Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

1. That was a typo, you knew what I meant.
2. No, that is not the point you made. You said feminists DON'T support male rights, which is something very different then saying it's independent. If someone supports both male rights and female rights, they are a feminist, while you tried to argue otherwise.
3. And here you are injecting claims with no evidence because you fundamentally don't understand feminists.
4. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Clearly you don't know what equality means, because it's not a synonym for suffrage. The fact men had suffrage while women didn't is what made it unequal. The main reason why your argument is completely nonsensical is because it's literally impossible for A to be equal to B without B being equal to A because equality is by defination a symmetric relationship.
5. No, you didn't, all you've done is demonstrate how freaking ignorant you are. And no, there isn't anything in the defination of feminism about equality, YOU were the one who brought equality up. Finally, the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity is not a thing, it's just something that people who don't like feminism made up to justify their hatred of feminism. Fact is it's impossible to have equality of opportunity because two people have the same opportunities as if nothing else two people can't exist in the same exact space. However, the implication of the argument is that if there was no different in opportunity. but there is a difference in outcome, then it's because women are inferior to men, so really all you're doing is outing yourself as a misogynist.
6. Same difference. Your nitpicking over typos doesn't make your argument any less wrong.

Do I? What do you know of the workings of my mind?



This is what happens when you swallow bulls**t wholesale. The following is the current definition of feminist in the OED:

An advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women.
Often used specifically of women.

N.B. there's nothing about men in the above definition. As I actually pointed out (you can still see it quoted above) "By definition, a feminist isn't concerned with the rights and equality of men". This is a far cry from what you've tried to suggest I said. The definition you're insisting on is a tool of propaganda, designed to persuade those stupid enough to fall for it that "you're either one of us, or you're BY DEFINITION an evil person".

However, what best defines a feminist, considering we're talking about an ideology, is "someone who identifies as a feminist". The better feminists don't insist on forcing labels onto people who don't want to join the cult.



Claims without evidence? You set the bar with your claim that "(many feminists are concenred [sic] within both)". Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If you wish to raise the bar, the onus is on you to do so.



This should prove amusing.



Clearly you don't understand English very well, because at no point did I suggest otherwise. Rather, I implied that suffrage is a means by which equality is achieved. This is obvious from context.



Universal male suffrage granted equal voting power to all men of voting age. Men had equality under the law with one another. Any subset of people who have equal rights and opportunity can be said to have equality, regardless of anyone who does not fall into said group. The majority of dictionaries define feminist as:

An advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women.

This definition is what allows someone like Julie Bindel to continue to call herself a feminist, despite her desire to put all men in concentration camps.



What are you blathering on about? There is nothing in any definition of equality that suggests either symmetry or universal application. You've confused the meaning of the word equality with the application of the egalitarian laws which provide it in Western nations.

Equality is, by definition, equity between two or more entities. Egalitarian describes that which asserts the universal equality of human beings.





See the explanation above of your continued woeful lack of understanding of the definition of equality.



Again, we're discussing "feminist" and not "feminism". The two are not interchangeable. That you keep making this error immediately after claiming I'm "ignorant" is, frankly, hilarious.



Whereupon you elected to demonstrate your ignorance of its meaning. What's your point?



Two words: pay gap.





They're concepts in political philosophy that describe two alternative applications of social equality. However, I'd love to hear more about your conspiracy theory. Please expand on it.



Equality of opportunity means "disregard of arbitrary distinctions in selection", not "everyone has exactly the same experience".



The implication is that if there is a difference in outcome, it is due to the applicable merits of each candidate for selection.





Your dogmatic weasel words have no power here.



Typos? You made the same error twice, conflating an ideology with the people who claim to follow it.

I find it very strange, that there are so many posts on this thread explaining why it's immoral to be a white knight, when the OP never actually claimed to be one in the first place.

I think we can all agree that white knights, men who defend women with ulterior motives, are the scum of the Earth but what if a guy who doesn't have these self-serving motives is lumped in with those guys who do?

I think that touches on the original question before this thread turned into a massive flame war. As I said, white knights are the summiest guys on Earth so it must be pretty dreadful to be accused of white knighting no matter what your intent is.

I think that's what scares some guys off from joining feminism, the idea that even if they have no selfish motives for joining, they still get lumped in with those who do.

Interesting image.

I notice that you mentioned that feminism necessitates anti-masculinity. Is this true though? Why does elevating one necessarily take away from the other. Isn't it more like one reaching out a hand to pull the other up?

I know what you mean about the anti-man behaviour. I have a friend who is a feminist and some of the things she says are brutal and clearly stem from anger (and she has two sons.) I have to say, I really don't get the anger, on either side.

I hope she doesn't take her anger out on her two sons

Me too.

The Internet White Knight meme is more than a little childish. I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be granted to people who espouse flawed ideologies and the assumption made that they believe they are doing the right thing for the right reasons, no matter how misguided they may be. Anyone who uses "white knight" sans irony is guilty of the same flawed reasoning they're accusing their target of.



Whilst I'm willing to accept that there may well be some men who are turned off feminism for the reason you cited, I doubt the number is significant. Most people (men and women alike) are turned off by the behaviour and stated ideals of feminists themselves.



Thank you. And further thanks for actually understanding the motivation behind my posting in this thread is legitimate discourse and debate, as demonstrated by your questions below.



What I said is that contempt for masculinity is ingrained into feminist theory - not to be conflated with feminism. At the heart of feminist theory is the concept of painting "patriarchy" as an agent which impacts the world in purely negative terms, defines innate aspects of masculine behaviour as "toxic" and all men as "oppressors of women". So yes, I believe it's self-evident.

I don't believe we should elevate any individual or group of people beyond "equal rights under the law". As this already applies in most Western nations, I consider any attempt to do so to be misguided social engineering. Not to mention that preferential treatment based on arbitrary characteristics over and above "equality under the law" is the very definition of discrimination.



As I suggested to RetroGamer87, I do believe that the benefit of the doubt should be granted when it comes to initial motivates, but I've seen adherence to feminism result in e.g. an elderly lady claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for her to hit a man but not for a man to do the same in defence against her assault.

Where ideologies are concerned, I'm not interested in the self-justifications in the theory, I'm concerned solely with the application and results in the real world. Modern feminists frequently espouse ideas and goals which are at odds with my own egalitarian principles.

I'm quite certain that the same anger is the reason people such as Yippy believe my long-held position to be "knee-jerk". It's a projection of their own motivation behind adopting whichever version of feminism they cleave to.

OK, so a quick summary:

- OP asked why one should be a feminist if feminists are going to accuse one of being a white knight, and posted a link to feminists making fun of a Nice Guy
- People provided potential reasons to support feminism
- Other people criticised feminism
- Sophomoric pedantry and ad hominems
- Bit of reasonable discussion about whether feminism is inherently anti-male

Could we all try to move beyond the sophomoric pedantry and ad hominems and actually have a discussion about feminist theory, if that's what people are interested in?

Is this really about feminist theory? While I enjoy tangents, the question of this thread was not whether or not feminist theory is correct. It may be that guys had a legitimate concern about girls accusing him of only taking him feminism to get into their pants even if that's not their actual motives.

That may be a legitimate concern for would-be male feminists even if the base feminist theory is correct.

I realise there are many different schools of feminism. I'm not expecting feminism to be one homogeneous group but it can be very confusing for us guys when some feminists such as Emma Watson want to us to join and then, upon joining we're met with hostility and false speculation as to our true motives.

Should we join a group that may treat us with hostility?

^ It's quite possible for a man to be truly feminist and yet desiring to get into women's pants....like any hetero man.

Or is he supposed to cut his balls?

Or he could be a false feminist...and only desire to get into a woman's pants.

I, myself, wish feminists would give men more of the benefit of the doubt. And to acknowledge that men might have commonality with their concerns.

True, we don't know how it actually feels to be a woman--but I believe there are concerns which while quite applicable to women, can also be applicable to men as well.

But maybe some think that simply because he desires to get into women's pants then that means he's automatically a false feminist ?

As a side note, getting into a woman's pants sound like a gross idea though, pants cause sweating down there.....the smell would be horrible, especially after a long day.

It's far better to get down there after showering and gone total pant-less.

Some feminists are against men calling themselves feminists

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/men-pro-feminist-or-feminist/

I know you have to read this stuff.

But you don't have to agree with it, or assume that many people agree with it.

If one has a commonality with Feminist theory, then one is a Feminist, no matter what gender.

Just like everybody who espouses Empirical philosophy is an Empiricist.

Claims thereof. Or do you now support ad hominem and personal attacks (see "prick")?



Most of the thread has been reasonable.



When well-intentioned arguments are dismissed as "sophomoric pedantry", there's no discussion to be had. If you wish to promote discussion, it'd be a good idea to lead by example. Androbot01 had no difficulty doing precisely this.