Tbh I would think feminism would actually be a good thing for men.
Who is this Yall person I keep hearing about? :question:
That's not to say all feminist are like that- or hold those ideals, but to say feminism as a whole is good for men (or all women for that matter,) when so many parts of it are skewed and warped, I feel is a bit of an oversimplification.
Well Im not saying im the expert or representative of Feminism. To be honest I dont know a lot about it other than the complaints Ive heard and the few friends I have (that I met on here) that are Feminists. And they struck me as the least judgemental women Ive ever met. And then Ive met quite a few that are not Feminists that have gotten on my case for things that that guy mentioned in the Facebook tirade (ie video games, not being married, living with parents). But anyways I see that it like so many other "groups" have people in it that are bad and good. So Im guessing feminists would get on my case for those things too if I ran into the right ones. I dunno, this whole affair is incredibly depressing.
Oh but I didn't mean to imply you were, I was just addressing a slight pet peeve I have with desire for fairness and social equality being defined as a strictly feminist value, while it's first and foremost an egalitarian value.
Case in point, I myself was convinced I was a feminist before I started taking notice of some unacceptable things done in the name of feminism.
Divide and conquer.
It's as old as time.
We all play into it unless we realize we are BEING played *angry face*
Feminists support gender equality-- all feminists are egalitarians. Social and economic equality are also egalitarian goals, but feminists don't necessarily concern themselves with that.
The people saying otherwise are usually those opposed to egalitarian ideals. They're conservatives, big-L Libertarians, etc... so they like lumping all of their enemies together under a single banner-- liberals, so******ts, feminists, environmentalists, etc. In fact, I'm convinced that Rush Limbaugh has probably played the biggest role in defining feminism for the mainstream.
Usually people will gravitate towards the simplest, dumbest definitions of a thing so that they don't have to put too much effort into their judgment calls. After they've written it off and invested their time and energy in that opinion, they're pretty much deaf... which is the whole point. Explaining the wide array of feminist perspectives to the general public would just irritate them and demand too much of their time and mental energy, and it's much easier to just tell yourself you've got it all figured out and hate these things without understanding them.
Feminism is at its core an egalitarian movement. It's not female supremacy. Maybe every single idea that every single feminist has ever had isn't necessarily the best way to service that philosophy, but it doesn't change the movement's core principles.
Who cares what's being done 'in the name of feminism'? So everyone who identifies as a feminist is responsible for the actions of everyone else who identifies as one?
Feminists support gender equality-- all feminists are egalitarians. Social and economic equality are also egalitarian goals, but feminists don't necessarily concern themselves with that.
The people saying otherwise are usually those opposed to egalitarian ideals. They're conservatives, big-L Libertarians, etc... so they like lumping all of their enemies together under a single banner-- liberals, so******ts, feminists, environmentalists, etc.
I have noticed that feminists get a very special kind of hate, though... not even people who sincerely think that poor people should be sterilized get the same level of hate. It's shocking, actually.
Feminism is at its core an egalitarian movement. It's not female supremacy. Maybe every single idea that every single feminist has ever had isn't necessarily the best way to service that philosophy, but it doesn't change the movement's core principles.
Who cares what's being done 'in the name of feminism'? So everyone who identifies as a feminist is responsible for the actions of everyone else who identifies as one?
Tbh I would think feminism would actually be a good thing for men.
I had no idea there were so many dinosaurs in this forum. But what doesn't surprise me are social phobic men directing/blaming their issues on females, that seems a pretty common trait.
Or maybe people just genuinely can't agree.
I've never been a fan of this whole 'we're all being played' narrative. Usually once someone says 'you're all being played', the next thing out of their mouth is something along the lines of 'you should all do what I want you to do'.
It's the classic third party stance, and while the prospect of a political overhaul has its own appeal, the reason third parties have this stance is because they know they will never actually have to answer for it.
I hear you that people are bound to disagree, which is normal but when we are being force fed through all of the media out lets and advertising that we should behave this way or that how can you not see an agenda at work?
I say we are being played and because we need to be smart enough to read between the lines with the way we are being presented with only certain things- like it is known now for example all the major news stations are all given the same exact news stories to report to the entire country. Do you think that is a mistake? So when they all show the same story about a group protesting against abortion to everyone in the US on the 5:00 news for example, do you not see an agenda at play?
Our movies are the same. Our advertising is the same. There is a major control system at work to get humans to behave a certain way. Feminism falls under the same program. Example here:
"Torches of Freedom" was a phrase used to encourage women’s smoking by exploiting women's aspirations for a better life during the women’s liberation movement in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men. The term was first used by psychoanalyst A. A. Brill when describing the natural desire for women to smoke and was used by Edward Bernays to encourage women to smoke in public despite social taboos. Bernays hired women to march while smoking their “torches of freedom” in the Easter Sunday Parade of 1929 which was a significant moment for fighting social barriers for women smokers.
Social Engineering is what I was referring to. Millions and millions of dollars are spent to get humans to behave a certain way. Getting people to disagree and also to hate their bodies, hate their lives makes the world go around for the psychopaths.
Could you explain why?
I think it's ok for men to be men, and women to be women.
Feminism isn't a movement with a leader nor a consensus. It consists of many individuals that each have their own incrementally different view on what feminism is and should be. So forming a very wide spectrum ranging from admirable goals like the egalitarian values, to frankly deplorable ones like putting biased limits on who's ideas we can criticize/disagree with, actively limiting free expression.
No offense, but this is a stereotype in and of itself. It discredits an enormous amount of people based upon nothing but disagreeing. Opinions need to be evaluated on merit, not sides. This goes both ways.
Feminism is per definition a egalitarian movement. However, reoccurring actions and ideals in relative time define core principles. Those include those exhibited by radical and militant members when it concerns a collectivist movement. Especially when the latter gain traction in their endeavors.
Not responsible, but considering how they're descriptive terms for ideals/goals (defined by the movement) it's generally good practice to not define yourself by terms that are inaccurate. For me they weren't accurate.
Free expression is already limited... that's why neo-nazis tend to get a lot of flak from the government. These days it's usually these kinds of groups who like to hide behind free speech in the first place.
I'm not talking about civilized disagreement, I'm talking about a smear campaign. I'm talking about people who throw around words like 'feminazis' and go out of their way to find fringe elements and manipulate their words until they sound scary.
The political left isn't attacking feminists on a regular basis. I listed the sources of this stereotypical thinking... these are usually the same people who attack Muslims, liberals, etc. and defend economic inequality as 'natural'. Obviously not all of them agree on everything and not all of them participate, but that is where the hate is coming from.
There's a difference between identifying the source of a smear campaign and completely dismissing an entire movement based on what you think they're about. I wasn't saying that feminism and the right are incompatible.
What exactly about the end goals of the movement do you think is non-egalitarian?
And why are you defining the movement purely in terms of its most radical elements?
So Muslims should start referring to themselves as members of ISIS?
That may be, but that doesn't excuse trying to limit it more. People should be able to praise and scrutinize figures of influence, we can't do that when what we can say- to who, is limited.
Yes, but what I meant is that it doesn't do the situation justice, I'm aware there's slander and propaganda about feminism. Much of it untrue, but not all of it.
There's more than enough people that form their own conclusion/criticism based on their direct observations. It's import that we recognize this and separate correlation from causation and not dismiss anyone based on stereotypes.
I find the likes of Bahar Mustafa banning white men from diversity events, Anita Sarkisiaan/Zoe Quinn advocating for what equates to censorship laws, and the terrifyingly large number of professional feminists that completely ignored the Cologne attacks out of fear of seeming racist, to name a few, quite anti-egalitarian.
These are isolated instances of (sometimes) isolated people, however there's no real distinction in the public eye. They're also not uncommon, it seems like there is a new embarrassment every day.
Is it really that strange I wouldn't want to be associated with- or would actively want to support, a movement that harbors such people on a kneej-erk reaction? Especially considering when there's more to-the-point descriptive terms I could use? I don't see the use clinging to a term of which its good name is so frequently tarnished by zealots.
I don't judge the movement by just the radical members. Movements are judged on the perceived whole, that's how collectivism works. That sadly includes those who hold the regressive beliefs, and those stand out like a sore thumb.
Alright.. No, and while I understand you didn't meant it that way, let me take a sidebar here and say I would prefer if you didn't put such awful words in my mouth.
I get that this is a hot button topic and everyone is passionate about it, and that it was an exaggerated example - but it crosses a line. Feminism isn't a religion from which a separate unrecognizably deformed section fractured that is now murdering and torturing people.
The two do not even remotely compare, so let's not. They're cheap soundbites and not conducive to civil conversation.
We're clearly on the same side under different names. At best we're arguing semantics and artificial lines in the sand, which is fine, but let's stay level headed.