Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

How are women's interests different from men's interests?

I think if we all abandoned the "us vs them" way of thinking we would find that we're all more similar than we thought.

I don't support the concept of Feminism.

I do believe most Feminist's want 'equality' but disagree with their method of going about it, and that is fighting preferentially for women's rights which implies women's rights specifically takes priority over men's or anyone else's, which makes the movement contradictory from the get-go.

I believe MRA's are the same thing except the gender's are reversed, and hold the exact same opinion of them.

I don't believe Feminist's only care about women's rights, I do believe many care about men's issues as well.

However, most of them appear to specifically focus primarily on women's rights while men's are secondary.

Instead of believing Feminist's 100% fight for women's rights and 0% for men's, I believe something like 75% to 90% of their focus is on women's rights, and 10-25% on men's.

Even this I disagree with.

I believe any movement for actual gender equality should adopt a neutral term that implicitly and explicitly communicates that the movement is for gender equality.

I also believe they should focus on issues 50/50.

I believe this is true for any other movement.

The LGBT community don't like to call it 'gay marriage', they prefer to call it 'marriage equality'.

They even sometimes make it LGBTA with A being heterosexual allies.

Where's Feminist+A (Feminist+Allies who prefer not to identify as Feminist)?

The racial equality movement in the United States was not called the 'Blackist' movement, but the Civil Rights Movement.

The 'Black Panther' Movement is the one that wanted black superiority.

Words aren't just words, words communicate the ideas and concepts and what it's about, and also the movement tends to follow the concepts and ideas.

Words create the concept, the concept creates the movement.

The definition of Feminism is:

This definition explicitly states the primary focus on women's rights but implies the end goal is gender equality for both men and women.

Unsurprisingly, this is exactly how most Feminist's have been in my experiences.

Not 'evil women who want to oppress men', but 'women who primarily advocate women's rights to achieve equality between both men and women'.

Again, if this is what most Feminist's are, I still disagree with the concept of Feminism.

I just don't believe that's a natural progression.

As for a new concept, I'm not talking about 'Equalism'. I see many Feminist's say they disagree with the term 'Equalism' or 'Egalitarianist' or 'Humanist' because they are not specific enough to the concept of fighting specifically for gender equality.

Well, how about 'Gender Equalist' or 'Gender Equality Activist'?

The definition of a Genderist or Gender Equalist being:



Before the GenderQueer community interjects, how about this as the second definition:



These are neutral terms that imply no preferential focus, yet still are specific enough to communicate the movement specifically is fighting for gender equality.

Personally, I am what seems to be one of the few who identifies as a Gender Equality Activist, or GEA, when asked where I stand gender rights wise.

Now I'm sure all the MRA's and Feminist's who definitely want 'gender equality' will soon follow, right?!

*crickets*



Agreed, see above.

What did I write regarding the specific sentence we're discussing? I'll re-quote it here so you can perhaps understand the problem.

"No, that isn't COMPLETLEY untrue."



From the author of "No, that isn't COMPLETLEY untrue.", that's about as ironic as it gets. It's still unclear whether you intended to agree partially, disagree partially or disagree completely. Rather than clarifying, you've elected to blame me for your mistake.



Quips? You made a demonstrably false claim that equality can't exist unless it's applied universally, and thus I demonstrated why it was false. In response, you've resorted an increasingly hostile selection of personal attacks.



Because I can understand you 90% of the time, the 10% of the time that you write something incomprehensible is evidence that I'm being dishonest? I would refrain from bringing up logic or sophistry again were I you.



Good luck with that.



Even if we make the assumption that you are capable of speaking for everyone who has participated in this thread, including those who have read it, and we make the further assumption that you're absolutely correct that they don't appreciate what I'm doing, what relevance do you believe that might have?

When you make appeals to an imaginary crowd of supporters in an environment which is hostile to emotional pleas, the result is that you end up looking rather foolish. When you elect yourself as the spokesperson for an entire community, without so much as a brief consultation with said community, you paint yourself as an arrogant tool.

When you adopt the utterly contemptible position that you are capable of inferring the motives of another human being based on printed words that have not touched upon the subject of motivation, and declare that human being to be a "troll", you are engaging in ignorant bigotry.

Finally - as far as part 1 is concerned - if this were a popularity contest I might be inclined towards placation rather than speaking my mind. As it isn't, I'll continue to do the latter. Likewise, I will remain disinterested in the feelings of anyone who expresses that they are upset by me doing so.



If you don't see the contradiction in what you're saying, the problem lies very much with you.



concern, v.

To refer or relate to; to be about.

Hence "concerned with" or "concerning".

We were discussing definitions. If it is your contention that definitions are about things that aren't mentioned within the definition, you're a lost cause.







It would only constitute a strawman if I intimated or implied that they were your words. I did neither. Those were, in fact, my words and my opinion. I quoted myself, then provided an example of how your logic was applied by other people, then gave my opinion of what best defines a feminist.

You've demonstrated a fundamental lack of comprehension for the English language here, which explains much of your confusion regarding the etymology and definition of words.



Which of the multitude of everydayfeminism.com articles which a random redditor believes constitute evidence of feminists "tackling men's issues" do you wish to be considered as evidence that "(many feminists are concenred [sic] within both)"?



I've got a swimming certificate that says I can swim 100m unassisted, so there's no way in hell you're going to convince me that I can't compete at the Olympics.



You can say it whilst swearing on a bible, that won't alter the fact that you're mistaken.



You're confusing your flawed inference with my implication.







Except they didn't. Read a history book. It is utterly contemptible of you to claim superior knowledge of the subject matter, to label me an "idiot", and then make such an elementary error.



There is no "we" in the context that you're suggesting.

I was talking about your assertion that "they idea there can be equality for women without equality for men is idioitoc". I was talking about your mistaken belief that the definition of equality necessarily means cross-gender equality. It does not. As I pointed out, equality simply means "equity between two or more entities", and the word which describes that which asserts universal equality of human beings is "egalitarian".



No, it isn't. It depends entirely on the pre-existing condition of voting rights within those two categories. If all men can vote, but only some women can vote, parity between the sexes can be achieved in several ways. If all property-owning men can vote, but only some property-owning women can vote, there are, likewise, multiple paths to parity between the sexes.



No, it isn't. I provided for you just one of many examples of feminists who espouse exactly the opposite of what you claim. What is obvious is that feminists do not have a universally consistent ideology. That's a problem for feminists to resolve, not for the rest of us. Perhaps they can host a conclave and choose a pope.



I provided an example to support my assertion. You have not contested it. Your repeated claims of sophistry are a: unfounded and b: clearly projection on your part.



My last chance? Is that a veiled threat, or are you under the delusion that you exercise some form of authority over me?



In her own words:

"Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back."

"I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”"

She further expands on her desire to put men in internment camps in this video:



"With a fence around. So enclosed."

"All men, not just the bad ones."

"They can't have porn, obviously. They can't have the internet, for obvious reason. They can have television, but it will all be feminist television."

How this can be construed as equality between men and women?







Mathematical symmetry and reciprocity are two completely different concepts, neither of which are necessary aspects of equality under law. Legal equality is a tacit recognition of the lack of social symmetry between two individual members of society. Equality as applied in the context we are discussing is the practice of treating as equal those things as are unequal. When your argument requires you to define equality between human beings as being equivalent to mathematical invariability, you're engaged in de facto fallacious speciosity.



You were attempting to justify your claim that equality necessarily applies to all men and women, so yes, you mentioned universal application.



Actually no, they aren't. This is a common misconception. The etymology of each word stems from entirely different fields. Neither are they defined as relative to one another.

"Feminism" has its roots in biology, and was used to describe female characteristics and attributes. "Feminist" has its roots in politics, and was used to describe any pro-woman position or philosophy. "Feminism" was later appropriated by feminists to describe the ideology that they purport to espouse. Very few dictionaries define "feminist" as "a supporter of feminism", and none define "feminism" as "the political ideology of a feminist".

But all of that is besides the point. The functional difference between the two words is that one (feminist) describes an individual, whereas the other (feminism) describes an ideology which is not consistent or uniform. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the two terms are not interchangeable.



I already covered the fallacious reasoning of "symmetric" as applied to equality between human beings. It was I who pointed out that equality describes equity between two or more entities. You described it as necessarily applying to all men and women.



Acquaint yourself with political theory if you wish to be taken seriously on this subject.



Equality of opportunity describes a set of legal rights that do not apply to biological function. I again invite you to acquaint yourself with the subject matter. As for paid paternity leave:

https://www.gov.uk/paternity-pay-leave/overview
https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leav ... y/overview

Equality of opportunity requires legislation to recognise that which comprises a human right or entitlement.



Your hypothetical scenario is built on the fallacy that "the man has to work". To my knowledge, the only examples of mandatory employment in any Western nation are to be found in prisons.



The "pay gap" describes disparity in equality of outcome based on voluntary decisions. Hilariously, you seem to have inferred that I said it doesn't exist. I presented it in the context of evidence of the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity, in the context of wages based on sex, is set out by legislation in the form of (in the US) the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Equality of outcome is demonstrated by the lower average wage of women due to their voluntary employment decisions.



Strawman.



Define "anti-feminists".

The issue with the pay gap is in how it is presented by feminists. It's usually a variation on the following:

Women earn x% less on average.
Women should be paid the same amount as men.
We demand equality.

Do you require an explanation of why that's flawed? To me, it's self-evident, but its perpetuation among feminist circles is evidence that it is not.



Memetics might explain the perpetuation, but it most certainly does not apply to "anti-feminists" who are not a homogeneous group. The irony here is that you're objecting to a strawman position regarding a "conspiracy theory", whilst promoting one of your own.



The chief problem with making foolish assumptions about another person's world view is that it only serves to betray your ignorance. Unlike yourself, I don't operate under the assumption that all people to whom a label applies share a world view. Just as "anti-feminist" does not denote homogeneity of ideology, nor does "feminist".



Any feminist who supports the idea of paying people based on genitalia rather than as fair recompense for the work they do is seeking equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.



Equality of opportunity is defined perfectly adequately. It is the meritocratic opposition to arbitrary discrimination. Arbitrary factors include race, gender, sexuality, etc. What is up for debate is what constitutes (e.g.) the "best" person for the job beyond "most qualified". Opposition to equality of opportunity tends to be rooted in a desire to discriminate, whether "positively" or otherwise.



Another abysmal attempt at a strawman. My outcome is financially inferior to that of Adam Johnson. Does that make me inferior to Adam Johnson? He's certainly a better footballer than I am.



That continues to be projection on your part.

Wasn't it quite obvious she was joking? She clearly meant this in jest.

I didn't offer an interpretation, I listed concepts that are contained within it.



The customary no true Scotsman deflection rears its head.



Obvious contradiction of self. If patriarchy theory, toxic masculinity and oppression of women by men are ideas from radical feminism then the overwhelming majority of third wave feminists are radical feminists. I've yet to encounter a feminist who doesn't adhere to feminist theory at least partially, other than "earlier wave" feminists. All three of the positions I've referred to are consistently espoused by mainstream feminists.



Denying that aspects of masculinity are innate is the means by which it justifies its definition of innate aspects of masculine behaviour as toxic. It's a denial of the nature of men and completely antithetical to human biology.

In practice, it is used as a buzzword to shut down men who are assertive rather than aggressive. Masculinity, as with femininity, should be celebrated and not demonised.



All you've done here is out yourself as a radical feminist. The patriarchy is a mythological boogieman that isn't accepted outside feminist circles. It constitutes a fictional avatar of maleness upon which such feminists place the blame for all societal problems. It's the third wave feminist equivalent of a Judas Goat.



Patriarchy theory defines its Judas Goat as being the oppressor of women. Feminist theory, which encompasses patriarchy theory, defines all women as oppressed to the benefit of all men.



Which means that all men who contribute to the society accused of being an aspect of "the patriarchy" are oppressors. Or, put simply, all men.



Which rather uselessly defines all men and women as being both oppressors and oppressed, depending on your perspective.

Go to the next page to see Feminism Flamewar Part 11

She was not joking in the original interview, which was later purged from the internet along with multiple tweets by Bindel in which she clarified her position. The original interview can still be found via archive.is, but I don't think the tweets were archived by anyone. The later claim that it was "just a joke" was part of an insincere climbdown as the result of a campaign in which thousands of complaints were received by her paymasters at the Guardian.

Her joviality in the video is the result of her belief that it is an exaggeration to compare her idea to concentration camps.

Here's the relevant section from the original interview, which is far from jocular in tone.



The third paragraph reinforces the veracity of the first, whilst the fourth defines men as subhuman.

More than a tad melodramatic to describe it as a "flamewar".

Wasn't it quite obvious I was joking? I clearly meant this in jest

Is there a toxic femininity list? There are some traits in mind.

Not yet. You'll have to make one Boo.

Which aspects of femininity would you describe as undesirable? Our innate human characteristics are what brought us this far. Without those aspects of masculinity described as "toxic" by feminists, we likely would not have survived long enough to build a society in which feminists can complain in the first place.



I might be inclined to go through them point by point, but the problem with the article you've linked to is contained within its premise:

"Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth."

Describing something which is toxic towards masculinity as "toxic masculinity" is an idea right out of Orwell's playbook. This is disingenuous, and the direct cause of much anti-male sentiment under the guise of "helping men".

The entire notion of Patriarchy is framed in such a manner as to absolve women from responsibility for their role in shaping the society in which we live, in order that all blame for perceived social inequalities be lain at the feet of men. This is neither a constructive nor an accurate reflection of reality.

My dear fellow, were I being entirely serious myself you can be assured that my criticism would have been scathing.

Well, from pure feminist perspective, I can think of a list of common behaviors/expectations (in the general population) that hinders feminist agenda on gender equality:

Examples of toxic femininity:
- Expecting men to pay for dates (even if he's the invitee)
- Expecting men to lead in everything.
- Expecting men to cover housing/wedding...etc the whole costs of marriage.
- Her only ambition is to be a housewive.
- Only accepting to date men wealthier than her.
- Expecting her daughters to help in the house chores while saying nothing to her sons.
- Mocking or belittling men with feminine traits/behaviors.
- Mocking or belittling women with masculine traits/behaviors.
- Telling other women how they should act more ladylike.
- Slut shaming other women.
- (When woman is working) Total refusal of the idea to date a man who is unemployed.
- (When woman is working) Total refusal of the idea to marry a man who takes the role as househusband.
- The total refusal of the idea to date a man with less education or less income than her.
- The total refusal of the idea to date a man who is shorter or physically weaker than her.
- Gold digging, of any type. No exception.
- More on gold digging: Expecting the man to buy expensive gifts while she doesn't buy any expensive gifts in return.
- Expecting man to always be the driver in the car.
- Explicit 'damsel in distress' behavior. Typical example: Waiting for a stranger man to volunteer changing her car's tire. Another typical example: Expecting a man to help her in the gym training.
- Asking the wealthy husband to hire maids for her and then exploiting and abusing those maids (most maids are women from poor countries after all) - this is more relevant in Middle east and North africa.
- And oh, things like this: https://stateofmind13.com/2016/05/17/na ... not-women/

There are much more, I am sure.

Such behaviors/expectations empower traditional gender roles hence hindering women to move forward.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 16 Nov 2016, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Give them space and opportunity to fulfill their potential.

I think their interests are sometimes the same and sometimes gender specific. It is too bad that it becomes about us and them; it shouldn't. Differences are not necessarily bad.

You can get a pretty good list by flipping the undesirable aspects of masculinity. Men are socialised to be aggressive, women are socialised to be meek. Most people of either gender settle into a happy medium, but some don't. Obviously being meek is an acceptable position if it's freely chosen, whereas being aggressive isn't.

The expectation that women are emotional creatures, not intellectuals or leaders. The idea that women can never really understand men. The idea that a women's role in a relationship is to "obey" or "save" rather than to be an equal companion. The idea that women are not in control of their sexuality. The idea that women should inherently love motherhood and aren't complete without it. The idea that women can't enjoy "men's things", like sports, beer, or video games.

I don't buy that. I don't think our survival is predicated on men boasting about their sexual conquests, groping women, getting into brawls, feeling entitled to sex, shaming each other for having feminine interests, discouraging each other from showing emotion, and so forth. It seems to me that all of these things could be erased from human history with no direct negative repercussions.

Furthermore, is-ought. Just because evolution has rewarded sexual aggression doesn't mean that sexual aggression is justified or moral.

Well, what would you call the aspects of masculinity which hurt men?