Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

You're a troll because you blatantly lied about what you wrote in order to look clever and be insulting. Nothing you brought up even had anything to do with what I was talking about, as all I was saying was that fighting for women's right by defination makes one a feminist, and then you just tried to fight that claim using anti-logic and pulling up irrelevant things, most of which weren't even true either. Several other people in the threat pointed out what you were doing, it wasn't just me. You have just been the most aggressive to me because I'm the one who said something you like the least. If other people didn't call you out on it first, I wouldn't have made the move.

Or you can ignore my advice and continue to behave like a petulant child.

You are not contributing to the discussion, you are just being a bully. Now LEAVE ME ALONE.

Being a feminist is less a label more a state of being. As long as you want men and women to be equal (which includes helping men out in areas they are disadvantaged) you're a feminist.

And whoever would call you a white-knight is a dick, for one thing, but also really sexist to imply that you only care about equality between genders because you want to have sex.

Don't let other people impact on what you care about

You have yet to respond to me without resorting to personal attacks, Ganondox. Your behaviour is that of a textbook cry-bully. Whether or not you are intolerant of my opinions, there is literally nothing forcing you to continue addressing my posts and calling me names. You are not a captive audience. Likewise, I can't force you to have some self-respect, but I believe I'm well within my rights to request that you respect others and refrain from the childish name-calling.

I think autistic people should be represented in organisations that deal specifically with autistic concerns but I'm not worried if there are no autistic people in government. It doesn't bother me that the Prime Minister isn't autistic because he generally represents the whole country. That means he could be anyone. Aspie or NT, man or woman, either way. There are many different people so the Prime Minister can't be like everyone but he can be like anyone.

It wouldn't bother me in the least to have women in government because women are very good at interacting with people but that doesn't mean they have to be 50% women or anything like that.

Can the men in government understand women's concerns? Yes. If they're not totally ignorant, they can. You don't have to have experienced pregnancy to know that maternity leave is a good idea. That's why the male dominated government in my country passed legislation for maternity leave quite a few years ago. For a man to understand women's concerns or for a woman to understand men's concerns just takes some empathy and some common sense.

The corporation I work for has a female CEO. Does that make me think she won't address men's concerns because she hasn't personally experienced being a man? Not at all. I think using common sense she can be the leader of these tens of thousands of employees, men and women both. The next CEO might be a man and he can also be the leader of men and women both.

As has been mentioned on this thread, there are many schools of feminism. I may be critical of some of them but that doesn't make me critical of women.

Feminism =/= women.
There are some women who are not feminists.
There are some feminists who are not women.

There are many different schools of feminism but to say that the radical feminists are not a part of feminism is like saying your hand is not a part of your body. It's like saying people from Alaska aren't "real Americans". There is no particular group of feminists that are the "real feminists". They may have different ideas but they're all real.

As I said, to be a leader you must have common sense and empathy. Different feminists have different ideas and some feminists treat empathy like a one way street.

Some of the less empathetic ones think only they have problems. Or only women have problems. They act like men never have problems because they're too busy enjoying their male priviledge.

Here's an example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10015766/Isnt-it-time-to-abolish-most-womens-prisons.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/01/why-we-should-close-womens-prisons-and-treat-their-crimes-more-fairly

There are articles about the movement to shut down women's prisons. They say female criminals should not be put in prison because female prisoners often suffer from depression while incarcerated. Are they suggesting that male prisoners don't suffer from depression while incarcerated? I know I'd be pretty depressed if I was in prison.

This is what I mean by "lack of empathy". To take a problem that effects both men and women equally and suggest it only effects women.

Why do they have a lack of empathy? Because the more radical schools of feminism dehumanize men. If you don't see a group of people as human, you don't feel empathy for them. Following Godwin's Law, I'll say that the German people wouldn't have participated in the Holocaust if they had not been exposed to years of propeganda to dehumanize the Jews. By the same token, some feminists like to dehumanize men. They say they're "just fratboys", etc.

From the Telegraph article;Wouldn't that apply to men as well as women? See what I mean about taking something that applies to both men and women and applying it only to women?

Since there are 12 times as many men in prison, you could save 12 times as much money and 12 times as many wasted lives. There are thousands of men in prison for using drugs. Isn't this a waste of the tax payer's money?

I'm sure male prisoners would benefit from "probation supervision, restorative justice, treatment for addictions, menal health and social care, skill training and safe housing" just as much as women would.

The Telegraph article says that putting women in prison is too expensive for the tax payer.Yes and it also costs about forty thousands pounds per year to keep men in prison as well. See what I mean about taking something that applies to both men and women and saying it only applies to women? In fact, since there are about 12 times as many men in prison, the tax payer must be spending a lot more on men's prisons than women's prisons.The British prison population is roughly 90,000. Of these, about 92% are men and about 8% are women. That's about 82,800 male prisoners and 7,200 female prisoners. If 65% of those 7,200 women are depressed, that would be 4,680 women. If 37% of those men are depressed that would be 30,636 men.

The article makes it sound like there are more depressed women in prison than men but 30,636 is a lot more than 4,680. These two articles have a lot of statistics. Lots of this percent and that percent. Some feminists are positively obsessed by statistics. Statistics can be misleading.

They say that a lower percentage of female prisoners are there for nonviolent offences compared to male prisoners. That may be so. I can understand not wanting to imprison nonviolent offenders. But even if only 10% of female prisoners were violent, that would be 10% I wouldn't want to see let lose in public. Even if only 20% of male prisoners were nonviolent, that may be a small fraction but it's still thousands of men who aren't a violent threat to the public (and that 20% would also be larger than the entire female prison population).

Now here's why I don't like the sociology professors and their obsession with statistics. They put everyone into groups. They say that because the majority of the female prisoner group is nonviolent, the entire group should be treated as though they are nonviolent and allowed to go out in public. They say because the majority of the male prisoner group is violent, the entire group should be treated as though they are violent.

Meanwhile the parole board assesses each individual prisoner on a case by case basis to determine if they can safely be allowed out in public.

I hate how these sociology professors put everyone into groups and then treat these groups as though each group is a single entity rather than a collection of different individuals. It's dehumanizing.

The Guardian article I linked to says this;So they they don't think that people should be put in prison for using drugs? I agree. But there are many thousands of men in prison for using drugs. The number of men in prison for using drugs is probably higher than the entire female prison population. Doesn't Professor Mirko Bagaric who wrote this article think that male drug users should also be taken out of prison?

Do I think all feminists think like this? Not at all. Professor Mirko Bagaric is one feminist. There are many who think differently. The Professor goes on to writeHow does the professor know who is suffering more? I know I'd have a very difficult time adapting to the prison setting. Do you think you'd have a hard time adapting to life in prison?

Remember that statistics on acts of violence committed by women do not include women who get a male third party such as a friend or family member to beat or murder their partner. They do not include the women who have a small army come within minutes who can legally beat and kidnap their partner (I'm referring to the police). Who needs to commit acts of violence when there are so many sympathetic men willing to do it for you?

The Proffessor says women commit only 20% of crime. Does that mean 0% of female prisoners should be put in prison? The proffessor is again dealing with the men group and the women group as though they are single entities. As though because the women group contains less criminals that means on average, none of them are criminals.

I'm sure if a smaller percentage of the female population are criminals compared to men, that would mean that, because criminals are sentanced as individuals, a smaller percentage of the female population would be in prison. As I said, 8% of prisoners are women. Yet the proffessor says 20% of crime is commited by women. It seems like a lot of female prisoners are already dodging prison. What more does Professor Bagaric want?

The Professor says that "women be treated more leniently because they commit less serious crime". Remember that while the Proffesor puts everyone into groups, the courts sentance criminals individually. I'm sure the courts give longer sentances for more serious crimes. They would surely give a murderer a longer sentance than a petty thief. So if, on average, the crimes commited by women are of a less serious nature, than I'm sure the average prison sentance for female criminals is already shorter than the average prison sentance for male criminals, reflecting the seriousness of the individual crimes.

The Professor writesNeed I say more?

What is a troll?

When you're talking about extending that analogy to government, the huge difference is that women actually make up the majority of the population in absolute numbers, but they hold a minority of the positions of power, wheras autistic people are just a small minority.


Of course. But I was never talking about just the head of state, but ALL positions of power. Also, the head of state changes over time. When the head of state stays as a specific minority over time, there is something suspect going on. And considering the results of the last election, it's clearly not that women are inherently less qualified than men for the job.



SOME women are very good with interacting with people, but there is as much variety in their skills as there is within men. Yes, on average women have slightly better interpersonal skills then men, but that doesn't really mean that much. SBC's EMB theory is based on over simplifications and gross exaggerations.


Of course, but it's more complicated than that. If you fundamentally disagree with patriarchy inherently being bad, fine, but can you not at least see why feminists have problems with it?


Again, it's not about the person with the most power, it's about the aggregate of people in ALL positions of power.


And no where did I say anything against such. I just said that if you advocate for women's rights ( to clarify in order to counter all the sophistry from adifferentname, where it's specifically a right for women ).



You misunderstood me. I said radical feminism isn't an INHERENT part of feminism, meaning one can be a feminist without being a radical feminist, and that radical feminist theory isn't a part of general feminist theory. All general feminist theory is that at least in some areas, women are at an unfair disadvantage to men, and that action can and should be made to remedy that disadvantage.


I agree, this is bad and against the idea of gender equality, and yes, they are still technically feminists as equality is not part of the defination of feminist in the broadest sense. Still, this is a minority position among feminists (at least as far as I'm aware). Also, why I disagree with his claim that female prisons should be abolished and not male, I looked at the article and his position is a bit more reasonable than you're making it out to be here. I think his main argument is not that women and male prisoners are inherently different, but there are too few female prisoners who really should be imprisoned to justify the costs for having the system at all (pricing doesn't scale linearly, it's cheaper when you have a larger amount of people). I fundamentally disagree with this because it's fundamentally sexist to only imprison one gender, but it does have a rational basis.


Makes sense. Not going to reply to most comments on the prisons because I agree with most of it.


Okay I'm going to have to correct you here. Radical feminism does not mean "extreme feminism", it means "roots feminism". It specifically refers to a branch of feminism which views sexual inequality as ingrained into the interactions of society, rather than being legal or economic.


Actually the main reason for participating in the holocaust for the average German wasn't dehumanization, but obedience. But still, fratboys do suck.


That's not what sociology professors in general are saying. Nowhere do they say that because the majority of group has some trait means the whole group should be treated as having that trait, if someone does that's just bad sociology. The primary use is showing how differences in groups can be inferred by differences in their averages, as there is *something* which is causing the difference in averages. Beyond that how you apply the statistics depends on context.


Sociology has to work with groups, they don't have access to every individual. And sometimes you can't make individual plans and you need to figure out how to make a general plan. Mirko does clarify that when women do commit a particularly heinous crime, they should be imprisoned.


Um, yes, he does, that's exactly what the second to last paragraph was about.


Here you misinterpreted what he said. He isn't saying the individual woman suffers more, he's saying proportionally more women suffer, and thus the average woman suffers more. This is based on the mental health statistic.


And how much is this actually a thing? This is a crime, so there should be statistics about it. Men also do the same thing a lot.


His argument wasn't that there is less female prisoners so they should be treated differently, but that female prisoners act differently from male prisoners and thus should be treated differently. Now, I've got problems with that unless it's on a case by case basis which is consistent across genders, but when it gets to the point there isn't enough female prisoners to justify the cost under his reasoning of who should be imprisoned he actually a case for closing down female prisons.


This seemed to be primarily based on reimprisonment. While I disagree, the idea is sound: if someone is more likely to commit addition crimes, it makes more sense to imprison them in order to prevent them from doing such.

Someone who posts in order goad a reaction by being inflammatory and deceptive.

Right, so the goal of Feminism is well-defined, but the actual beliefs and ideals of Feminism are grey due to Feminism as a movement continually dividing, which still supports my point - that any movement that continues to divide itself may either lose sight of the original goal, and/or lose the sense of connectivity and organization it once had.

This still means every time I meet a girl or woman who proudly identifies as a Feminist, I have no idea what to expect and secretly hope she's one of the 'nicer' and more agreeable ones more in line with my own beliefs.

I'm saying almost no movement should be like this.

Of course there will always be difference in opinion within a group, but the vast majority of members of the group should and must still have consistency in most of their goals and beliefs to clearly define what exactly they believe and want.

Otherwise you just get thousands and thousands who identify under a name without knowing what it means, which devalues the movement as a whole.

There's a lot of young Millenials I've met who identify as Anarchists and Communists probably because they think it seems 'cool' when they're just regular Democrats.

It makes me question anyone who identifies as either from now on.

No! I forgot to run spellcheck on my second to last post! It's full of spelling mistakes. How embarrassing

Allow me to be explicit:

I believe there should be no Autism rights movement specifically, but a Neurodiverse movement, that contains both those that are ND and N.T.

I believe most movements would work better if they bonded together to focus on most issues in society as one cohesive unit instead of so many different divided branches within branches.

This separation causes a lack of understanding of the other side, which would be solved if separate groups banded together to finally dicuss and attempt to understand one another.

I agree with RetroGamer87 and his statement on an existing 'us vs. them' attitude.

Even if different groups may want the same goal, they may all go about it in different ways, causing disagreement.

I'm suggesting groups coming together and compromising and learning to work together instead of all fending for themselves.

I've delved a lot into both Feminist and MRA forums and writings and the similarities between both ideologies sometimes are remarkable.

The fact they're two separate movements halves their potential numbers because they can't work together as one.

Trolling is best described as behaviour, a verb rather than a noun. It includes, ironically enough, dismissing another person's genuinely held views as trolling, or repeatedly labelling someone a troll simply because you disagree with their opinions.

As opposed to dismissing another person's genuinely held views as ignorance, which is acceptable.

That would be context dependent. For example, you might express a belief that it is my desire to set fire to buckets full of oil-soaked kittens, absent my expressed desire to do so. It would be perfectly valid to dismiss your expressed belief as ignorant.

I think feminism is an academic construct. I think they have university departments to study it now. But I don't know too many feminists in the real world. Feminism and feminist are terms that have too many meanings.

This toxic masculinity business is a bit whiny. Men do have different priorities and methods. I think it's the testosterone. But that's how it is. Empowering women shouldn't involve changing men. But at the same time, I think men should be mindful of the differing nature of women and allow them space to be so.