Are you a feminist?

[Angilion]

Male and female are not entities ? That makes no sense.

Not to you, maybe. But I think it's very clear that neither "male" nor "female" is a single entity, a single person.

Every time you talk about men being this and women being that, you are talking about all men as a single person and all women as a single person. You are pressurising everyone to conform to the sexed restrictions you favour. You are doing your best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are some trends to varying extents that might or might not have any real basis. Nature or nurture or some of each? Usually impossible to tell.

That is a very different thing to absolute and inherent differences between men and women. The only real absolute and inherent differences are the biology used to define the terms "male" and "female".

 

[InKursion]

I didn't say all were, I said on average. It is a fact, if every woman that is biologically capable of having children goes all hormonal wack job 1 week in 4 then the averages are massively in the males favor for level headedness*

*real word! FACT.

Yes but, on average, men have far higher incidences of suicide and mental health problems. Especially young men. So even though women deal with a monthly hormonal rollercoaster, they still seem to have a better grip on things than men.

 

[JBod]

Yes but, on average, men have far higher incidences of suicide and mental health problems. Especially young men. So even though women deal with a monthly hormonal rollercoaster, they still seem to have a better grip on things than men.

I bet the cause of those mental imbalances are predominantly female.

 

[Haggisman]

I think it stems predominantly from the realities of procreation in small tribes of hunter-gatherers, i.e. how humans lived for almost all of the existence of humans. Any given woman's contribution to breeding was in effect a rarer resource than any given man's, which made men less valuable in that sense. Taking into account the duration of pregnancy and the reduced fertility resulting from breastfeeding, you're looking at about 2 years per child for women in those circumstances. In 2 years, a man could realistically be the biological father to at least a dozen children. If a few women died, the future of the tribe was in doubt. If a few men died, it wasn't. So dangerous things were done by men - hunting, war, eating unknown plants to see if they're poisonous, etc - and women were protected much more than men. Protection and restriction go hand in hand. The most protected people are prisoners in solitary confinement 24/7.

I think recorded history bears this out - when a motivation is given for restrictions on women, it's usually protection at least to some extent. Mary Somerville will serve as an example again. Her parents didn't restrict her education to oppress her because they were agents of the patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women, blah blah blah. They did it to protect her. It's clear from her own writing and from theirs that they were genuinely trying to protect her from what they genuinely thought was a serious threat to her health (physical and mental).


There's a hypothesis which is interesting but untestable. If at some point before recorded history societies were predominantly matriarchal (as they might have been and some people claim they were), then it's plausible that the inequalities resulted in masculism, a men's rights movement that passed itself off as a sexual equality movement. That would be an obvious lie, but it's worked for feminism recently so it's plausible that it worked for masculism back then. Obviously, a completely successful sex-group advocacy ideology will inevitably result in people of that sex dominating society and widespread disadvantages for people of the other sex - that's what any such ideology is for. In other words - same thing, different sex.

Thank you, that's more along the lines of the kind of answer I was looking for, and an interesting explanation that I hadn't thought of, but makes sense

 

[hurfdurf]

 

[VeNT]

tbh I'm all for gender equality, not feminism.
for example, my GF got 9 months PAID for maternity, I got 2 weeks on half pay.
she's been offered all kinds of work options (from home, different hours etc) but I was told I could get stuffed if I wanted to start half an hour later to drop my baby off at childcare.
Feminism is all well and good but it cuts both ways.

 

[Angilion]

I could have posted the same incident as part of the reason why I am an anti-feminist.

I think it's a bad idea to condition women to be scared (and thus more easily manipulated) and men to be careless.

But the main reason I'm an anti-feminist is because feminism is sexism and I'm opposed to sexism. That covers all the reasons in one go.

 

[Six7th]

tbh I'm all for gender equality, not feminism.
for example, my GF got 9 months PAID for maternity, I got 2 weeks on half pay.
she's been offered all kinds of work options (from home, different hours etc) but I was told I could get stuffed if I wanted to start half an hour later to drop my baby off at childcare.
Feminism is all well and good but it cuts both ways.

You do realise that better paternity rights are something that us feminists would fight for too? Feminism IS NOT about making women superior to men and giving them special treatment.

For one thing, supporting better paternity rights would be working towards gender equality but also it would be about fighting traditions of society, and how women are expected to not work but stay at home and look after their children.

 

[Six7th]

feminism is sexism

A lot of people will disagree with you.

Neither feminists as a group, nor feminist theory, engages in sexism or “reverse sexism” against men. Often times the feminist focus on women’s issues, as well as their recognition and continued efforts to correct the imbalance of power (see male privilege), are seen as looking to privilege women over men, but in fact are simply attempts to level the playing field between men as a class and women as a class

There's a whole wealth of information available in this FAQ:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

I'd urge all of you to at least read a little of it.

 

[Angilion]

A lot of people will disagree with you.

And they'd be very obviously wrong.

A biological group advocacy ideology must, absolutely must as a first step in everything, define everyone on the basis of whether or not they are in the group favoured by the ideology. It is obviously impossible to have a biological group advocacy ideology that doesn't do that.

So feminism is sexism on that basis.

A biological group advocacy ideology must also include the belief that only people in the group favoured by the ideology are worthy of consideration on a social and political level. That's how a biological group advocacy ideology works.

So feminism is sexism on that basis.

A biological group advocacy ideology must also promote belief in negative stereotyping of the other, those not in the favoured group. That is necessary to "justify" excluding them from consideration.

So feminism is sexism on that basis.

An ideology that was about sexual equality would not include sexism. Feminism includes any and all anti-male sexism up to and including "phasing out" maleness, i.e. a final solution to the male problem. Anti-male sexism does not in any way conflict with feminism because feminism is sexism.


All strains of feminism, including the most moderate, are absolutely and inherently sexist.


There are many things that a lot of people have thought or do think. For example, that "whites" are superior to "blacks". Or that witches are agents of Satan who curse decent people with their foul spells. Or that women can't do maths. Many, many things. If a lot of people believe something that is irrational and wrong, it's still irrational and wrong.

EDIT: Including a link to feminist propaganda written specifically to divert attention away from the truth with baseless denials and more blaming of the target group is not evidence of anything apart from deceit, which is of course to be expected from advocates of biological group advocacy ideologies. Go out tonight and find some guy living rough on the streets and tell him how priviliged and powerful he is compared with, for example, Angela Merkel. Maybe you'd even be deluded enough to believe it.

 

[Haggisman]

Feminism IS NOT about making women superior to men and giving them special treatment.

Why is it called FEMinism then?

What if there was a movement called Whiteism? Would that strike you as promoting racial equality?

 

[RDM]

Why is it called FEMinism then?

Because it was formed in response to an actual male domination? I thought that would have been rather obvious?

The founding ideals of feminism where about equality not superiority, obviously not all adherents, all philosophies and all forms of feminism still hold to those ideals.

 

[shoes]

lol can you imagine if women were in charge of everything?

The world would grind to a halt bogged down by failed logic and excess hormones.

 

[Haggisman]

Because it was formed in response to an actual male domination? I thought that would have been rather obvious?

The founding ideals of feminism where about equality not superiority, obviously not all adherents, all philosophies and all forms of feminism still hold to those ideals.

But the fact that the very name is recognising one gender over the other illustrates that it's not about equality. It's about recognising women at the exclusion of men.

Would you believe for a second that a movement called Whiteism, or perhaps Blackism was in any way promoting racial equality?

 

[RDM]

But the fact that the very name is recognising one gender over the other illustrates that it's not about equality. It's about recognising women at the exclusion of men.

Because at the time of it's formation women were very much inequal? They needed boosting (and in some cases still do) to become anywhere near equal. Like any special interest group they were focused on improving the rights situation for their group, that does not necessarily mean they wanted superiority, just equality.

Would you believe for a second that a movement called Whiteism, or perhaps Blackism was in any way promoting racial equality?

Considering the positive impact of the Black Power movement for equal rights in the US you may want to choose a different example...

Whilst I can happily see why some people would disagree with some aspects of modern feminism I am genuinely suprised that you are unable to disassociate that from the foundations of the movement.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Whilst I can happily see why some people would disagree with some aspects of modern feminism I am genuinely suprised that you are unable to disassociate that from the foundations of the movement.

That's a rosy-spectacled romanticised view of the past, which is normal for all sorts of things and not just political ideologies.

The foundations of feminism were exactly the same as modern feminism. That is clear if you read old feminist material, as I have. Even in the beginning, there were foolish but well-meaning feminists who really thought they could change feminism into the opposite of what it fundamentally is - sexist through and through from the foundations upwards. They were, of course, just as wrong as the equally foolish and well-meaning feminists who have the same delusions today.

It's never been any different because it can't be. It never will be any different because it can't be. No biological group advocacy ideology can be anything else - the profound inequality is inherent in being a biological group advocacy ideology, as I explained above.

All that can vary is the amount of power any such ideology has and the resulting harm it does to the idea of equality.

 

[Angilion]

lol can you imagine if women were in charge of everything?

The world would grind to a halt bogged down by failed logic and excess hormones.

Bull. The world would be pretty much the same as it is now because the same conditions would apply. You'd have short-term changes if there was a sudden radical change, such as a feminist group successfully seizing power as an absolute oligarchy or dictactorship, but in the long run nothing would change. Any short-term changes would be due to the sudden radical change, not due to the sex of the oligarchs. The only way you'd get a lasting change would be if they were extreme enough to "phase out" maleness entirely, or maybe (as the slightly less extreme ones advocate), cull male people down to a manageable minority to use as breeding animals and for dangerous work.

Give it another decade or two and the stereotype of men being illogical and addled by hormones will probably be dominant. Feminism has already been very successful to strengthening existing anti-male stereotypes, so now it's well on the way to reversing old anti-female stereotypes and making them anti-male ones.

 

[V4NT0M]

I am not a feminist nor do I care for the plight of women, blacks, disabled or any number of inferior groups who feel they are not treated equally.

 

[hurfdurf]

 

[hurfdurf]

Also holy lol at the dude who used an analytical example of a homeless man and the Prime minister of Germany, completely ignoring the makeup of the amount of men in politics vs women.