economic Forum - measured the gap between genders in five key areas:
1. Economic participation
2. Economic opportunity
3. Political empowerment
4. Educational attainment
5. Health and well-being

Out of 58 countries, the USA came 17th.

Wikipedia adds:


It's not really a philosophy. It's a movement. Many movements, really.

@Sanguina Cruenta: I get it, I think. Still, I think it's a bit ironic razz

I've heard of this privilege argument many times, but also a great deal of the opposite claim in the very same movements of feminism and racism- Namely, that studies show that people of equal economic standing will have equal rates of crime and success regardless of race. This means that being white is NOT a privilege since anyone of any race is equally privileged depending not on their race, but on their economic standing. This is clearly not a systemic, systematic conspiracy to hold down a race, it is a flaw in the core of our economic system that basically ensures that the poor stay poor.

Also, one such privilege is supposedly seeing only or primarily white people in the media- However, in another article I read by another author in defense of this concept cited a source that essentially said "any instance of a person of color being shown could be seen as racist, regardless of context"- For example, the idea of "the character is only doing that because he's being typecast as a black/jew/arab/gay", which would be extremely hard to dispute regardless of the context or actions of the character. They called a white guy helping a black guy as a "sign of dominance", and then when the black guy helped the white guy, it was "reinforcing the idea of black people as mammies". So essentially, the argument here is that showing any race other than whites can be seen as racist. At the same time, the authors argue that casts of actors are largely white. They need to make up their mind- Do they want people of color to be shown even though they will call anything done by the people of color racist on the part of whites, or do they want only white people in the media?

"in the black" is a good place to be.

look how many country singers wear black! especially Johnny Cash, "the man in black."

"black tie" is elegant dress.

"little black dress" is a popular wardrobe staple for a night out.

and black can also mean "unadulterated" as in black coffee. a friend tells me "i like my men like i like my coffee, black, strong and hot."