I have issues with feminism

Post Reply New Topic

What is there to be confused about, it was very clear he has an issue with hatred against men and the #killallmen hashtag and social media being okay with it but if it was about black people or about women or any other minority, it would be shot down fast.

Also this is an autism forum so I wouldn't assume there is double speak here.

My NT brain brain likes to dig a little deeper than taking the literal but you are right to remind me I am communicating with an autistic brain but you will notice it took him a little while to reveal all his "gripes"

Well that is where things get confusing...because feminism from what I gather in its whole does also address men's issues and it is more about equality than female supremacism. But there are toxic ideas and groups that get lumped in with feminism(I mean some of them identify as feminist so hard to seperate sometimes). Feminism is supposed to be more about equality than female rights over male rights but some self proclaimed feminists miss that point. I met one once...first thing that kind of gave me a red flag was this girl who had talked all this stuff up about feminism and what not was talking s**t on women who don't shave their body hair. In my head I kinda thought..'what kind of feminist would complain about women who choose not to shave their body hair'. Like isn't what you do with your body hair kind of a personal choice so this girl claiming to be all feminist is talking s**t on how gross it is for women not to shave...like WTF she claimed to be feminist but was then enforcing gender sterotypes of how women should be clean shaven. And well not that she knew but when she said that I was already 'one of those girls that doesn't shave.' because I found it was more comfortable not to...so I did kind of take offense as well as just thinking she was wrong. But I am just saying I think people like that girl really misrepresent feminism...and over-all it is more about equality.

This!

Feminists, the ones that follow the original intention of feminism at least, fight for equal rights. The reason that it sounds like it's just for women's rights, as in why the term "feminism" was chosen, is probably because when the term was set, women had way less rights than men.

It's the same as with the BLM -movement. Just because the name says black lives matter, it doesn't mean that only black lives matter.

The term was set ( by a man) because the whole concept was woman-centric from the start. Also socialist.

As for feminism dealing with men's issues, no it does not. It deals with what it sees as the issues with men. Which only makes sense if you see men as defective women.

Okay, to make this all clear (assuming I understand it correctly, of course), the issue is not inherently with feminism, but with misandry (hatred of or feeling of superiority over men simply for being men). While misandry can and does coincide with feminism and feminism can turn into misandry, not all feminists are misandrists.

I, for one, can say that I both support equal rights for women (and everyone else) and think that part of that includes cracking down on misandry just as much as we do on misogyny. So can I not call myself a feminist (supporter of equal rights for women)? Honestly, I think it's those who are misandristic who should not be called feminists, based on the definition of feminism.

Ahem...



But yes, it does often focus more on women these days. However, the original purpose is equality of sexes.

Source

Yes, it originally focuses on women, but that's because women had pretty much no rights at all when compared to men. The goal of feminism was not and is not to raise women above men, it's to raise and keep women on the same level as men. Those who try to raise women above men are misandrists, not feminists. Some of them say they're feminists, but what they do is not the original purpose of feminism.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Definition




First, the notion that women had no rights before feminism is ridicilous on the face of it. I'm not a Marxist, but I can concede that Marx had a point with his commentary on class. Later Feminism is a clumsy attempt to reshape Marxist class theory along gender lines in a way that does not and have never made sense.

Second, the original meaning, as coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, would be something like "the practice of judging how good a society is by how it treats women". Period. As in, the better things are for women, the better the society is. Fourier was a utopian nutjob, but a pretty fun read. Points for creativity.

If the person who started this thread thinks it's getting too off topic or the mods think it's getting too political, then do tell and I'll stop.

I didn't say women had no rights, I said they had pretty much no rights when compared to men.

As for the second part, it depends on how literally you take it. At the time, women were in a much weaker position than today, so it could also be seen to mean that society is as good as how it treats it's weaker members, and at that time women were weak in the face of society and law due to having less rights. That's a saying I often hear used these days, too.

That last part is just mental gymnastics. Fourier was quite explicit.

And you're still wrong. Who did and didn't have which rights is much easier to make sense of along socio-economic class lines than it is along gender lines. Or are you suggesting that some random dirt farmer would be seen as higher on the social ladder than, say, a woman who owned land or who had her own business (both of which which have been a thing since medieval times) owing to the fact that he has the power to pee standing up?

And funnily enough, there's an Engish law manuscript whose name escapes me for the moment, (I think it was from the 1300's) that talks about how men of previous eras beat their wives and didn't allow them their rights, in contrast to the progressive and enlightened 12th century Englishmen who justly abhor such barbarism. It's almost like this narrative is really, really old.

Of course, there were (and are) differences between social classes, but if you look at a man and a woman from the supposed same social class, you should see what I mean. Rights to vote, to own things under their name...

Again, women have been owning things under their own name since the middle ages at least, and I say at least because sources are a bit spotty going back further.

When the Labour party granted women the right to vote in 1920-1921 (thereabouts), they did so on the heel of having granted men the same right in 1919 upon returning from being drafted into the bloodiest conflict the world had ever seen. It was thought that maybe something was owed on that account. Previous to that, voting was the purview of land owning lords and ladies. And yes, they mucked about with it until about 1928 or so, putting restrictions of age and education among other things on women voting. Because the draft made the case for men voting bulletproof, and the upper classes have a vested interest in as few people voting as possible, and thus the attack on women voting.

I never meant to imply "all Christians". But historically that has been the rationale for persecuting Jew, and I believe it was even an official position of the Catholic Church at one point.

I started the topic discussing feminism as it exists currently. It seems that misandry has spread throughout much of the popular feminist discourse in the past 5-10 years. And intersectional feminism in particular is obsessed with placing everyone in boxes and judging people according to the box they're in with zero consideration given to individual circumstances. I understand that extremist voices are often the loudest in any population, but it really seems to me in recent years that the extremists have taken over.

Perhaps if you had said this at the beginning instead of throwing terms like "man hating" and "I'm a white cis-male" it would have cleared up a lot of misunderstandings.

I thought I had. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I was being. Though others seem to think I was.