Feminism

[bamf]

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that men already have all rights that women do.

And why use a word that pertains to women if the intended focus was on gender equality?

I'm not trying to defend the definition or the use of the word. You can disagree, and you can say you're for equality but are not a feminist. I don't agree, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

By using the word term 'equal,' which your definition did, not me, feminism is for men having the same rights as women. I never assumed that they did. I simply pointed out that if you're using the first definition you supplied, and support equality, then you are a feminist. Women can't be equal to men if they have different/more rights. Equal=equal, aka the same. You can't have 'equal rights, but more rights'. That's simply not equal.

It's simply because the concept of 'equality' is ambiguous.

I think that the term equal, and all its variants, is far from ambiguous. The implementation and actual realization of such, I would argue, is what is ambiguous.

 

[Paladin-X]

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

I concede the technicality. However, the wording still implies the focus of women. For example, if women have the right to 12 months of maternity leave and the father had the right to sixth months parental leave, by the logic of the definition, women would have to reduce the leave to 6 months to achieve equality. Equal is equal, but this is more of a step back for one right than forward. Which doesn't really make practical sense, even though it does logically.

And again, the word in itself relates to women. Regardless of what the word means to anyone else, I do not believe the word itself means advocating gender equality.

NOTE: Please be aware that I am not suggesting that by my reasoning, if you claim to be a feminist, you are not in support of gender equality. I am arguing something completely different. AKA I am advocating changing the label of feminism to something else more awesome.

 

[Matt3737]

I think that the term equal, and all its variants, is far from ambiguous. The implementation and actual realization of such, I would argue, is what is ambiguous.

Definitely, which is why I referred to the concept of equality whether than say the definition of the term. These sorts of distinctions are the same sort of issues that are mirrored in any discussion of what would constitute an ideal egalitarian society. Trying to reconcile any sort of real or perceived distinction with a desire to achieve equivalence.

I can make a semantic distinction between males and females in the same manner that I can make a semantic distinction between the letters A and B.

So if A is equal to B. A = B despite them being different letters of the alphabet. They are made equivalent through mathematical rules.

At what point do men = women?

 

[Paladin-X]

At what point do men = women?

Cosmetic surgery.

 

[bamf]

Definitely, which is why I referred to the concept of equality whether than say the definition of the term. These sorts of distinctions are the same sort of issues that are mirrored in any discussion of what would constitute an ideal egalitarian society. Trying to reconcile any sort of real or perceived distinction with a desire to achieve equivalence.

I can make a semantic distinction between males and females in the same manner that I can make a semantic distinction between the letters A and B.

So if A is equal to B. A = B despite them being different letters of the alphabet. They are made equivalent through mathematical rules.

At what point do men = women?

A and B represent something, being men and women's rights. Men won't equal women, and cannot. They are similar, yet different. However, their rights (whatever that means) could be made to be equal. Feminism advocates for making the rights equal, not the sexes to be the same.

If someone advocates for gender equality, feminism, by definition, advocates the same. Well, it would if the definition were to move beyond sex to gender, which I would argue it has.


EDIT: I missed it originally when you said concept, not definition, in relation to equality. Sorry about that. Fault on my part.

 

[Matt3737]

A and B represent something, being men and women's rights. Men won't equal women, and cannot. They are similar, yet different. However, their rights (whatever that means) could be made to be equal. Feminism advocates for making the rights equal, not the sexes to be the same.

If someone advocates for gender equality, feminism, by definition, advocates the same. Well, it would if the definition were to move beyond sex to gender, which I would argue it has.

True, but rights are not measurable quantities. They are abstractions the same as genders are. Numbers and variables are also abstractions and research into number theory will reveal many peculiarities you might not have previously been aware of which would cause both the analogy and the enterprise of gender equality bound to be rife with disagreement and conflict.

 

[Matt3737]

Feminism validates itself with an undeniable human ideal, i.e. human equality, that oftentimes seems to espouse veiled biases and self-loathing.

Why is it unfair to criticise feminism? A loaded question in the same manner as: Why are women unequal to men? It has already assumed a value judgment.

Feminists assume they are somehow inferior to men.

I don't have a problem with social change, but I, personally, find feminism as a movement distasteful. It's not what is being said, but how it is being said that I disagree and criticise.

 

[Gaze]

I think the word "feminism" is being given different meanings by different people. For me, I connect more with the "women's movement" as a term which sought to give equal rights to women because it was coined at a time when women's rights were not being acknowledged as equal to men. On the other hand, the concept of equality is misguided. Men and women have differences, and those differences are largely the reason for much misunderstandings and misinterpretation. The valuing of these differences is often the key issue. We need to understand this first if we're going to have a fair debate on this topic, so it doesn't turn into a men vs. women's views argument. I don't identify with the term "feminism" because women who've used this term have used this term too often to conveniently support women's rights on one hand and also created anti-male/men rhetoric on the other. One of the unfortunate realities of using labels. The term has become too loaded with too many different connotations and is leading to too much misunderstanding. It's how the term is often used and abused which is creating the problem despite whatever personal association or connotation which someone may have for it. Ideally, we should be moving away from these terms if we want to create an environment of respect for the rights and appreciation of perspectives for both sexes/genders. I think the issues of rights are less about equality than fairness. If we address things from the perspective of what's fair then we will be walking on a more even playing field where both sexes/genders rights can be respected. For me, as controversial as it to still believe this, men and women are not the same. And nothing is wrong with that. It's how we judge or value the differences that's the problem.

 

[the]

Here's a little gem.

[video=youtube_share;jvEJfN-jiS4]http://youtu.be/jvEJfN-jiS4[/video]

 

[this is only temporary]

Holy f....

That lady is nuts. I googled Femitheist (Femi THEIST???) because I wanted to know what a femitheist was, and found this additional little gem:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87815

In which she says, and I quote:

All Men Should Be Castrated? - International "Castration Day"

Some Feminists have considered this as an option. It is highly controversial.


Allow me to introduce myself...

My name is Krista, otherwise known as "The Femitheist". I am a female, a feminist, and someone who believes strongly in True Equality.

Now, I will begin explaining this entry before I post the actual article... for your discussion, of course.

Women MUST and WILL have equality, and this is the ONLY way to achieve TRUE equality. The testicles of all males, which produce the majority of their testosterone, are the primary cause of their violent behavior. The testicles also attribute greatly to many of the health problems men experience later in life (such as prostate cancer and, of course, testicular cancer).

~:The Solution... International Castration Day.:~

It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated. Not only for their own safety, but for the safety of all innocent women and children.

Damn. That's all, just damn. People are crazy. And she doesn't even look like Zena. :/

 

[Apone]

Well, if that's how she defines equality then we all have to respect that, because all opinions are equal and equality is important.

 

[the]

Regarding the femitheist and international castration day: perhaps she needs her ovaries and adrenal gland removed. This should reduce her violent tendencies.

 

[this is only temporary]

yeaahhhhh... that's not equality, that's a psycho with a YouTube account who wants to maim people.

 

[the]

yeaahhhhh... that's not equality, that's a psycho with a YouTube account who wants to maim people.

This is how religions get started.

Well she may possibly be dead now anyways: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/femitheist-divine-suicide/

 

[Apone]

There's a story by Barrington Bayley that talks about what perfect equality would actually mean.

You would have to disfigure anyone who was more physically attractive than the average.
You would have to cripple anyone who was stronger than the average.
You would have to poison/injure anyone who was more intelligent than average.

Or I suppose you could just lower your standards, or deny certain people the right to reproduce.

I believe in equal opportunity and equal rights, but 'equality' is something completely different… and without a clearly defined manifesto, there's nothing to separate the ridiculous/harmful ideas from the valid/beneficial ideas.

 

[the]

There's actually a story by Barrington Bayley that talks about what perfect equality would actually mean.

You would have to disfigure anyone who was more physically attractive than the average.
You would have to cripple anyone who was stronger than the average.
You would have to poison/injure anyone who was more intelligent than average.

Or I suppose you could just lower your standards, or deny certain people the right to reproduce.

I believe in equal opportunity and equal rights, but actual 'equality' is something completely different… and without a clearly defined manifesto, there's nothing to separate the ridiculous/harmful from the valid/beneficial.

I think you would have to disfigure anyone who > 1/10. Because you cant give people beauty pills to bring them up to average.

 

[Apone]

Average would become the new exceptional, and the less-than-average minority would feel oppressed.

But then the standards would keep changing-- even when your entire society is stagnant from stupidity and weakness, there would still be advantaged and disadvantaged people… and you'd end up devolving into total mediocrity and probably extinction.

But the thing is that women aren't inferior, so they shouldn't need special considerations or murderous campaigns in order to make them equal. So the concept of 'patriarchy' comes into play-- the idea that the only possible explanation for this inequality is that society is set up in a way that favors men, and that this is not the 'natural' order.

But I think it is natural… unless you think that humanity's natural place is extinction or at the very least much closer to the bottom end of the food chain. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that brute force and aggression were necessary to progress beyond a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and that men 'controlled' societies because they were the ones who were most capable of defending and advancing them (through brute physical force, and the necessity of weaponry that extended and augmented the impact of that force). That protection also extended to women (chivalry), whose duty was to reproduce, etc… not because that's all that they were capable of, but because those roles were best suited to them at the time. How is being protected from the brutalities of human conflict oppression?

But now that brute force has been replaced by technology and trade, women are more likely to take a central role in the future… it's only natural now that societies are more secure and peaceful, and people in general are more respectful… there are fewer boundaries to female success, and protection and aggression don't actually require physical strength.

The biggest obstacle that women are facing today is probably religion.

 

[bamf]

This is how religions get started.

Well she may possibly be dead now anyways: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/femitheist-divine-suicide/

Seeing as you posted the article, I'm curious as to whether or not you agree with the following statements made in it:
* "But what I will say without reservation is that the closer you look at modern feminist ideology and personality disorders the more you see they are woven together in a fabric of human pathology."
* "We probably don’t write about it near as much as we should, but there is a clear link between BPD/NPD and phenomena like Radfem Hub. Indeed those traits are a familiar theme throughout “mainstream” feminist establishment."
* "both radical feminism and psychopathology; two barely discernible things."

 

[the]

Seeing as you posted the article, I'm curious as to whether or not you agree with the following statements made in it:
* "But what I will say without reservation is that the closer you look at modern feminist ideology and personality disorders the more you see they are woven together in a fabric of human pathology."
* "We probably don’t write about it near as much as we should, but there is a clear link between BPD/NPD and phenomena like Radfem Hub. Indeed those traits are a familiar theme throughout “mainstream” feminist establishment."
* "both radical feminism and psychopathology; two barely discernible things."

I wouldnt agree that it is a pathology so much as feminists are grabbing onto something that they are convinced is a great idea. Similar to Christian fundamentalists who hear a few good Bible quotes and are convinced. Both things (feminists and C.F.) are in the 'in club' and other people just don't get it from their point of view. The more you disagree with them, the more complelled they are to either dig their heels in deeper to prove they are true believers, or to just write you off as a lost ignorant male/ or sinner destined for hell. If fanaticism is a disorder then maybe that could apply.

"Radical feminology" does seem like the ravings of a psychopath. I suppose that is why it is "radical". It is difficult at times to differentiate between what is supposed to be the mainstream "real" beliefs and the radical ideas. It is way easier to just write the whole thing off.

I think the m.o. for feminism has been to ask for a lot in order to get a little. Ask for Castration Day in order to get Feminism Day, something like that ... idk. Its just a theory I have and I don't remember how or where I picked it up from. I think the original feminists tampered with society in such a way and they didn't realize that some of the culture ran much deeper than they origionally realized. I think some of the things they wanted make sense, but ultimately don't fit into real life the way they wanted. I think a better plan would have been to allow gay marriage back then instead of doubling the workforce to get better pay. Trying to get equal pay while the supply of workers just ended up bringing the average paycheck down, instead of raising womens pay. Women didn't get anything, they just dragged the bar down for everyone.

 

[the]

@Seraphim

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

I keep trying to get people to understand this, or at least assume this for the sake of the conversation to make things easier: feminism = the idea that women are not inferior to men.

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.