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.
"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."
What? No-one is saying trolls primarily target women, at least no-one I have heard. Everyone knows all sorts of people get targeted by trolls. However, people are saying that threatening rape and murder is not okay in any circumstances, especially since those women have real cause to be concerned about such threats becoming reality since they're doing a controversial thing which many people genuinely hate them for. I don't see what I so wrong about saying that a) Twitter shouldn't allow that sort of abuse and b) the people abusing Twitter are cunts. Those are the only two things I've heard anyone say.
"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."
You make no sense. "Feminism" is not for or against ANYTHING, as I have told you many times, APART from that included in the definition of feminism I gave you many posts ago. So as you should clearly be able to see, ANY measure to equalise rights of men and women is supported by feminism BY DEFAULT. You have proved once again you have no idea what feminism even is; feminism is not defined by what self-identifying feminists stand for, it is defined by the definition of feminism. You can't retroactively define a term based on anecdotal evidence.
I couldn't find the exact video I was talking about on the Twitter part, however I found this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZskBOUCM5s
Forty seconds in "Especially against women", it's bad "especially against women". Even if guys face the same treatment, women still have it worse. Again, trying everything to make women seem like victims.
"It's not acceptable to treat women badly in the real world and the online world", no mention of the males that also get the same abuse.
"Are they enforcing any rules to protect women in particular?".
Another: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZGZ_TldV8U
Person only talks about "women" that are victims of such trolling.
"Have you failed women?", etc.
Look at any of the conversations about this, you'll see that they constantly highlight "women" as if they are the only ones, rather than saying "victims", they go out of their way to specifically mention females as victims, making it seem like male victims do not exist or are not as important.
"a) Twitter shouldn't allow that sort of abuse and b) the people abusing Twitter are cunts. Those are the only two things I've heard anyone say."
If that is what they were saying, branding the issue to help "victims" rather than replacing it with "women", then we wouldn't have a problem. They maker, I believe (someone important in Twitter), released a statement apologizing to "women" that face abuse on their site, not all victims.
What do you think feminists would do if they only said sorry to the "males" that are the victims? You and I both know there would be a big fuss kicked up about it, so why isn't there one now? Because it benefits the feminist wants, which has nothing to do with seeing both genders as equals.
Feminists aren't against anything?...I linked you a video showing them protest against an MRA speech.
Not to mention the delusions of a patriarchy, and so on.
You are the one making no sense. You have completely ignored what was said when you posted that definition many posts ago. I explained to you the whole definition aspect of this discussion. You can't say I make no sense because you are choosing not to acknowledge my original response to the point you made again originally then claim "I" am not making sense.
It's as if you have completely ignored what we talked about a few posts ago about definitions. You're smarter than that, Dom.
Long story short on that, just because a definition explains a group to be a certain way does not mean they group "is" that way, that is what they "Preach", not what they "practice".
I'm not repeating this whole part again. If you forgot that part, then ok, it happens, just look at the previous posts and you will see. If you are choosing to act like the point wasn't made, then what is the point in even making a point towards you if you are just going to act like it wasn't stated when it is convenient for your point?
No, I believe you don't know what feminism is, and you have demonstrated it. You don't understand that a movement can change its group that differs from the group's original definition, because the definition is merely the description of how "that" movement has described itself and presented itself with words, in which that movement's presentation through words does not comply with its presentation through methods, and so on.
What I find interesting is that the points I make to explain why feminism is not about equality, you completely ignore, such as the one where you claim they are for equality, then I stated if they wanted to fight for "equality" in real issues, why are they complaining about faces on pieces of paper rather than making the genders equal in areas such as the draft of less domestic violence shelters for men?
You can't sit there and say I do not understand feminism when I have given reason to suggest my points and all you have done is refuse to acknowledge them. That isn't proving your point, that's just refusing to acknowledge mine, which doesn't mean mine don't exist.
You determine what something is based on what you hear of them, such as the definition, I see something for what it shows itself to be.
Failing to mention verbal abuse of men is not suggesting only women are effected, or that the numbers effected aren't equal. Many only mention women because that particular spate of Twitter abuse was directed primarily at women.
Honestly, I don't think going against online abuse is a feminist issue at all since it's got nothing to do with equal rights. It's just an issue a lot of people who also happen to be feminists find important because the abuse was against feminist activists.
Feminism is separate from merely the movement.
Think about it this way. Substitute "feminism" with "atheism". Imagine if a movement of people decided to call themselves atheists, but did not meet the definition of atheism as it stands. Instead they believed in a God. Would that be good cause to change the definition of atheism? I think not, since original philosophies are not at the mercy of the people who use the names derived from them.
Feminism, like atheism and any -ism, is a set of philosophies FIRST. The group of people who believe in those philosophies THEN take the name. It is NOT the other way around. The philosophy is NOT defined by the people who take it's name, but the other way around. This is a FACT, not merely my opinion. I don't acknowledge your points because fly in the face of this truth. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism#Derived_terms You can clearly see that the word "feminist" is derived directly from the static definition "feminism", and NOT vice versa.
It isn't that your point is inconvenient to some sort of pre-determined bias. It's that you are just demonstrably wrong.
Well, then why do they not apply that to their own reasoning. "Putting only men on one particular side of the note is not saying women have not done amazing things". It's the exact same reasoning.
It's not supposed to be a feminist issue, however feminists are making it one, which again goes back to my point about feminists making gender issues out of thin-air.
If it became known enough that atheists done this, then yes it would be. If it became something that is the norm, then yes, as that's how atheists would have present themselves.
Going by your reasoning here (not saying it is bad) it can go by two ways.
1) I say you are wrong, which then concludes that most "feminists" are not actually feminists, as they differ from the actual definition.
2) Definitions of people or groups of people can change.
If it is accepted that these "atheists" believe in God, then it becomes acceptable to see them under that light, then yes it would change, however this is very unlikely to ever happen.
Atheists and believers believe in two acceptable and non-shameful things. Feminism, in this subject, would be about them believing in equality or not. Unlike the atheist analogy, the feminists have a choice of presenting themselves as something noble or something shameful, and no group is going to do the latter if they are aiming for something.
"It isn't that your point is inconvenient to some sort of pre-determined bias. It's that you are just demonstrably wrong."
I'm sorry, that does not count as a rebuttal, and I am pretty disappointed that you of all people think it is.
You don't get to choose what points are acceptable and what ones aren't. I made valid points and you refused to answer them, in which I see no point in continuing this, as I felt the exact same way about a few of your points, yet "showed" why they were wrong because I knew there was a way to. You, on the otherhand, seem to think stating it proves it so. It doesn't.
I am considering leaving this discussion, as I have had this from feminists too much, that when they cannot go against a certain point, they just refuse to acknowledge it, which then makes me wonder why I should argue a point anyway, as even if I do prove you wrong on a point, all you have to do is say "nope, doesn't count". You are not the arbiter of what is acceptable of a point, you get to show points wrong, not simple dismiss them.
You may not see this as a bad thing, I understand, however I am disappointed in how you have treated the debate.
Is it normal that I often find feminist women attractive?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"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."
What? No-one is saying trolls primarily target women, at least no-one I have heard. Everyone knows all sorts of people get targeted by trolls. However, people are saying that threatening rape and murder is not okay in any circumstances, especially since those women have real cause to be concerned about such threats becoming reality since they're doing a controversial thing which many people genuinely hate them for. I don't see what I so wrong about saying that a) Twitter shouldn't allow that sort of abuse and b) the people abusing Twitter are cunts. Those are the only two things I've heard anyone say.
"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."
You make no sense. "Feminism" is not for or against ANYTHING, as I have told you many times, APART from that included in the definition of feminism I gave you many posts ago. So as you should clearly be able to see, ANY measure to equalise rights of men and women is supported by feminism BY DEFAULT. You have proved once again you have no idea what feminism even is; feminism is not defined by what self-identifying feminists stand for, it is defined by the definition of feminism. You can't retroactively define a term based on anecdotal evidence.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I couldn't find the exact video I was talking about on the Twitter part, however I found this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZskBOUCM5s
Forty seconds in "Especially against women", it's bad "especially against women". Even if guys face the same treatment, women still have it worse. Again, trying everything to make women seem like victims.
"It's not acceptable to treat women badly in the real world and the online world", no mention of the males that also get the same abuse.
"Are they enforcing any rules to protect women in particular?".
Another: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZGZ_TldV8U
Person only talks about "women" that are victims of such trolling.
"Have you failed women?", etc.
Look at any of the conversations about this, you'll see that they constantly highlight "women" as if they are the only ones, rather than saying "victims", they go out of their way to specifically mention females as victims, making it seem like male victims do not exist or are not as important.
"a) Twitter shouldn't allow that sort of abuse and b) the people abusing Twitter are cunts. Those are the only two things I've heard anyone say."
If that is what they were saying, branding the issue to help "victims" rather than replacing it with "women", then we wouldn't have a problem. They maker, I believe (someone important in Twitter), released a statement apologizing to "women" that face abuse on their site, not all victims.
What do you think feminists would do if they only said sorry to the "males" that are the victims? You and I both know there would be a big fuss kicked up about it, so why isn't there one now? Because it benefits the feminist wants, which has nothing to do with seeing both genders as equals.
Feminists aren't against anything?...I linked you a video showing them protest against an MRA speech.
Not to mention the delusions of a patriarchy, and so on.
You are the one making no sense. You have completely ignored what was said when you posted that definition many posts ago. I explained to you the whole definition aspect of this discussion. You can't say I make no sense because you are choosing not to acknowledge my original response to the point you made again originally then claim "I" am not making sense.
It's as if you have completely ignored what we talked about a few posts ago about definitions. You're smarter than that, Dom.
Long story short on that, just because a definition explains a group to be a certain way does not mean they group "is" that way, that is what they "Preach", not what they "practice".
I'm not repeating this whole part again. If you forgot that part, then ok, it happens, just look at the previous posts and you will see. If you are choosing to act like the point wasn't made, then what is the point in even making a point towards you if you are just going to act like it wasn't stated when it is convenient for your point?
No, I believe you don't know what feminism is, and you have demonstrated it. You don't understand that a movement can change its group that differs from the group's original definition, because the definition is merely the description of how "that" movement has described itself and presented itself with words, in which that movement's presentation through words does not comply with its presentation through methods, and so on.
What I find interesting is that the points I make to explain why feminism is not about equality, you completely ignore, such as the one where you claim they are for equality, then I stated if they wanted to fight for "equality" in real issues, why are they complaining about faces on pieces of paper rather than making the genders equal in areas such as the draft of less domestic violence shelters for men?
You can't sit there and say I do not understand feminism when I have given reason to suggest my points and all you have done is refuse to acknowledge them. That isn't proving your point, that's just refusing to acknowledge mine, which doesn't mean mine don't exist.
You determine what something is based on what you hear of them, such as the definition, I see something for what it shows itself to be.
That is the difference between us.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Failing to mention verbal abuse of men is not suggesting only women are effected, or that the numbers effected aren't equal. Many only mention women because that particular spate of Twitter abuse was directed primarily at women.
Honestly, I don't think going against online abuse is a feminist issue at all since it's got nothing to do with equal rights. It's just an issue a lot of people who also happen to be feminists find important because the abuse was against feminist activists.
Feminism is separate from merely the movement.
Think about it this way. Substitute "feminism" with "atheism". Imagine if a movement of people decided to call themselves atheists, but did not meet the definition of atheism as it stands. Instead they believed in a God. Would that be good cause to change the definition of atheism? I think not, since original philosophies are not at the mercy of the people who use the names derived from them.
Feminism, like atheism and any -ism, is a set of philosophies FIRST. The group of people who believe in those philosophies THEN take the name. It is NOT the other way around. The philosophy is NOT defined by the people who take it's name, but the other way around. This is a FACT, not merely my opinion. I don't acknowledge your points because fly in the face of this truth. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism#Derived_terms You can clearly see that the word "feminist" is derived directly from the static definition "feminism", and NOT vice versa.
It isn't that your point is inconvenient to some sort of pre-determined bias. It's that you are just demonstrably wrong.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Well, then why do they not apply that to their own reasoning. "Putting only men on one particular side of the note is not saying women have not done amazing things". It's the exact same reasoning.
It's not supposed to be a feminist issue, however feminists are making it one, which again goes back to my point about feminists making gender issues out of thin-air.
If it became known enough that atheists done this, then yes it would be. If it became something that is the norm, then yes, as that's how atheists would have present themselves.
Going by your reasoning here (not saying it is bad) it can go by two ways.
1) I say you are wrong, which then concludes that most "feminists" are not actually feminists, as they differ from the actual definition.
2) Definitions of people or groups of people can change.
If it is accepted that these "atheists" believe in God, then it becomes acceptable to see them under that light, then yes it would change, however this is very unlikely to ever happen.
Atheists and believers believe in two acceptable and non-shameful things. Feminism, in this subject, would be about them believing in equality or not. Unlike the atheist analogy, the feminists have a choice of presenting themselves as something noble or something shameful, and no group is going to do the latter if they are aiming for something.
"It isn't that your point is inconvenient to some sort of pre-determined bias. It's that you are just demonstrably wrong."
I'm sorry, that does not count as a rebuttal, and I am pretty disappointed that you of all people think it is.
You don't get to choose what points are acceptable and what ones aren't. I made valid points and you refused to answer them, in which I see no point in continuing this, as I felt the exact same way about a few of your points, yet "showed" why they were wrong because I knew there was a way to. You, on the otherhand, seem to think stating it proves it so. It doesn't.
I am considering leaving this discussion, as I have had this from feminists too much, that when they cannot go against a certain point, they just refuse to acknowledge it, which then makes me wonder why I should argue a point anyway, as even if I do prove you wrong on a point, all you have to do is say "nope, doesn't count". You are not the arbiter of what is acceptable of a point, you get to show points wrong, not simple dismiss them.
You may not see this as a bad thing, I understand, however I am disappointed in how you have treated the debate.