Feminism

[MENTION=933]Seraphim[/MENTION]

We're getting a little off track here, so let me try to restate my opinion and see if you better understand my point of view.

I am all for gender-equality, but I am not a feminist. You conflate the two as being synonymous and then regard any dismissal of feminism as also being anti-equality. This is simply just not so.

When I said that feminism validates itself with an undeniable human virtue, I mean that in essence gender equality can be restated as the Golden Rule. This is a universal human moral maxim that is found in nearly every ethical tradition throughout history. How can anybody make a valid argument against this? When you conflate the specifics of feminism with the broader universal, then any criticism against a specific point of feminism is thusly taken to be a criticism of the broad and universal. This is simply just not so.

I can agree with the broad universal truth without being a part of the specific manifestation that you ascribe to BECAUSE it is broad and can take different forms and be expressed in different manners. This is what makes it broad and universal. All thumbs may be fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

My personal distaste for feminism is the assumption of inequality. In this, I take issue with the abstract notion of inequality, not necessarily a specific incident of inequality i.e. when someone says that women are treated unequally to men I might disagree because we're dealing with abstractions and unclear interpretations of what these things mean and imply that could also be explained or interpreted in a different manner. But if put into a specific context, I might agree that an inequality exists in that context that would also imply a proposed method of resolution.

Stating that women are treated unequally to men is too broad and is simply a complaint without a resolution, because it's abstract. It amounts to stating that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence which is implicative of a subjective viewpoint without resolution. If you begin the premise that women are treated unequally to men, then when are they no longer treated unequally? If the grass is considered greener on the other side, when does one's lawn finally become green enough? When is one subjectively validated if they begin with the premise that other's do not consider them valid? It's a vicious circle until you stop and realize that the underlying assumption need be changed.
 
UBERROGO said:
@Seraphim

I just started reading your post so forgive me if this is addressed later but in regards to this:



I feel like I am going to get lulled into accepting this idea (which is a fine idea and I think that is how most people treat most other people in most situations, with equality) but I will say that I accept feminism after talking with you but then the reality of all these anti-men ideas are going make up the meat of what I experience should I ever go to a to a place where people are trying to implement feminism. So to even discuss the any positives of the idea seems like a practice in futility.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that in theory feminism sounds nice, but the reality of it is a hate group.



...


maybe it would be helpful to list a few things that feminism is. To jut say equality is too general. You seem rational enough considering past interaction that I am liable to consider your ideas, even if you are a feminist. ;)
Click to expand...
I wish you could come to the Women's Alliance I am a part of. It's the furthest thing from a hate group, and everyone who is a part of it, myself included, self-identify as feminists.
 
Seraphim said:
A lot of feminist discourse is all about the fact that we are not all the same, our diversity should be respected, we should be treated as equals despite our differences, we should look at history through the lens of various groups with unique experiences, etc. I can't tell if you're just responding to the video (I haven't watched it), or if you really think that feminism is all about trying to make everyone exactly the same in the name of equality?
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to the video, it was more like an 'ironic' tangent on how equality could be defined.

The video was of a radical feminist who was proposing a reduction in the male population (some sort of genocide, I assume) so that women wouldn't have to be afraid of rape or violence.

What you're saying is undoubtedly agreeable (no one on this thread is anti-women's rights, mostly it seems that people disagree on what 'true' feminism is). The problem here might be as simple as the fact that it's called 'feminism'-- it really does seem to suggest a preference for women, or at the very least a sense of women dominating the dialogue... maybe it's just a marketing problem?

Seraphim said:
Most feminists want to empower individuals to decide for themselves which gender they choose to identify with, or not to identify with one at all. This breeds greater diversity and difference than we ever experienced in the past when there were only two culturally defined gender roles, and you didn't even get to choose which one you wanted. Feminism extends to the study of transgender, LGBT, and other minority groups.
Click to expand...

I would imagine there are milder and more inclusive forms of feminism out there, but as long as they're associating themselves with movements that historically either didn't concern themselves with men or painted them as the 'oppressors' and the 'enemy', then casual male observers are probably only going to notice the radicals, most likely when they say upsetting things.

I suppose you don't condemn all socialists because of the national socialists... but then, I think that it's also much harder to confuse a true socialist with a white supremacist than it is to confuse a 'moderate' feminist with a radical feminist.

If I said that I was a Nazi (not comparing feminists to Nazis, just as a group that is historically associated with a certain type of person) who believed in gender and racial equality (though I can't speak for other Nazis), would you consider becoming a Nazi-- or would you at least respect that I don't mean any offense, despite the fact that I still use the symbols, the terminology, some of the rhetoric, etc.?
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised a video like that wouldn't be going against some Youtube upload policy and have been removed. That woman is expressing intent to physically harm people.

Imagine the kind of reaction a video of a man talking about gathering a bunch of guys to discuss cutting out ovaries to drastically reduce the female population would be getting.
 
I find feminism very confusing. It has obviously accomplished many great things for women, and on the other hand I think that some feminist policies cause men to be treated unfairly, as described in the article below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...lly-benevolent-sexism-feminists-conclude.html
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-t...-issues-much-higher-priority-than-male-issues

From what I've found so far, there are people who believe in the general idea of feminism that women should have equal rights as men, and are predominantly interested in the humanitarian aspect of feminism, and don't necessarily declare themselves "feminists". Those are the nicer kind of "feminists".
And there is that other kind of "feminists" who despise men and masculinity (some refer to them as "extremists"), and somehow believe that men are the cause of all evil in the world.







 
Last edited:
IrenaShav said:
I find feminism very confusing. It has obviously accomplished many great things for women, and on the other hand I think that some feminist policies cause men to be treated unfairly, as described in the article below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...lly-benevolent-sexism-feminists-conclude.html
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-t...-issues-much-higher-priority-than-male-issues

From what I've found so far, there are people who believe in the general idea of feminism that women should have equal rights as men, and are predominantly interested in the humanitarian aspect of feminism, and don't necessarily declare themselves "feminists". Those are the nicer kind of "feminists".
And there is that other kind of "feminists" who despise men and masculinity (some refer to them as "extremists"), and somehow believe that men are the cause of all evil in the world.
Click to expand...

And the unfortunate fact is that it's the latter who are the most vocal and so attract the most attention.

It's the same with most groups, from atheists to bronies, it's the loud mouthed fools whom people notice.
 
I believe that women should have equal say in the running of their communities; i also think they should have equal opportunites

I don't believe that men and women are always equal in their abilities; each sex (as a generalisation) has its strengths and also its things that its not so good at); my view is that the two sexes are supposed to compliment each other not compete with each other

I think we live in a patriarchal society run by male dominated organisations which has lead to society being imbalanced....our society is all about competition and not about nurturing; i hope as women gain ground in our society it will balance out

A recent example would be the recent voting in the upper echelons of the church of England to prevent women from being Bishops. Even in the 21st century major institutions are preventing women from getting a foothold into the positions of power

I think that the men at the top of these male dominated organisations are threatened by women and the challenge to their power that they bring. I think that these men created a 'battle of the sexes' as a way to keep men and women at odds with each other, by producing certain narratives in the media that they control and by creating and funding certain organisations

I think the end game of these men is to create a society that they will control centrally.

Although on the surface the entry of women into the workplace seems like a step in the right direction there are a couple of problems i see. Firstly despite the fact we now have incredible technology at our disposal including machinery, computers, robots and other labour saving devices and despite the fact men and women are in the work place and despite the fact cheap foreign labour is exploited by the corporations it seems that people are being asked to invest many hours into work

This is despite studies that show the vast amount of time that is squandered in the work place. It seems making people work longer hours does not necessarily increase productivity

So it seems that the men at the top of the patriarchal society who are trying to engineer a centrally controlled society that they will control, want everyone to spend a lot of time at work (even when they don't need to be there) and they want both men and women to be at work when they don't both need to be there

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that to bring women into the work place DOUBLES the amount of taxes the government can squeeze from the public

When i say the ''government'' it is not quite that straight forward. When the government wants money it has to get it from the privately owned 'Federal reserve' bank. The bank prints this money and gives it to the government but the government then owes interest on that money which is why the country is always in debt.....it can't pay off its debt, it just pays its interest payments to the central banks

This may sound insane and thats because it is. There is no need for this to happen like this because the government 'treasury department' has the power to print its own money interest free, but unfortunatly the powerful men who own the federal reserve bank have bribed, tricked and intimidated people in government to allow this arrangement

So the extra taxes raised from women going into the work place is actually flowing up into the hands of the men who own the federal reserve bank hence the massive gap that is opening up between the top 1% and the rest of society

Then there is another key reason for the powerful men at the top of the patriarchal society to want both men and women in the workplace when they don't both need to be there. That reason is so that there is no one left to look after the children; this means that the children must then go to school from a very young age because the government wants to raise the children (they have the children for more waking hours than the parents do) so that they can educate them ie indoctrinate them to think how they want them to think

The patriarchal control system wants children raised by the state and indoctrinated by the state

So although on the surface we should be fighting for equal opportunities for women we must also be street wise and at the same time fight for decent pay for reasonable hours; the wealth is there to take care of everyone but we need to recognise that it is being stolen by the men at the top through a very clever con scheme
 
Last edited:
With all due respect to feminist women out there, i cannot stand feminism. To me feminism is not needed.I believe this world was a better place when MAN was the head of a house.Now we have abortions,teen pregnancies have increased way too much,we have legalized prostitutions,etc.Plus,whenever i express my opinnion,there's always some feminist radical to slam me. I'm more for women to be respectfully submissive to men,like in a marriage.I'm a traditionalist and not a modern type of women who (mostly) don't know how to take care of family,who think the world owes them something,etc. I don't say ALL feminists are like this,but honestly,i've come to conclusion,most of them are.
 
Morethanthisbody said:
With all due respect to feminist women out there, i cannot stand feminism. To me feminism is not needed.I believe this world was a better place when MAN was the head of a house.Now we have abortions,teen pregnancies have increased way too much,we have legalized prostitutions,etc.Plus,whenever i express my opinnion,there's always some feminist radical to slam me. I'm more for women to be respectfully submissive to men,like in a marriage.I'm a traditionalist and not a modern type of women who (mostly) don't know how to take care of family,who think the world owes them something,etc. I don't say ALL feminists are like this,but honestly,i've come to conclusion,most of them are.
Click to expand...

I hear this is the latest fashion-
saudi-women-outraged.webp
 
Morethanthisbody said:
With all due respect to feminist women out there, i cannot stand feminism. To me feminism is not needed.I believe this world was a better place when MAN was the head of a house.Now we have abortions,teen pregnancies have increased way too much,we have legalized prostitutions,etc.Plus,whenever i express my opinnion,there's always some feminist radical to slam me. I'm more for women to be respectfully submissive to men,like in a marriage.I'm a traditionalist and not a modern type of women who (mostly) don't know how to take care of family,who think the world owes them something,etc. I don't say ALL feminists are like this,but honestly,i've come to conclusion,most of them are.
Click to expand...
That's fine if those are your beliefs.
Then you submit to a man and accept him as head of the house, then you don't have an abortion or become a prostitute. Then you be a "traditionalist."

Interesting that you say feminists believe the world owes them something as if you don't feel the same way-- expecting people who do not accept your values to live by them.

People should live according to their own morals and values, and allow others to do the same.
Feminists aren't interested in taking away your right to live the way you want, but they are interested in having more options for themselves than the ones you presented.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
That's fine if those are your beliefs.
Then you submit to a man and accept him as head of the house, then you don't have an abortion or become a prostitute. Then you be a "traditionalist."

Interesting that you say feminists believe the world owes them something as if you don't feel the same way-- expecting people who do not accept your values to live by them.

People should live according to their own morals and values, and allow others to do the same.
Feminists aren't interested in taking away your right to live the way you want, but they are interested in having more options for themselves than the ones you presented.
Click to expand...


Where did I say I expect anyone to live by MY values?
 
Morethanthisbody said:
Where did I say I expect anyone to live by MY values?
Click to expand...


Morethanthisbody said:
With all due respect to feminist women out there, i cannot stand feminism. To me feminism is not needed.I believe this world was a better place when MAN was the head of a house.Now we have abortions,teen pregnancies have increased way too much,we have legalized prostitutions,etc.Plus,whenever i express my opinnion,there's always some feminist radical to slam me. I'm more for women to be respectfully submissive to men,like in a marriage.I'm a traditionalist and not a modern type of women who (mostly) don't know how to take care of family,who think the world owes them something,etc. I don't say ALL feminists are like this,but honestly,i've come to conclusion,most of them are.
Click to expand...
You aren't just talking about yourself, here...
 
Morethanthisbody said:
With all due respect to feminist women out there, i cannot stand feminism. To me feminism is not needed.I believe this world was a better place when MAN was the head of a house.Now we have abortions,teen pregnancies have increased way too much,we have legalized prostitutions,etc.Plus,whenever i express my opinnion,there's always some feminist radical to slam me. I'm more for women to be respectfully submissive to men,like in a marriage.I'm a traditionalist and not a modern type of women who (mostly) don't know how to take care of family,who think the world owes them something,etc. I don't say ALL feminists are like this,but honestly,i've come to conclusion,most of them are.
Click to expand...

Dammit, this post makes me want to bench 200 and go get a buzz cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Morethanthisbody said:
sweety,that's called expressing my opinion.And if you look at this one more time,you'll see i'm using a lot of I,I'M an ME.And that's not called pushing my beliefs on you.
Click to expand...

The ignorance.. You don't even realize what you are communicating with the language you choose to use. It's telling that you believe one thing and then deny it to make your opinion more palatable to others. The problem is that people with such fundamental beliefs can't help but push them on others. It's the nature of holding fundamental beliefs.


The distinction is that if you were concerned for only yourself, you might say things like,
"I choose blah blah blah" without dragging other people (women) who obviously don't agree with you into your morality.
People like women who choose to have abortions or become prostitutes or just plain don't want to lead the "traditional life" that you idealize.
Do you understand?
 
Last edited:
acd said:
How ignorant and unaware. You are only 19 though.
You'll grow up some, hopefully...

The distinction is that if you were concerned for only yourself, you might say things like,
"I choose blah blah blah" without dragging other people (women) who obviously don't agree with you into your morality.
People like women who choose to have abortions or become prostitutes or just plain don't want to lead the "traditional life" that you idealize.
Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me.I wasn't insulting you and once again,i was only expressing my opinion.And you if don't like it,too bad dear.
 
Morethanthisbody said:
I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me.I wasn't insulting you and once again,i was only expressing my opinion.And you if don't like it,too bad dear.
Click to expand...
I edited my post and added a point. You were condescending to me by calling me sweety. Are you truly that ignorant to not realize that, either? Or just lying?
 
acd said:
The ignorance.. You don't even realize what you are communicating with the language you choose to use. It's telling that you believe one thing and then deny it to make your opinion more palatable to others. The problem is that people with such fundamental beliefs can't help but push them on others. It's the nature of holding fundamental beliefs.


The distinction is that if you were concerned for only yourself, you might say things like,
"I choose blah blah blah" without dragging other people (women) who obviously don't agree with you into your morality.
People like women who choose to have abortions or become prostitutes or just plain don't want to lead the "traditional life" that you idealize.
Do you understand?
Click to expand...

ok dear,now i see you're acting like this because i am christian(fundamentalist,like you say). Please dear,if you can't stand my viewpoints,than just move on and don't ever speak to me again. But there is no need to insult me.Have a nice day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top