Yall will hate me for this post

Tbh I would think feminism would actually be a good thing for men.

I'd rather support egalitarianism as it advocates for the rights and social equality of everyone without a bias. It treats people as people when gender isn't directly involved - as it should be.


I don't think any sort of gender focus is good for genders that are not that gender unless there's a cause to be fought for said focus-gender. It wasn't good for women in the past, and it's not going to be good for non-feminists now. And I use that phrasing deliberately, as not all women are (modern) feminists.

Feminism formed to gain all the basic rights for women when they didn't have them. Since then that goal has been achieved. Per law, women and men have the same rights in the vast majority of the first world. That's not to say feminism in unnecessary now - there's a lot of places in which these basic right are yet to be obtained.

However, out of a lack of unified focus the feminist movement has fractured into many groups of different, and sometimes apposing- ideals, many of which quite oppressive without realizing it (even towards women themselves,) holding a strong 'with us or against us' mentality.

That's not to say all feminist are like that- or hold those ideals, but to say feminism as a whole is good for men (or all women for that matter,) when so many parts of it are skewed and warped, I feel is a bit of an oversimplification.
 

Megaten

Well-known member
That's not to say all feminist are like that- or hold those ideals, but to say feminism as a whole is good for men (or all women for that matter,) when so many parts of it are skewed and warped, I feel is a bit of an oversimplification.

Well Im not saying im the expert or representative of Feminism. To be honest I dont know a lot about it other than the complaints Ive heard and the few friends I have (that I met on here) that are Feminists. And they struck me as the least judgemental women Ive ever met. And then Ive met quite a few that are not Feminists that have gotten on my case for things that that guy mentioned in the Facebook tirade (ie video games, not being married, living with parents). But anyways I see that its like so many other "groups" and have people in it that are bad and good. So Im guessing feminists would get on my case for those things too if I ran into the right ones. I dunno, this whole affair is incredibly depressing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Odo
Well Im not saying im the expert or representative of Feminism. To be honest I dont know a lot about it other than the complaints Ive heard and the few friends I have (that I met on here) that are Feminists. And they struck me as the least judgemental women Ive ever met. And then Ive met quite a few that are not Feminists that have gotten on my case for things that that guy mentioned in the Facebook tirade (ie video games, not being married, living with parents). But anyways I see that it like so many other "groups" have people in it that are bad and good. So Im guessing feminists would get on my case for those things too if I ran into the right ones. I dunno, this whole affair is incredibly depressing.

Oh but I didn't mean to imply you were, I was just addressing a slight pet peeve I have with desire for fairness and social equality being defined as a strictly feminist value, while it's first and foremost an egalitarian value.

For example, your non-judgemental friends, while not mutually exclusive, most likely lean a lot more to being egalitarianism than feminism, but aren't aware of it due to how extremely convoluted and confusing norms, values and ideals have become.

Case in point, I myself was convinced I was a feminist before I started taking notice of some unacceptable things done in the name of feminism.

But they're all broad descriptive terms in the end - it's just that one has more negative (possible individually inaccurate) connotations assigned to it than others. Ultimately it comes down to what people's individual values are, and what they do with it. Nobody is going to be a hundred percent of anything, it's all a huge gray area.
 

Odo

Banned
Oh but I didn't mean to imply you were, I was just addressing a slight pet peeve I have with desire for fairness and social equality being defined as a strictly feminist value, while it's first and foremost an egalitarian value.

Feminists support gender equality-- all feminists are egalitarians. Social and economic equality are also egalitarian goals, but feminists don't necessarily concern themselves with that.

The people saying otherwise are usually those opposed to egalitarian ideals. They're conservatives, big-L Libertarians, etc... so they like lumping all of their enemies together under a single banner-- liberals, so******ts, feminists, environmentalists, etc. In fact, I'm convinced that Rush Limbaugh has probably played the biggest role in defining feminism for the mainstream.

Usually people will gravitate towards the simplest, dumbest definitions of a thing so that they don't have to put too much effort into their judgment calls. After they've written it off and invested their time and energy in that opinion, they're pretty much deaf... which is the whole point. Explaining the wide array of feminist perspectives to the general public would just irritate them and demand too much of their time and mental energy, and it's much easier to just tell yourself you've got it all figured out and hate these things without understanding them.

I have noticed that feminists get a very special kind of hate, though... not even people who sincerely think that poor people should be sterilized get the same level of hate. It's shocking, actually.

Feminism is at its core an egalitarian movement. It's not female supremacy. Maybe every single idea that every single feminist has ever had isn't necessarily the best way to service that philosophy, but it doesn't change the movement's core principles.

Case in point, I myself was convinced I was a feminist before I started taking notice of some unacceptable things done in the name of feminism.

Who cares what's being done 'in the name of feminism'? So everyone who identifies as a feminist is responsible for the actions of everyone else who identifies as one?
 
Last edited:

Odo

Banned
Divide and conquer.

It's as old as time.

We all play into it unless we realize we are BEING played *angry face*

Or maybe people just genuinely can't agree.

I've never been a fan of this whole 'we're all being played' narrative. Usually once someone says 'you're all being played', the next thing out of their mouth is something along the lines of 'you should all do what I want you to do'.

It's the classic third party stance, and while the prospect of a political overhaul has its own appeal, the reason third parties have this stance is because they know they will never actually have to answer for it.
 
Feminists support gender equality-- all feminists are egalitarians. Social and economic equality are also egalitarian goals, but feminists don't necessarily concern themselves with that.

Feminism isn't a movement with a leader nor a consensus. It consists of many individuals that each have their own incrementally different view on what feminism is and should be. So forming a very wide spectrum ranging from admirable goals like the egalitarian values, to frankly deplorable ones like putting biased limits on who's ideas we can criticize/disagree with, actively limiting free expression.

The people saying otherwise are usually those opposed to egalitarian ideals. They're conservatives, big-L Libertarians, etc... so they like lumping all of their enemies together under a single banner-- liberals, so******ts, feminists, environmentalists, etc. In fact, I'm convinced that Rush Limbaugh has probably played the biggest role in defining feminism for the mainstream.

Usually people will gravitate towards the simplest, dumbest definitions of a thing so that they don't have to put too much effort into their judgment calls. After they've written it off and invested their time and energy in that opinion, they're pretty much deaf... which is the whole point. Explaining the wide array of feminist perspectives to the general public would just irritate them and demand too much of their time and mental energy, and it's much easier to just tell yourself you've got it all figured out and hate these things without understanding them.

No offense, but this is a stereotype in and of itself. It discredits an enormous amount of people based upon nothing but disagreeing. Opinions need to be evaluated on merit, not sides. This goes both ways.

Feminism is at its core an egalitarian movement. It's not female supremacy. Maybe every single idea that every single feminist has ever had isn't necessarily the best way to service that philosophy, but it doesn't change the movement's core principles.

Feminism is per definition a egalitarian movement. However, reoccurring actions and ideals in relative time define core principles. Those include those exhibited by radical and militant members when it concerns a collectivist movement. Especially when the latter gain traction in their endeavors.

Who cares what's being done 'in the name of feminism'? So everyone who identifies as a feminist is responsible for the actions of everyone else who identifies as one?

Not responsible, but considering how they're descriptive terms for ideals/goals (defined by the movement) it's generally good practice to not define yourself by terms that are inaccurate. For me they weren't accurate.
 
Last edited:

this_portrait

Well-known member
Feminists support gender equality-- all feminists are egalitarians. Social and economic equality are also egalitarian goals, but feminists don't necessarily concern themselves with that.

Disagree. So many of them have this nonsense idea that equality is about tearing one group down to raise the other up. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

And as far as economic equality goes, they do concern themselves with it. So many of them get behind enforced quotas for businesses and still shout the pay gap myth that's been debunked so many times. Unless they want to start forcing women to work more hours, not have kids, not take many days off, etc., then there is still going to be that .78/1.00 across ALL jobs for ALL working women and men.

Many have demonstrated hypocrisy where they expect men to pay for everything and take care of them, even though they're supposed to be all independent and empowered.

The people saying otherwise are usually those opposed to egalitarian ideals. They're conservatives, big-L Libertarians, etc... so they like lumping all of their enemies together under a single banner-- liberals, so******ts, feminists, environmentalists, etc.

Feminism has a lot in common with Marxism. It's practically a gynocentric version of it. Are there different branches of it? Yes, there are, and with the exception of choice or individualist feminism, I take issue with all of them.

You talk of how people lump feminists all together (even though from what I can tell, almost no one in this topic has done that), and yet you just lumped all those first groups together.

I have noticed that feminists get a very special kind of hate, though... not even people who sincerely think that poor people should be sterilized get the same level of hate. It's shocking, actually.

I often hear feminists whine about how they're a marginalized fringe movement, but they're not. THEY ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT. Politicians who follow the ideology are in power, the groups have access to government money, they dominate the media... They are behind much of the kangaroo courts that have been forming on college campuses. People are sick of them, frankly. I think what might fuel that hate is the stat that those who identify as a feminist in the US are a minority (18%). Obviously they don't all deserve the contempt, but unfortunately not everyone judges by individual first.

Feminism is at its core an egalitarian movement. It's not female supremacy. Maybe every single idea that every single feminist has ever had isn't necessarily the best way to service that philosophy, but it doesn't change the movement's core principles.

Well, the establishment and all the academics and spokespeople for the movement don't give that impression. Like I said, you cannot tear down one group in order to raise the other up. Rather than focus so much on equal OUTCOMES, they should focus on making sure everyone has equal OPPORTUNITY. Hell, if we're going to talk about equality of both genders, men actually have less legal rights than women do.

Who cares what's being done 'in the name of feminism'? So everyone who identifies as a feminist is responsible for the actions of everyone else who identifies as one?

No one is saying that you are responsible for the actions of the nutjobs (and if someone is, that's their own problem). It does matter what these people do "in the name of feminism," though, because many of them have power and influence. It's not just a bunch of stupid kids on Tumblr. The more vitriol they spew out, the more people they alienate. No one wants to be a part of a group if the one running it is an authoritarian *******.

If people want to believe that feminism is about egalitarianism, that's their choice to make. No one's stopping them. If they actually practice what they preach and do in fact advocate for equality, I have no issue with them. And as long as they don't give an attitude to those who refuse to take on the label (that was one of the very first things that turned me off to them; I've never seen a group make such a big deal over a label before).

Even though I disdain the ideology, I do not automatically hate all feminists (in fact there are some I like). If I meet one in person (not too common), I give them a chance before automatically branding them as the same gynocentric Marxist who buys into patriarchy theory and fosters a victim mentality; unfortunately, most of the time my initial judgment is proven right.
 
Last edited:

PugofCrydee

You want to know how I got these scars?
I had no idea there were so many dinosaurs in this forum. But what doesn't surprise me are social phobic men directing/blaming their issues on females, that seems a pretty common trait.

The biggest problem with feminism is that those women have the biggest double standards and want their cake and to eat it too.
 

MollyBeGood

Well-known member
Or maybe people just genuinely can't agree.

I've never been a fan of this whole 'we're all being played' narrative. Usually once someone says 'you're all being played', the next thing out of their mouth is something along the lines of 'you should all do what I want you to do'.

It's the classic third party stance, and while the prospect of a political overhaul has its own appeal, the reason third parties have this stance is because they know they will never actually have to answer for it.

I hear you that people are bound to disagree, which is normal but when we are being force fed through all of the media out lets and advertising that we should behave this way or that how can you not see an agenda at work?

I say we are being played and because we need to be smart enough to read between the lines with the way we are being presented with only certain things- like it is known now for example all the major news stations are all given the same exact news stories to report to the entire country. Do you think that is a mistake? So when they all show the same story about a group protesting against abortion to everyone in the US on the 5:00 news for example, do you not see an agenda at play?

Our movies are the same. Our advertising is the same. There is a major control system at work to get humans to behave a certain way. Feminism falls under the same program. Example here:
"Torches of Freedom" was a phrase used to encourage women’s smoking by exploiting women's aspirations for a better life during the women’s liberation movement in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men. The term was first used by psychoanalyst A. A. Brill when describing the natural desire for women to smoke and was used by Edward Bernays to encourage women to smoke in public despite social taboos. Bernays hired women to march while smoking their “torches of freedom” in the Easter Sunday Parade of 1929 which was a significant moment for fighting social barriers for women smokers.

Social Engineering is what I was referring to. Millions and millions of dollars are spent to get humans to behave a certain way. Getting people to disagree and also to hate their bodies, hate their lives makes the world go around for the psychopaths.
 

zharl

Well-known member
This thread has turned somewhat ugly in my opinion. I don't much care for what's being said, and I shan't be responding or participating any further. Toodles!
 

Louco

Well-known member
I hear you that people are bound to disagree, which is normal but when we are being force fed through all of the media out lets and advertising that we should behave this way or that how can you not see an agenda at work?

I say we are being played and because we need to be smart enough to read between the lines with the way we are being presented with only certain things- like it is known now for example all the major news stations are all given the same exact news stories to report to the entire country. Do you think that is a mistake? So when they all show the same story about a group protesting against abortion to everyone in the US on the 5:00 news for example, do you not see an agenda at play?

Our movies are the same. Our advertising is the same. There is a major control system at work to get humans to behave a certain way. Feminism falls under the same program. Example here:
"Torches of Freedom" was a phrase used to encourage women’s smoking by exploiting women's aspirations for a better life during the women’s liberation movement in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men. The term was first used by psychoanalyst A. A. Brill when describing the natural desire for women to smoke and was used by Edward Bernays to encourage women to smoke in public despite social taboos. Bernays hired women to march while smoking their “torches of freedom” in the Easter Sunday Parade of 1929 which was a significant moment for fighting social barriers for women smokers.

Social Engineering is what I was referring to. Millions and millions of dollars are spent to get humans to behave a certain way. Getting people to disagree and also to hate their bodies, hate their lives makes the world go around for the psychopaths.

I remember when Obama came with that gun control executive order and the brazilian media decided to talk about americans and their 2nd amendment. They were portrayed as neurotic and violent, with their frequent school shootings receiving great attention.

Brazilian media fear more than anything that anyone around here could be able to defend themselves. We have somewhere around 60,000-80,000 murders every year by the way. This is more than Iraq had during the war. Brazil have more than 10% of all the registered murders in the world.

However, guns are pretty much outlawed in Brazil, the draconian regulations guarantee that no law abiding citizen can have one. IIRC you must be over 25, you need a psychological evaluation saying you are a perfectly sane individual, complete background check with zero troubles on your record, an extensive firearm training course certificate (I have never heard of these even existing around here), you need to pass an exam, you must have a "good reason" for needing a gun, like working with security, a fee that's around 3x the price of a gun, which already are absurdly expensive, and then you wait forever. And you can be denied anyway. And then you will receive your gun in your home, because it's illegal having a gun anywhere but in your home, so you are not allowed to go get it by yourself, since you would have to go around the city all the way to your house with the gun.

We live with fear and get killed like flies, but americans and their second amendment are frightening. They are the ones living in anarchy.
 

Megaten

Well-known member
Could you explain why?

I think it's ok for men to be men, and women to be women.

I agree with you. I would like people to have that choice. I hate the stupid pressures society can put on a person because of "the rules". Take for example my situation. Im going to school full time and my girlfriend works full time. Right now shes the one with all the money. However when we go out to eat, the check almost always gets sat in front of me. Which I personally find humiliating. And I shouldnt. It took me months to come to terms with that. And if its a waitress and my gf grabs the check, more than once Ive gotten weird looks that make me want to hang my head. I want a society where both men and women dont have to be ashamed to not fit some 1950s conventions.

But maybe its egalitarianism Im looking for. I dunno, Im not well versed on this kinda stuff.
 
Last edited:

Odo

Banned
Feminism isn't a movement with a leader nor a consensus. It consists of many individuals that each have their own incrementally different view on what feminism is and should be. So forming a very wide spectrum ranging from admirable goals like the egalitarian values, to frankly deplorable ones like putting biased limits on who's ideas we can criticize/disagree with, actively limiting free expression.

Free expression is already limited... that's why neo-nazis tend to get a lot of flak from the government. These days it's usually these kinds of groups who like to hide behind free speech in the first place.

No offense, but this is a stereotype in and of itself. It discredits an enormous amount of people based upon nothing but disagreeing. Opinions need to be evaluated on merit, not sides. This goes both ways.

I'm not talking about civilized disagreement, I'm talking about a smear campaign. I'm talking about people who throw around words like 'feminazis' and go out of their way to find fringe elements and manipulate their words until they sound scary.

The political left isn't attacking feminists on a regular basis. I listed the sources of this stereotypical thinking... these are usually the same people who attack Muslims, liberals, etc. and defend economic inequality as 'natural'. Obviously not all of them agree on everything and not all of them participate, but that is where the hate is coming from.

There's a difference between identifying the source of a smear campaign and completely dismissing an entire movement based on what you think they're about. I wasn't saying that feminism and the right are incompatible.

Feminism is per definition a egalitarian movement. However, reoccurring actions and ideals in relative time define core principles. Those include those exhibited by radical and militant members when it concerns a collectivist movement. Especially when the latter gain traction in their endeavors.

What exactly about the end goals of the movement do you think is non-egalitarian? And why are you defining the movement purely in terms of its most radical elements?

Not responsible, but considering how they're descriptive terms for ideals/goals (defined by the movement) it's generally good practice to not define yourself by terms that are inaccurate. For me they weren't accurate.

So Muslims should start referring to themselves as members of ISIS?
 
Last edited:
Free expression is already limited... that's why neo-nazis tend to get a lot of flak from the government. These days it's usually these kinds of groups who like to hide behind free speech in the first place.

That may be, but that doesn't excuse trying to limit it more. People should be able to praise and scrutinize figures of influence, we can't do that when what we can say- to who, is limited.

I'm not talking about civilized disagreement, I'm talking about a smear campaign. I'm talking about people who throw around words like 'feminazis' and go out of their way to find fringe elements and manipulate their words until they sound scary.

The political left isn't attacking feminists on a regular basis. I listed the sources of this stereotypical thinking... these are usually the same people who attack Muslims, liberals, etc. and defend economic inequality as 'natural'. Obviously not all of them agree on everything and not all of them participate, but that is where the hate is coming from.

There's a difference between identifying the source of a smear campaign and completely dismissing an entire movement based on what you think they're about. I wasn't saying that feminism and the right are incompatible.

Yes, but what I meant is that it doesn't do the situation justice, I'm aware there's slander and propaganda about feminism. Much of it untrue, but not all of it.

There's more than enough people that form their own conclusion/criticism based on their direct observations. It's import that we recognize this and separate correlation from causation and not dismiss anyone based on stereotypes.

What exactly about the end goals of the movement do you think is non-egalitarian?

I find the likes of Bahar Mustafa banning white men from diversity events, Anita Sarkisiaan/Zoe Quinn advocating for what equates to censorship laws, and the terrifyingly large number of professional feminists that completely ignored the Cologne attacks out of fear of seeming racist, to name a few, quite anti-egalitarian.

These are isolated instances of (sometimes) isolated people, however there's no real distinction in the public eye. They're also not uncommon, it seems like there is a new embarrassment every day.

Is it really that strange I wouldn't want to be associated with- or would actively want to support, a movement that harbors such people on a kneej-erk reaction? Especially considering when there's more to-the-point descriptive terms I could use? I don't see the use clinging to a term of which its good name is so frequently tarnished by zealots.

And why are you defining the movement purely in terms of its most radical elements?

I don't judge the movement by just the radical members. Movements are judged on the perceived whole, that's how collectivism works. That sadly includes those who hold the regressive beliefs, and those stand out like a sore thumb.

So Muslims should start referring to themselves as members of ISIS?

Alright.. No, and while I understand you didn't meant it that way, let me take a sidebar here and say I would prefer if you didn't put such awful words in my mouth.

I get that this is a hot button topic and everyone is passionate about it, and that it was an exaggerated example - but it crosses a line. Feminism isn't a religion from which a separate unrecognizably deformed section fractured that is now murdering and torturing people.

The two do not even remotely compare, so let's not. They're cheap soundbites and not conducive to civil conversation.

We're clearly on the same side under different names. At best we're arguing semantics and artificial lines in the sand, which is fine, but let's stay level headed.
 

Odo

Banned
That may be, but that doesn't excuse trying to limit it more. People should be able to praise and scrutinize figures of influence, we can't do that when what we can say- to who, is limited.

I agree that you need to be careful. I was just pointing out that free speech has limits. There is nothing in feminism that opposes civil public discourse.

Yes, but what I meant is that it doesn't do the situation justice, I'm aware there's slander and propaganda about feminism. Much of it untrue, but not all of it.

There's more than enough people that form their own conclusion/criticism based on their direct observations. It's import that we recognize this and separate correlation from causation and not dismiss anyone based on stereotypes.

The thing about direct observation is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the movement accurately. Anyone can proclaim themselves a feminist, misinterpret the movement's principles, etc... it doesn't necessarily mean that they know what they're talking about-- sort of like when people think Marxism is the same thing as authoritarianism (which is absurd).

They go through their whole lives hating a word that doesn't mean what they think it means, or on the other hand, believing themselves a proponent of a movement that they don't understand.

I find the likes of Bahar Mustafa banning white men from diversity events, Anita Sarkisiaan/Zoe Quinn advocating for what equates to censorship laws, and the terrifyingly large number of professional feminists that completely ignored the Cologne attacks out of fear of seeming racist, to name a few, quite anti-egalitarian.

These actions aren't anti-egalitarian so long as they serve an egalitarian endgame.

I don't support segregation and I'm not defending Mustafa's actions, but at the same time she isn't doing it because she thinks that white men are inferior or stupid, and isn't advocating gender hierarchy. My guess is that she was trying to create an environment in which minorities would feel free to speak their minds without worrying about others taking offense. This isn't the same thing as segregation that is rooted in a sense of racial or socioeconomic superiority.

Criticism isn't censorship... where exactly did they call for censorship laws?

I would imagine that their silence during the Cologne attacks comes from the difficulty associated with publicly releasing statements that don't undermine their own positions. Racists and anti-immigration people have it easy when something like this happens... people who actually understand this is more complex than just 'Muslims are evil and should be banned' don't have the same luxury.

It doesn't help that you have a right-wing press constantly scouring the net for obscure tweets and insignificant posts that they will use to justify their apocalyptic pronouncements of liberal tyranny, and their drooling fan base always on standby, waiting to lap it up.

These are isolated instances of (sometimes) isolated people, however there's no real distinction in the public eye. They're also not uncommon, it seems like there is a new embarrassment every day.

Is it really that strange I wouldn't want to be associated with- or would actively want to support, a movement that harbors such people on a kneej-erk reaction? Especially considering when there's more to-the-point descriptive terms I could use? I don't see the use clinging to a term of which its good name is so frequently tarnished by zealots.

You care too much about what other people think.
The worst part is that they're not even people who deserve your respect.

I don't judge the movement by just the radical members. Movements are judged on the perceived whole, that's how collectivism works. That sadly includes those who hold the regressive beliefs, and those stand out like a sore thumb.

So what's the problem then?

Alright.. No, and while I understand you didn't meant it that way, let me take a sidebar here and say I would prefer if you didn't put such awful words in my mouth.

I get that this is a hot button topic and everyone is passionate about it, and that it was an exaggerated example - but it crosses a line. Feminism isn't a religion from which a separate unrecognizably deformed section fractured that is now murdering and torturing people.

No... it's a movement from which a separate section fractured and is now being critical of things that a lot of people love.

I think it's probably even harder for a lot of first world citizens to take that than it is for them to accept ISIS-- mostly because ISIS smashing priceless statues and killing people in a far-off land doesn't directly affect their lives in the same way that making their favorite video game character a girl does. People really don't like to be criticized, and admitting they're wrong about something is even worse.

I don't understand why you're capable of seeing Islam as something other than a collective, but not feminism.

The two do not even remotely compare, so let's not. They're cheap soundbites and not conducive to civil conversation.

We're clearly on the same side under different names. At best we're arguing semantics and artificial lines in the sand, which is fine, but let's stay level headed.

...which sort of relates to your earlier point about censorship, doesn't it?

Semantics is more important than a lot of people think... especially if it's the difference between ignoring valid points and listening to them.
 
Top