Here's my point - if your only exposure to a complicated philosophical doctrine is only through having conversations with acquaintances or friends, you are not in a position to say anything like "most feminism is about hating males", because that is factually incorrect. Any "feminist" who hates men and treats women as superior has absolutely no idea what the basic tenets of feminism are.
You could easily say "most women I've spoken to who claim to be feminists hate males", but that's called "anecdotal evidence", and it's an invalid source of information. It doesn't discredit the movement in the slightest, only the people you've spoken to about it.
An example - every anarchist I have ever spoken to was a complete idiot. Some of them literally thought that if we dismantled the government today, tomorrow would be a better day. I've met some that thought terrorism was a viable means for this, even some anarchist lecturers have implied this! But it would obviously be daft to say something like "anarchism is about terrorism" based on those people, so I informed myself instead. I still don't agree with the basic principles of anarchism, but I made the judgment independently of the people who had no idea what they were talking about.
This is why people thumb you down and don't take the time to respond. Because we know you haven't read the philosophy, so we know you're unfamiliar with its actual principles apart from what you've heard from third parties. It's not because we let our "emotions cloud our logic", it's because there's no point in debating someone about anarchism when they think anarchism = terrorism. There's no point in seriously debating evolution with someone who thinks evolution means monkeys and humans are literally cousins, especially when they won't accept that they might be uninformed about the subject. And there's no point in debating someone about feminism when they think "most feminism is about hating males and treating females superior".
I responded to this but I think I deleted it. So I'll make it short, I agree with some of what ItDuz says on certain topics but sometimes it's a little ridiculous to read the generlizations he builds his arguments on. Hats to you.
Well, look online, you can expose yourself to all sorts of feminism that people say they are superior and men are useless. Join any group and the majority of the time it will be about equality "they" think is equal. The majority of Feminist groups I have joined on websites to debate feminism has shown me that females act this way. I have gone to many female pages and tried to have a conversation and asking questions to see if t hey're for equality, superiority, or inequality they think is equality, and the majority are the last two.
When I say most feminism, I meant most feminists. Feminism itself was about equality.
Well what else can I say if there is no evidence to show about the matter other than anecdotal evidence? I would copy and paste the screenshots, but they deleted the posts and blocked me from each page for asking if they're for financial abortion for men.
I am not saying feminism is about hating men, and if I did I made a mistake, what I meant to say was that most feminists are about special treatment and superiority. This site alone has shown this, if anything.
Like I said, I don't think feminism is wrong, I think feminists are, or ones that claim themselves to be feminists.
You have misunderstood what it is I was trying to say. Feminism isn't about superiority, feminists (or ones claiming to be feminists) do.
I myself agree with feminism, that is if feminism is about complete, unconditional equality.
I have always been about equality, pure equality, the only problem is that when you state the equalities that come with equality, a lot of feminists go crazy.
Those websites misrepresent feminism. Feminism is not about bashing men. Feminism is about the right to choose, whether it be to choose to be a lesbian childless corporate executive, or a humble housewife. And that no man can force a woman to live a life that she refuses. Meanig that I will not be executed should I decide that I don't want to be someone wife.
For the most part, I believe that these feminists you speak of truly intend to "bring men down a notch". From my studies, part of the hatred for men stems from overly publicized domestic violence cases, misrepresented statistics (or in other words, the reader did not have an accurate understanding of how the statistics were made) and the growing rate of struggling single Mother homes. No matter what, there will always be a reason for them to hate men until they receive a further education of what true feminism is.
Personally, I see their philosophy as a paradox.
"I deserve rights, freedom and equality, I am an independent women, but men should treat me like a porcelain doll because I am incapable of making responsible decisions and accepting the consequences of my actions, therefore MEN suck".
Funny how many of the struggling singke Mother statistics show strong correlation with unwed mother statistics. You chose to have a man who would not legally commit to you father your child and now it's a shock that he's left you? Oh those horrible men.
From a perspective of a feminist, those women make us all look weak and incapable of handling ourselves. That's freedom, they know the risks of what they do and blame men for it anyway...
You may hate that brand of feminism because it is popular, unopposed, and bashes men (you). I hate it because it only reinforces the fact that women are still at the mercy of men and can't be anything other than victims. Me.
It's not about bashing men, feminists bash men. It's not for special tretmeant, yet feminists want special treatment. I agree completely with why feminism came around, I don't agree with the feminism that happens today, which is why I could of been classed a feminist before I started using the internet and looking up the whole subject.
Yes, feminism is about getting choice, their choice. They usually don't care or even like when males get to have choice. For example, the majority of feminists I have talked to respectfully before just branding them as feminists looking for special treatment or man hater, I ask if they are for financial abortion in a way that a woman still gets to choose if she gives brith to the child (full control of her body and future), and males get to choose if he'll be a father or not (his choice for his future). When I ask the majority of feminists this, they either call me sexist or ignore answering the question all together, regardless of it being the main question asked.
The original feminism I am all for, equal treatment completely, but today's feminism betrays yesterday's feminism.
Yes, I agree, although domestic violence studies show that women are 40% of the victimizers. Regardless of that, we only hear about male victimizers in domestic abuse cases. We need to start putting the right ammount of blame on women for their actions just like we do men.
That paradox thing, I agree with. Unfortunatly, society tries to help that paradox look like a good way to run, which is terrible.
I completely agree, women aren't paying close enough attention to the men they are having sex with to see if they are ready to be fathers or ever will be ready to be fathers, yet falls pregnant anyway, then they get shocked when he leaves. They think that just by having a child with someone means that someone is going to change completely at the snap of a finger.
It depends, although you listed some reasons why I do hate the feminism brand. I dislike it because in this struggle for equality, only they are being heard aswell.
Yes, I think the financial abortion idea would be the best one for our species in terms of reproduction rights and the population itself. I also think that child benefits shouldn't be offered unless the man did sign the contract to be the father, then something had happened to him when he was the one bringing home the money. Although, I don't think child benefits should be given to the women that have children when they knew they won't have a father to support the child and she doesn't either.
This way, slowly but surely, people only ready to commit to being a parent will want to have children, because without getting money left and right from everywhere just for having a fatherless children, women would be more careful in who they have a child with, which would make them more careful with men in terms of falling pregnant. I think it would solve our population problem aswell.
Although your financial abortion idea I'd like to discuss one of these days. It's becoming rapidly obvious that contractual agreements of parental responsibility before the child is conceived are looking more like the best possible idea... our society is becoming very liberal and not holding to traditional values as tightly as in the past, maybe contracts beyond your financial abortion contracts are becoming necessary as society's values evolve more quickly than individuals are...
I've never liked a single piece of feminist literature I've read
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
How much feminist philosophy have you read?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
When I say feminism, I mean the opinions and statements said by feminists.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
8
8
I'll take that as "very little"? Possibly "none"?
Here's my point - if your only exposure to a complicated philosophical doctrine is only through having conversations with acquaintances or friends, you are not in a position to say anything like "most feminism is about hating males", because that is factually incorrect. Any "feminist" who hates men and treats women as superior has absolutely no idea what the basic tenets of feminism are.
You could easily say "most women I've spoken to who claim to be feminists hate males", but that's called "anecdotal evidence", and it's an invalid source of information. It doesn't discredit the movement in the slightest, only the people you've spoken to about it.
An example - every anarchist I have ever spoken to was a complete idiot. Some of them literally thought that if we dismantled the government today, tomorrow would be a better day. I've met some that thought terrorism was a viable means for this, even some anarchist lecturers have implied this! But it would obviously be daft to say something like "anarchism is about terrorism" based on those people, so I informed myself instead. I still don't agree with the basic principles of anarchism, but I made the judgment independently of the people who had no idea what they were talking about.
This is why people thumb you down and don't take the time to respond. Because we know you haven't read the philosophy, so we know you're unfamiliar with its actual principles apart from what you've heard from third parties. It's not because we let our "emotions cloud our logic", it's because there's no point in debating someone about anarchism when they think anarchism = terrorism. There's no point in seriously debating evolution with someone who thinks evolution means monkeys and humans are literally cousins, especially when they won't accept that they might be uninformed about the subject. And there's no point in debating someone about feminism when they think "most feminism is about hating males and treating females superior".
I apologize for the rant.
--
Anime7
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I have nothing against Itduz, i kinda like the guy, but this was brilliant and one of the best responses to anything I've ever read.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I don't really have anything against him either - I just think he is woefully misinformed on the topic of feminism. But thanks. :P
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I responded to this but I think I deleted it. So I'll make it short, I agree with some of what ItDuz says on certain topics but sometimes it's a little ridiculous to read the generlizations he builds his arguments on. Hats to you.
Well, look online, you can expose yourself to all sorts of feminism that people say they are superior and men are useless. Join any group and the majority of the time it will be about equality "they" think is equal. The majority of Feminist groups I have joined on websites to debate feminism has shown me that females act this way. I have gone to many female pages and tried to have a conversation and asking questions to see if t hey're for equality, superiority, or inequality they think is equality, and the majority are the last two.
When I say most feminism, I meant most feminists. Feminism itself was about equality.
Well what else can I say if there is no evidence to show about the matter other than anecdotal evidence? I would copy and paste the screenshots, but they deleted the posts and blocked me from each page for asking if they're for financial abortion for men.
I am not saying feminism is about hating men, and if I did I made a mistake, what I meant to say was that most feminists are about special treatment and superiority. This site alone has shown this, if anything.
Like I said, I don't think feminism is wrong, I think feminists are, or ones that claim themselves to be feminists.
You have misunderstood what it is I was trying to say. Feminism isn't about superiority, feminists (or ones claiming to be feminists) do.
I myself agree with feminism, that is if feminism is about complete, unconditional equality.
I have always been about equality, pure equality, the only problem is that when you state the equalities that come with equality, a lot of feminists go crazy.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Those websites misrepresent feminism. Feminism is not about bashing men. Feminism is about the right to choose, whether it be to choose to be a lesbian childless corporate executive, or a humble housewife. And that no man can force a woman to live a life that she refuses. Meanig that I will not be executed should I decide that I don't want to be someone wife.
For the most part, I believe that these feminists you speak of truly intend to "bring men down a notch". From my studies, part of the hatred for men stems from overly publicized domestic violence cases, misrepresented statistics (or in other words, the reader did not have an accurate understanding of how the statistics were made) and the growing rate of struggling single Mother homes. No matter what, there will always be a reason for them to hate men until they receive a further education of what true feminism is.
Personally, I see their philosophy as a paradox.
"I deserve rights, freedom and equality, I am an independent women, but men should treat me like a porcelain doll because I am incapable of making responsible decisions and accepting the consequences of my actions, therefore MEN suck".
Funny how many of the struggling singke Mother statistics show strong correlation with unwed mother statistics. You chose to have a man who would not legally commit to you father your child and now it's a shock that he's left you? Oh those horrible men.
From a perspective of a feminist, those women make us all look weak and incapable of handling ourselves. That's freedom, they know the risks of what they do and blame men for it anyway...
You may hate that brand of feminism because it is popular, unopposed, and bashes men (you). I hate it because it only reinforces the fact that women are still at the mercy of men and can't be anything other than victims. Me.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
It's not about bashing men, feminists bash men. It's not for special tretmeant, yet feminists want special treatment. I agree completely with why feminism came around, I don't agree with the feminism that happens today, which is why I could of been classed a feminist before I started using the internet and looking up the whole subject.
Yes, feminism is about getting choice, their choice. They usually don't care or even like when males get to have choice. For example, the majority of feminists I have talked to respectfully before just branding them as feminists looking for special treatment or man hater, I ask if they are for financial abortion in a way that a woman still gets to choose if she gives brith to the child (full control of her body and future), and males get to choose if he'll be a father or not (his choice for his future). When I ask the majority of feminists this, they either call me sexist or ignore answering the question all together, regardless of it being the main question asked.
The original feminism I am all for, equal treatment completely, but today's feminism betrays yesterday's feminism.
Yes, I agree, although domestic violence studies show that women are 40% of the victimizers. Regardless of that, we only hear about male victimizers in domestic abuse cases. We need to start putting the right ammount of blame on women for their actions just like we do men.
That paradox thing, I agree with. Unfortunatly, society tries to help that paradox look like a good way to run, which is terrible.
I completely agree, women aren't paying close enough attention to the men they are having sex with to see if they are ready to be fathers or ever will be ready to be fathers, yet falls pregnant anyway, then they get shocked when he leaves. They think that just by having a child with someone means that someone is going to change completely at the snap of a finger.
It depends, although you listed some reasons why I do hate the feminism brand. I dislike it because in this struggle for equality, only they are being heard aswell.
Yes, I think the financial abortion idea would be the best one for our species in terms of reproduction rights and the population itself. I also think that child benefits shouldn't be offered unless the man did sign the contract to be the father, then something had happened to him when he was the one bringing home the money. Although, I don't think child benefits should be given to the women that have children when they knew they won't have a father to support the child and she doesn't either.
This way, slowly but surely, people only ready to commit to being a parent will want to have children, because without getting money left and right from everywhere just for having a fatherless children, women would be more careful in who they have a child with, which would make them more careful with men in terms of falling pregnant. I think it would solve our population problem aswell.
Although your financial abortion idea I'd like to discuss one of these days. It's becoming rapidly obvious that contractual agreements of parental responsibility before the child is conceived are looking more like the best possible idea... our society is becoming very liberal and not holding to traditional values as tightly as in the past, maybe contracts beyond your financial abortion contracts are becoming necessary as society's values evolve more quickly than individuals are...