Ha! Hahahahahahahahahaha. I'm sorry, this is just hilarious.
Intelligent? The majority are anything but. Their delusions of patriarchy and how women are discriminated against are constantly shown wrong by multiple people. You even have people like Richard Dawkins mocking modern feminism.
The vast majority of their points are proven wrong by multiple people, and when you argue with them or debate with them, in which they tend to lose (from my experience), they either don't acknowledge the point you made to prove them wrong at all, they just call you a misogynist and don't respond, or they censor you.
Just look at FeministFrequency...Yeah, not only her, but look how much support and donations she got from other feminists, and then look at how she clearly did not use that money for what she claimed she would, which many people prove.
She conned so many feminists.
Sophisticated? What?! Are you kidding me? I think you are buying in to the idea of what "feminists" think feminists are. If you look at any actual video footage of feminists protests, they are not sophisticated, they are nothing what you list. All they do is scream, shout, call people names, use vulgar language, and so on. Go look up any feminist protest video.
Self-empowered and strong (this response is addressed to both).
I'm sorry, but how is a group that tries to convince the female gender that they are victims of everything "empowering". How is strengthening victimhood "empowering"? It isn't, and it's just ironic that feminists try to get this image, all while complaining they are victims of everything (which they aren't) and expect daddy government to make everything easier for them.
Being passionate about something is only a good feature depending on what it is you're being passionate about. Being passionate about how abused and victim-like you are in everything when you aren't is not an "attractive" trait.
Yes, women like you explained can and are attractive, I am not questioning that. This is more so a response to the idea that feminists are anything you actually described them as.
You can hardly compare normal feminists with an academic like Richard Dawkins. You're not comparing like with like. If you look at feminist academics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say they weren't intelligent.
There are thousands of peaceful feminist protests, and if you don't believe so you are being willfully ignorant and I'm disappointed in you. There are peaceful pro-choice protests, for example, which is a issue not separate from feminism. The protests to keep a non-royal woman on UK currency were completely peaceful. I could go on all day.
If you want to take the view that feminism isn't empowering, by all means take it. I think a doctrine which suggests women deserve rights equivalent to men is very much empowering, and the idea point that women "just want the government to do it for them" is ridiculous. For a start, many feminists seem to support the government removing laws which discriminate against women (laws against women in parts of the military, for example), which actually means they want the government to give them more independence from it, not reliance on it.
Secondly, government makes the law so targeting government is the most pro-active way to force laws, including laws believed to discriminate against women, to change. If you want a law changed, you *have* to go through the government, and that means feminists who believe the law discriminates against them have to go through the government. That's the way our society works, I don't need to teach you that.
Could you list a few of these intelligent feminists alongside some of their intelligent points made?
Seen too many feminists claim certain people are intelligent, just to find out they are the opposite.
Could you show me some links to these peaceful protests?
Pro-choice protests are not feminist issues, that area is not exclusive to feminists, so cannot be seen as a "feminist" protest, as many anti-feminists are also pro-choice.
I seen this issue, and my response to this protest is why are they protesting over it? Is the queen not on every coin in the UK? She is also on notes.
Feminism isn't empowering, it may give a false feeling of empowerment, but that's all it is. It does this by giving you some false issue about how women are oppressed, and so you fight this issue that is non-existent, then pat yourself on the back as if they accomplished defeating something or being against something that is non-existent. That's feminism.
A movement like feminism is not as simple as "It wants equal rights for everyone, so it must be good and empowering".
The movement spends more time trying to make problems facing women out of thin-air than actually focusing on equality. How can a movement like that be empowering? Once again, trying to find issues to convince everyone you are a victim is not empowering. "You need us, you need feminism, to defend you from these evils of the world that target you! (that don't exist)"...Very empowering.
Surprisingly, they haven't fought to be able to be drafted like men, though, have they?
Simone de Beauvoir.
Kate Chopin.
Friedrich Engels.
I'm not going to bother telling you about what these people believed, but if you don't believe them to be intelligent I believe you to be a fool.
"Pro-choice protests are not feminist issues"
Feminism, as we have already discussed, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". Abortion is an issue primarily related to women's rights, and issues surrounding it can be related to equality (women having to pay higher health insurance than men because of issues such as abortion). Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/05/women-bank-notes-fancy-dress-protest?CMP=twt_gu Note that there is no mention of any violence, unruliness etc.
On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count.
"Once again, trying to find issues to convince everyone you are a victim is not empowering. "You need us, you need feminism, to defend you from these evils of the world that target you! (that don't exist)"...Very empowering."
That sounds like circular logic. Your point relies its own conclusion (that feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering because feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering).
"Surprisingly, they haven't fought to be able to be drafted like men, though, have they?"
There's a long tradition of women dressing as men in order to be allowed to fight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wartime_cross-dressers Note that many feminists don't support conscription anyway, and would not support conscription for men any more than they would for women.
I'm going out of my way to look them up, as I stated before. Anyway, ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority.
The pro-choice thing. If feminism is about what you quoted it is about, then again, it is not a feminist issue, as it is about giving women rights in those aspects to the same level as men. Men cannot have abortions. So by the definition you quoted, even by that, it is not a feminist issue.
"Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism."
Agreeing with one aspect in which feminism also agrees on does not mean you are going to agree with what feminism agrees with simply for agreeing with "one" issue.
Come to think of it, whenever I have brought up the idea of financial abortion for men (which would not conflict with women's rights over her body, yet will give men as much choice in the aspect of parenthood), they always go against it. Again, these are the same people that claim they are for equality (Feminists).
They are arguing over nothing. It's a note. I find it amazing why they are arguing that every note will have a male, and yet are not against the idea of a woman being on every coin. Again, there's that hypocrisy.
The reasons behind this protest is just plain stupid, that somehow women not being on the note will somehow effect their feelings upon society. Again, "this" is the type of thing feminists argue against now. They are making nothing but problems out of thin air.
Would having no males on any of the coins make men feel out of place in society?
The exact same reasoning, however feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy.
Just because there was no violence (which is not proven, as articles can leave out such things like they do with the western ones from feminists), I never said "violence" was the only part that is wrong about them, in this case it is just stupidity.
"On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count."
Why don't they count? Because it wouldn't be benfitial to the feminist agenda? The woman is on the side of the note for all notes, on every one side of a coin, which means a woman is on the face of "all" of the currency for the UK, and yet not having a man on one side of every note, in which there is a woman on one side of every note, is still sexism against women? Utter nonsense, there is no logic in there, there is no rational reason to protest against it.
Your reason is "she hasn't done anything significant to be on there"...Why this was used to strengthen "your" point I do not know, as it only weakens it.
You have a woman that has not earned her place on the currency, yet she is on all of it, so men have to earn their place on the currency to even be on it, where as women don't.
So yes, she does count, it not working in the feminist favor does not make it "not" count. She's on one side of all currency of the UK, so she counts, she takes up a space in which another that does count takes, thus she is taking the same...Space, so it does count.
This is something I notice feminists do alot. Even when they know there is something to point out the idiocy of something, they will resort to just saying "oh, that doesn't count", as if people will just think "oh, a feminist said it, it must be true".
It is circular logic? Isn't that how anything is determined? You make your point, then make a conclusion in which your points show? In which the conclusion is why you made your point, as the conclusion is what has been witnessed, the point is what brings it out in the open.
Even then, it would be incorrect. Point: Feminism is filled with lies. proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about, Conclusion, feminism is filled with lies, as evidence shows.
Theory
Evidence
Conclusion.
"Women". Stop trying to pass it off as if anything "women" do reflects what "feminism" stands for or does.
This doesn't change the fact that "feminism" has not tried to make this so, this just shows that individual "women" have. What a woman has done does not reflect on feminism.
If they were about equality and bringing women to the same levels of men, then they would be obligated, by the definition you showed, to do this whether or not it benefits women or not, otherwise they are trying to gain the benefits of men while rejecting the responsibilities (in terms of law), which means they are looking for superiority, to have more choice and less responsibility.
Which even then, if they did not want to do this, given that they are claiming to be for equality, if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal.
Rather than make it equal in something like that which matters, where lives and disposibility which complies with the "patriarchy" which they believe it, they would rather make an issue out of pound notes and a woman's drawing on a note in which a woman is already on "every" UK piece of currency.
Why? Because feminists don't care about the "patriarchy" as a whole, they only care about the parts that may not suit their liking, otherwise they would try make the genders equal in drafting matters, on either side (make them both capable of being drafted or none).
Like I said, they make issues out of nothing to strengthen their victim complex. They see a woman's face on a note (which I keep saying, a woman is on every piece of currency) rather than say "well, this part in which human lives are concerned that is surely not equal should be sorted".
Feminism is filled with liars claiming to be about equality, when in fact they are all about strengthening their victim complex.
Honestly, I agree. It's purely symbolic and I don't know why it got so much media attention.
"ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority."
Why did you ask for examples, then?
"Feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy."
Lol. Coins aren't used to celebrate excellence in the same way notes are so it isn't the same issue at all. Your insistence on making a point out of something you also insist is trivial indicates your bias. The non-royal side of the note is about celebrating excellence, and some believe that only having excellence of men celebrated implies excellence of women is less worth celebrating. It isn't about having a face on the note, it's about the celebration of excellence the note represents.
"if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal."
I assure it was not only men who supported measures to remove compulsory military service in most countries.
"proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about"
Look, just saying that some people who identify as feminists talk bollocks sometimes doesn't really prove anything at all. Throwing anomalous data points around and passing them off as "proof" isn't accurate, yet it's all you ever do.
Yes, and they do these pointless things all the time. Latest one is the whole Twitter thing, that because females get trolled and threats if they are famous or well known (like everyone that also meets the "well known" standard, not just women), they have started this whole delusion that trolls primarily target women because they are misogynists, and that trolls mainly go after women.
Just one look at people like Justin Bieber is enough to say otherwise, but take to the internet and you'll find so many men also facing this.
Does this matter? Nope. If females are also victims of trolls, they are the only victims of trolls. But I digress.
When I said that, I was speaking from an overall point, as in that not all feminists are stupid, just the majority. That doesn't mean that what they say is true, as in they may not be dumb, however that doesn't expand to every area, as if they are smart in all areas, gender issues being one I am still skeptical about.
Ok, exclude coins and you still have the notes. I am not arguing against this, keep the queen on there, I am speaking from a point of view while using the same reasoning to point out how bad the reasoning of the note issue being sexist is. I think it's called devil's advocate? Not sure.
I am not saying "Well this is unfair, so change it!", I am saying "Well, by their reasoning, it would be sexist in this regard, too against men, so shut up about it". (The shut up about it not being directed to you, just a short version of saying it is not an issue, like you said).
Is the woman being in one of the highest seats of power not a sign of the highest "excellence"? If it was only about royals, then wouldn't we see other royals on that side aswell? That side, from my understanding of what you have provided, is about a person who is in the highest seat of worth. Saying that having four men divided in to different notes for their excellence is being sexist while there is a woman of the highest seat of excellence is on all of them, is just belittling that she has power and is excellence due to being someone in her position. The same would be if it was a king and four women.
"I assure it was not only men who supported measures to remove compulsory military service in most countries."
Yes, and I am sure women are also against it, but I have to say again, just because "women" are against it does not mean feminism is equally against it.
If feminists make a bigger fuss about a note than they do men getting drafted and the inequalities between men and women in that situation, what does that tell you about feminism?
They will protest a woman not having their face on a piece of paper, yet the most they will do where men and women as people, not just a drawing, are unfairly treated in regards to men is say "that's" wrong without putting nearly as much effort in to this "real" issue as they did a picture of a woman on a note.
They see a woman's picture on a note not being equally represented on a piece of paper as big an issue as men having to be drafted, despite claiming to be about equality.
How can a group on equality be seen as just that when they do such things? They can't, it doesn't make sense.
Have feminists actually ever tried to target an inequality that isn't fair on men, yet benefitial to women, or even gone after a certain part that effects men negatively, but not women?
From what I have seen, the only times they have done anything to "help" men is when it was a fortunate side effect of them trying to help women.
Feminism is the idea we can solve the problems between the genders by solely working on the issues of one of them.
I'm not claiming I displayed any proof, the proof is out there when you look for it, hell, just signing on to youtube and looking at responses to certain feminist issues shows you how feminism tends to be easily shown wrong.
The majority of feminists I myself have debated with tend to be idiots that state things, get shown proof and reason, then just back out completely calling people misogynists, and so on.
"Some" feminists, it is a large percentage of feminists. I urge you to go to feminists groups yourself, be it Facebook, tumble, or whatever. State male issues, such as draft, less reproductive rights (financial abortion in which women still get control of their bodies), less shelters for domestic violence victims despite the number of victims being equal, and any other you can think of.
Try it, be as respectful as you can, however use your reasoning to go against theirs.
After a day or so, responding to them or not, go through all the comments on each feminist ground and see how many can understand men also face issues and should receive help from feminism if feminism is about equality, then see how many mock, insult, or do any variation of those things.
You'll see exactly what I am talking about when/if you do that. In this area, you will get the same proof I have.
You yourself have not been giving out "proof", either. One example is how you have assumed because women have done something towards the issues I explained (such as women pretending to be male) that it somehow reflects of what feminism is doing just because women done it.
You also gave one link about a feminist protest in which I gave four.
I never gave any "proof" other than the videos on the protest, in which I believe I asked you to show me them doing the opposite and protesting peacefully, accepting questions from others, and so on.
Many feminists in western countries are exactly how you're describing, arguing against attacks that aren't there and protesting nothing.
However, most feminists I've met (not exactly the strongest argument) seemed to be about feminism throughout the world, not just in western countries where feminism is close to running its course. Feminists in many Islamic countries I think would have to fit OP's description as they risk death at most every turn.
The western countries seem to have two groups of feminists with any visibility now. The type that argue for equal wages and to not be treated solely as sexual objects, and then those that will call you a misogynist for holding a door for them.
What's annoying about feminism is that they use the mistreatment of females in other countries to support their own country, then use the high moral they gain from claiming to be about helping women in other areas, to support their protesting in western society.
Kind of like "Hey, we are about helping women that need it in other countries! That means our movement is about helping people! So here is an issue about how trolls on Twitter only target women and hate women"...They use the whole "helping women in other countries" to try establish the image they are fighting for women that really need it, then turn around and focus on every small or non-issue in western society...One being about "Twitter", which is just insulting, is it not? A group claiming they are about helping women that need it spend time focusing on something as trivial as Twitter...
In all honesty, both of those types of feminists are wrong.
The wage gap has been proven to be a result of choices between the genders, not discrimination. Men do more risky jobs and go in to fields that have higher pay with less comfort, where as women are not likely to do that, and so on.
Being seen as sexual objects is another problem. They have this idea that finding a woman sexually attractive means you are turning her in to a sexual object rather than a sexually attractive person. Regardless of this, they tend to go against "lad mags" for these reasons, saying it objectifies women, that it is harmful content to children, all while they go on something called a slut walk where they dress in barely anything and walk in public where children would be around, wearing the same amount of clothing the women in the magazines wore.
Is it normal that I often find feminist women attractive?
← View full post
Ha! Hahahahahahahahahaha. I'm sorry, this is just hilarious.
Intelligent? The majority are anything but. Their delusions of patriarchy and how women are discriminated against are constantly shown wrong by multiple people. You even have people like Richard Dawkins mocking modern feminism.
The vast majority of their points are proven wrong by multiple people, and when you argue with them or debate with them, in which they tend to lose (from my experience), they either don't acknowledge the point you made to prove them wrong at all, they just call you a misogynist and don't respond, or they censor you.
Just look at FeministFrequency...Yeah, not only her, but look how much support and donations she got from other feminists, and then look at how she clearly did not use that money for what she claimed she would, which many people prove.
She conned so many feminists.
Sophisticated? What?! Are you kidding me? I think you are buying in to the idea of what "feminists" think feminists are. If you look at any actual video footage of feminists protests, they are not sophisticated, they are nothing what you list. All they do is scream, shout, call people names, use vulgar language, and so on. Go look up any feminist protest video.
Self-empowered and strong (this response is addressed to both).
I'm sorry, but how is a group that tries to convince the female gender that they are victims of everything "empowering". How is strengthening victimhood "empowering"? It isn't, and it's just ironic that feminists try to get this image, all while complaining they are victims of everything (which they aren't) and expect daddy government to make everything easier for them.
Being passionate about something is only a good feature depending on what it is you're being passionate about. Being passionate about how abused and victim-like you are in everything when you aren't is not an "attractive" trait.
Yes, women like you explained can and are attractive, I am not questioning that. This is more so a response to the idea that feminists are anything you actually described them as.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_QND85sB8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z28yv8elRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XHrUAQEzNg
Hardly anything you claim they are.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
q25t
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I knew you'd like this one.
You can hardly compare normal feminists with an academic like Richard Dawkins. You're not comparing like with like. If you look at feminist academics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say they weren't intelligent.
There are thousands of peaceful feminist protests, and if you don't believe so you are being willfully ignorant and I'm disappointed in you. There are peaceful pro-choice protests, for example, which is a issue not separate from feminism. The protests to keep a non-royal woman on UK currency were completely peaceful. I could go on all day.
If you want to take the view that feminism isn't empowering, by all means take it. I think a doctrine which suggests women deserve rights equivalent to men is very much empowering, and the idea point that women "just want the government to do it for them" is ridiculous. For a start, many feminists seem to support the government removing laws which discriminate against women (laws against women in parts of the military, for example), which actually means they want the government to give them more independence from it, not reliance on it.
Secondly, government makes the law so targeting government is the most pro-active way to force laws, including laws believed to discriminate against women, to change. If you want a law changed, you *have* to go through the government, and that means feminists who believe the law discriminates against them have to go through the government. That's the way our society works, I don't need to teach you that.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-3
-3
Could you list a few of these intelligent feminists alongside some of their intelligent points made?
Seen too many feminists claim certain people are intelligent, just to find out they are the opposite.
Could you show me some links to these peaceful protests?
Pro-choice protests are not feminist issues, that area is not exclusive to feminists, so cannot be seen as a "feminist" protest, as many anti-feminists are also pro-choice.
I seen this issue, and my response to this protest is why are they protesting over it? Is the queen not on every coin in the UK? She is also on notes.
Feminism isn't empowering, it may give a false feeling of empowerment, but that's all it is. It does this by giving you some false issue about how women are oppressed, and so you fight this issue that is non-existent, then pat yourself on the back as if they accomplished defeating something or being against something that is non-existent. That's feminism.
A movement like feminism is not as simple as "It wants equal rights for everyone, so it must be good and empowering".
The movement spends more time trying to make problems facing women out of thin-air than actually focusing on equality. How can a movement like that be empowering? Once again, trying to find issues to convince everyone you are a victim is not empowering. "You need us, you need feminism, to defend you from these evils of the world that target you! (that don't exist)"...Very empowering.
Surprisingly, they haven't fought to be able to be drafted like men, though, have they?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Simone de Beauvoir.
Kate Chopin.
Friedrich Engels.
I'm not going to bother telling you about what these people believed, but if you don't believe them to be intelligent I believe you to be a fool.
"Pro-choice protests are not feminist issues"
Feminism, as we have already discussed, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". Abortion is an issue primarily related to women's rights, and issues surrounding it can be related to equality (women having to pay higher health insurance than men because of issues such as abortion). Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/05/women-bank-notes-fancy-dress-protest?CMP=twt_gu Note that there is no mention of any violence, unruliness etc.
On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count.
"Once again, trying to find issues to convince everyone you are a victim is not empowering. "You need us, you need feminism, to defend you from these evils of the world that target you! (that don't exist)"...Very empowering."
That sounds like circular logic. Your point relies its own conclusion (that feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering because feminism is a lie and therefore unempowering).
"Surprisingly, they haven't fought to be able to be drafted like men, though, have they?"
There's a long tradition of women dressing as men in order to be allowed to fight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wartime_cross-dressers Note that many feminists don't support conscription anyway, and would not support conscription for men any more than they would for women.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I'm going out of my way to look them up, as I stated before. Anyway, ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority.
The pro-choice thing. If feminism is about what you quoted it is about, then again, it is not a feminist issue, as it is about giving women rights in those aspects to the same level as men. Men cannot have abortions. So by the definition you quoted, even by that, it is not a feminist issue.
"Therefore, a feminist issue and people who support it almost unavoidably agree with some aspects of feminism."
Agreeing with one aspect in which feminism also agrees on does not mean you are going to agree with what feminism agrees with simply for agreeing with "one" issue.
Come to think of it, whenever I have brought up the idea of financial abortion for men (which would not conflict with women's rights over her body, yet will give men as much choice in the aspect of parenthood), they always go against it. Again, these are the same people that claim they are for equality (Feminists).
They are arguing over nothing. It's a note. I find it amazing why they are arguing that every note will have a male, and yet are not against the idea of a woman being on every coin. Again, there's that hypocrisy.
The reasons behind this protest is just plain stupid, that somehow women not being on the note will somehow effect their feelings upon society. Again, "this" is the type of thing feminists argue against now. They are making nothing but problems out of thin air.
Would having no males on any of the coins make men feel out of place in society?
The exact same reasoning, however feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy.
Just because there was no violence (which is not proven, as articles can leave out such things like they do with the western ones from feminists), I never said "violence" was the only part that is wrong about them, in this case it is just stupidity.
"On our paper money, we have the Queen on one side and we use the other side to celebrate a particularly important historical Briton. Since the Queen doesn't get on the note due to any special achievement, she isn't seen to count."
Why don't they count? Because it wouldn't be benfitial to the feminist agenda? The woman is on the side of the note for all notes, on every one side of a coin, which means a woman is on the face of "all" of the currency for the UK, and yet not having a man on one side of every note, in which there is a woman on one side of every note, is still sexism against women? Utter nonsense, there is no logic in there, there is no rational reason to protest against it.
Your reason is "she hasn't done anything significant to be on there"...Why this was used to strengthen "your" point I do not know, as it only weakens it.
You have a woman that has not earned her place on the currency, yet she is on all of it, so men have to earn their place on the currency to even be on it, where as women don't.
So yes, she does count, it not working in the feminist favor does not make it "not" count. She's on one side of all currency of the UK, so she counts, she takes up a space in which another that does count takes, thus she is taking the same...Space, so it does count.
This is something I notice feminists do alot. Even when they know there is something to point out the idiocy of something, they will resort to just saying "oh, that doesn't count", as if people will just think "oh, a feminist said it, it must be true".
It is circular logic? Isn't that how anything is determined? You make your point, then make a conclusion in which your points show? In which the conclusion is why you made your point, as the conclusion is what has been witnessed, the point is what brings it out in the open.
Even then, it would be incorrect. Point: Feminism is filled with lies. proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about, Conclusion, feminism is filled with lies, as evidence shows.
Theory
Evidence
Conclusion.
"Women". Stop trying to pass it off as if anything "women" do reflects what "feminism" stands for or does.
This doesn't change the fact that "feminism" has not tried to make this so, this just shows that individual "women" have. What a woman has done does not reflect on feminism.
If they were about equality and bringing women to the same levels of men, then they would be obligated, by the definition you showed, to do this whether or not it benefits women or not, otherwise they are trying to gain the benefits of men while rejecting the responsibilities (in terms of law), which means they are looking for superiority, to have more choice and less responsibility.
Which even then, if they did not want to do this, given that they are claiming to be for equality, if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal.
Rather than make it equal in something like that which matters, where lives and disposibility which complies with the "patriarchy" which they believe it, they would rather make an issue out of pound notes and a woman's drawing on a note in which a woman is already on "every" UK piece of currency.
Why? Because feminists don't care about the "patriarchy" as a whole, they only care about the parts that may not suit their liking, otherwise they would try make the genders equal in drafting matters, on either side (make them both capable of being drafted or none).
Like I said, they make issues out of nothing to strengthen their victim complex. They see a woman's face on a note (which I keep saying, a woman is on every piece of currency) rather than say "well, this part in which human lives are concerned that is surely not equal should be sorted".
Feminism is filled with liars claiming to be about equality, when in fact they are all about strengthening their victim complex.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"They are arguing over nothing. It's a note."
Honestly, I agree. It's purely symbolic and I don't know why it got so much media attention.
"ofcourse not "all" feminists are idiots entirely, I was speaking from the majority."
Why did you ask for examples, then?
"Feminists won't address the coin part, and why? Well because it's a woman on all the coins, and they're all good with that, even if it's a clear indication of hypocrisy."
Lol. Coins aren't used to celebrate excellence in the same way notes are so it isn't the same issue at all. Your insistence on making a point out of something you also insist is trivial indicates your bias. The non-royal side of the note is about celebrating excellence, and some believe that only having excellence of men celebrated implies excellence of women is less worth celebrating. It isn't about having a face on the note, it's about the celebration of excellence the note represents.
"if they did not intend on making it possible for women to get drafted, aim to make it so men cannot, as it then still makes them equal."
I assure it was not only men who supported measures to remove compulsory military service in most countries.
"proof: Numerous subjects in which feminist talks about"
Look, just saying that some people who identify as feminists talk bollocks sometimes doesn't really prove anything at all. Throwing anomalous data points around and passing them off as "proof" isn't accurate, yet it's all you ever do.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, and they do these pointless things all the time. Latest one is the whole Twitter thing, that because females get trolled and threats if they are famous or well known (like everyone that also meets the "well known" standard, not just women), they have started this whole delusion that trolls primarily target women because they are misogynists, and that trolls mainly go after women.
Just one look at people like Justin Bieber is enough to say otherwise, but take to the internet and you'll find so many men also facing this.
Does this matter? Nope. If females are also victims of trolls, they are the only victims of trolls. But I digress.
When I said that, I was speaking from an overall point, as in that not all feminists are stupid, just the majority. That doesn't mean that what they say is true, as in they may not be dumb, however that doesn't expand to every area, as if they are smart in all areas, gender issues being one I am still skeptical about.
Ok, exclude coins and you still have the notes. I am not arguing against this, keep the queen on there, I am speaking from a point of view while using the same reasoning to point out how bad the reasoning of the note issue being sexist is. I think it's called devil's advocate? Not sure.
I am not saying "Well this is unfair, so change it!", I am saying "Well, by their reasoning, it would be sexist in this regard, too against men, so shut up about it". (The shut up about it not being directed to you, just a short version of saying it is not an issue, like you said).
Is the woman being in one of the highest seats of power not a sign of the highest "excellence"? If it was only about royals, then wouldn't we see other royals on that side aswell? That side, from my understanding of what you have provided, is about a person who is in the highest seat of worth. Saying that having four men divided in to different notes for their excellence is being sexist while there is a woman of the highest seat of excellence is on all of them, is just belittling that she has power and is excellence due to being someone in her position. The same would be if it was a king and four women.
"I assure it was not only men who supported measures to remove compulsory military service in most countries."
Yes, and I am sure women are also against it, but I have to say again, just because "women" are against it does not mean feminism is equally against it.
If feminists make a bigger fuss about a note than they do men getting drafted and the inequalities between men and women in that situation, what does that tell you about feminism?
They will protest a woman not having their face on a piece of paper, yet the most they will do where men and women as people, not just a drawing, are unfairly treated in regards to men is say "that's" wrong without putting nearly as much effort in to this "real" issue as they did a picture of a woman on a note.
They see a woman's picture on a note not being equally represented on a piece of paper as big an issue as men having to be drafted, despite claiming to be about equality.
How can a group on equality be seen as just that when they do such things? They can't, it doesn't make sense.
Have feminists actually ever tried to target an inequality that isn't fair on men, yet benefitial to women, or even gone after a certain part that effects men negatively, but not women?
From what I have seen, the only times they have done anything to "help" men is when it was a fortunate side effect of them trying to help women.
Feminism is the idea we can solve the problems between the genders by solely working on the issues of one of them.
I'm not claiming I displayed any proof, the proof is out there when you look for it, hell, just signing on to youtube and looking at responses to certain feminist issues shows you how feminism tends to be easily shown wrong.
The majority of feminists I myself have debated with tend to be idiots that state things, get shown proof and reason, then just back out completely calling people misogynists, and so on.
"Some" feminists, it is a large percentage of feminists. I urge you to go to feminists groups yourself, be it Facebook, tumble, or whatever. State male issues, such as draft, less reproductive rights (financial abortion in which women still get control of their bodies), less shelters for domestic violence victims despite the number of victims being equal, and any other you can think of.
Try it, be as respectful as you can, however use your reasoning to go against theirs.
After a day or so, responding to them or not, go through all the comments on each feminist ground and see how many can understand men also face issues and should receive help from feminism if feminism is about equality, then see how many mock, insult, or do any variation of those things.
You'll see exactly what I am talking about when/if you do that. In this area, you will get the same proof I have.
You yourself have not been giving out "proof", either. One example is how you have assumed because women have done something towards the issues I explained (such as women pretending to be male) that it somehow reflects of what feminism is doing just because women done it.
You also gave one link about a feminist protest in which I gave four.
I never gave any "proof" other than the videos on the protest, in which I believe I asked you to show me them doing the opposite and protesting peacefully, accepting questions from others, and so on.
Many feminists in western countries are exactly how you're describing, arguing against attacks that aren't there and protesting nothing.
However, most feminists I've met (not exactly the strongest argument) seemed to be about feminism throughout the world, not just in western countries where feminism is close to running its course. Feminists in many Islamic countries I think would have to fit OP's description as they risk death at most every turn.
The western countries seem to have two groups of feminists with any visibility now. The type that argue for equal wages and to not be treated solely as sexual objects, and then those that will call you a misogynist for holding a door for them.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
What's annoying about feminism is that they use the mistreatment of females in other countries to support their own country, then use the high moral they gain from claiming to be about helping women in other areas, to support their protesting in western society.
Kind of like "Hey, we are about helping women that need it in other countries! That means our movement is about helping people! So here is an issue about how trolls on Twitter only target women and hate women"...They use the whole "helping women in other countries" to try establish the image they are fighting for women that really need it, then turn around and focus on every small or non-issue in western society...One being about "Twitter", which is just insulting, is it not? A group claiming they are about helping women that need it spend time focusing on something as trivial as Twitter...
In all honesty, both of those types of feminists are wrong.
The wage gap has been proven to be a result of choices between the genders, not discrimination. Men do more risky jobs and go in to fields that have higher pay with less comfort, where as women are not likely to do that, and so on.
Being seen as sexual objects is another problem. They have this idea that finding a woman sexually attractive means you are turning her in to a sexual object rather than a sexually attractive person. Regardless of this, they tend to go against "lad mags" for these reasons, saying it objectifies women, that it is harmful content to children, all while they go on something called a slut walk where they dress in barely anything and walk in public where children would be around, wearing the same amount of clothing the women in the magazines wore.
The movement is just filled with hypocrites.