Are you a feminist?

[Angilion]

To me that's a contradiction as I believe a feminist is someone who believes women and men are equal. I don't get why some people think the term only relates to a group of people who think women should be superior to men

Because they have some understanding of what feminism is, as opposed to what the wildly implausible PR lies about it are.

Feminism is a biological group advocacy ideology. It differs from others only in that it has been more successful in corrupting the idea of equality, like a virus infecting a host and using it to produce more of the virus.

In order to advocate for female people (i.e. be feminist), you must as a first step in all things define people by their sex. That's obvious - you can't advocate for one group only unless you define people on the basis of whether they are part of that group or "other". You must then judge people on the basis of your favoured prejudices (sexism in the case of feminism, obviously), since you must believe that people only deserve consideration on a political and social scale if they are part of whatever group you favour (female people in the case of feminism, obviously).

In short, all biological group advocacy ideologies, including feminism, are innately prejudiced and discriminatory even in their mildest form. It is inherently impossible for them to be anything else. Of course, most advocates of any biological group advocacy ideology are more prejudiced and discriminatory than that - the extreme moderate end is an extreme, obviously. Also, all biological group advocacy ideologies, including feminism, encompass every degree of prejudice and discrimination against "other", up to and including advocacy of total destruction, a final solution to whatever group that particular ideology considers to be "other".

You can believe that an elephant is a sparrow if you like. It won't shrink, grow wings and fly.

I used to believe the same ludicrous lies that you now believe. It's a very successful con.

I am in favour of sexual equality, therefore I am utterly opposed to feminism. Feminism is a tenacious parasite feeding off of support for sexual equality while it destroys sexual equality. It's a deeply foul and vile thing. I have more respect for the bigots who are openly supremacist - at least they're honest. Also, they do less harm to the idea of equality because they're openly opposing it rather than infecting and corrupting it while they hide behind it.

 

[Naffa]

I am in favour of sexual equality, therefore I am utterly opposed to feminism. Feminism is a tenacious parasite feeding off of support for sexual equality while it destroys sexual equality. It's a deeply foul and vile thing. I have more respect for the bigots who are openly supremacist - at least they're honest. Also, they do less harm to the idea of equality because they're openly opposing it rather than infecting and corrupting it while they hide behind it.

You have just about managed to sum up your position in this paragraph, everything preceding it was unnecessary waffle. I feel compelled to ask you a simple question, as somebody that strikes me as a modern libertarian on this question. Do you think that if we were all (as in, everybody) genuinely left to our own devices, without government passing equality laws, movements pushing for true equality of race, religion, gender, etc, that we would genuinely be equal? That is the logical end of your position, and surely you can see how patently ridiculous such a position is?

Do you think that gender inequality only began to exist when people people started to oppose it? Do you think that racism only began when people began to fight against it?

 

[Angilion]

Equal: yes
Should be treated the same in every circumstance ever ever: no, because, ultimately, they are different.

Unless you're only referring to modelling, sex work and a limited subset of medicine (and I very much doubt if you are), that summarises a point of view that is almost as nonsensical and hypocritical as feminism and which irritates me almost as much.

Recognition of differences should be at an individual level because that's where the differences are.

It is not recognition of differences to argue that men and women should be treated differently because they are different, since that argument depends on the assumption that all men are the same and all women are the same, i.e. the very opposite of recognition of differences.

If you want to oppose the idea that different people are different and you want to advocate that billions of people are all the same because they have the same kind of genitals, well, OK, you have a right to an opinion. Just have the decency and integrity to do so honestly and stand behind your beliefs rather than hiding behind and corrupting the idea you're opposing.

 

[Tefal]

Unless you're only referring to modelling, sex work and a limited subset of medicine (and I very much doubt if you are), that summarises a point of view that is almost as nonsensical and hypocritical as feminism and which irritates me almost as much.

No it's not.

Front line infantry for example was tried and proved a spectacular failure.

 

[Angilion]

You have just about managed to sum up your position in this paragraph, everything preceding it was unnecessary waffle. I feel compelled to ask you a simple question, as somebody that strikes me as a modern libertarian on this question. Do you think that if we were all (as in, everybody) genuinely left to our own devices, without government passing equality laws, movements pushing for true equality of race, religion, gender, etc, that we would genuinely be equal? That is the logical end of your position, and surely you can see how patently ridiculous such a position is?

Do you think that gender inequality only began to exist when people people started to oppose it? Do you think that racism only began when people began to fight against it?

You're arguing against a position I haven't taken because you are basing your counter-argument on a position I very clearly don't accept. Either you didn't understand my post or you're trying to slide that position in as an assumption that must be accepted in order to answer your questions.

I'll belabour the point:

Biological group advocacy is not, I repeat not "true equality of race, religion, gender, etc". More than that - biological group advocacy is inherently opposed to true equality. It is inherently sexist or racist or otherwise prejudiced, depending on which group is being advocated for.

I reject the assumption you are basing your questions on. I think I am making that clear. Although I thought I made it clear in my last post, but you replied as if I hadn't.

I reject the assumption that the only possibilities are advocacy for one group or another. I think that advocacy of equality is possible and that's what I try to aim for.


P.S. I have deliberately ignored your inclusion of religion. Religion isn't a biological factor a person is born with, so it doesn't belong in the same list.

EDIT: I think I see the problem now. You didn't bother reading my post because you decided it was unnecessary waffle. That explains why you so completely failed to understand it that you could reply by assuming my position is the opposite of what I explained it is.

 

[Angilion]

No it's not.

Front line infantry for example was tried and proved a spectacular failure.

Every man can be front line infantry?

No woman, no woman at all, anywhere, ever, can be front line infantry?

Unless you believe that, you're not making a counter-argument to my point.

There are tendencies towards differences, sure. Some are real tendencies, rooted in biology and not just a result of sexism in a society (e.g. height). That doesn't mean that all men are the same height and all women are the same height and that those two heights are different. Treating tendencies as absolutes (as required for the idea that men and women should be treated differently, as two single entities) at best serves only to promote sexist stereotyping by coercing people into conforming to the stereotypes that might or might not be based on tendencies.

EDIT: For front line infantry and anything else, the fair solution is to devise standards relevant to the position and hold all applicants to those standards. If the standards are relevant, it's a fair system regardless of the outcome. If that means that 99% of front line infantry are men, fine. Equality doesn't necessarily mean equality of outcome on a statistical scale. It's equality on an individual scale that counts - does every applicant have an equal opportunity to attempt to reach a relevant standard?

 

[Tefal]

No woman, no woman at all, anywhere, ever, can be front line infantry?

Unless you believe that, you're not making a counter-argument to my point.

Well that's how it stands and also yes that's what i believe*, unless it's 100% women only, you see one of the biggest problems they found was systemic rape of the female soldiers, and not by the enemy...

then there were all sorts of problems in actual combat too.

The problem wasn't always the women but the men.




*for this i mean ina proper army, yes any woman can pick u pa gun and fight just like any child but we're a little beyond that fortunately in what we consider infantry.

For front line infantry and anything else, the fair solution is to devise standards relevant to the position and hold all applicants to those standards. If the standards are relevant, it's a fair system regardless of the outcome. If that means that 99% of front line infantry are men, fine.

but if that "fair system" reduces the army's combat effectiveness it's a **** solution and isn't happening just for the sake of being "fair".

but atm we have much lower standards for women because they aren't as physically capable as men (testosterone does give us an unfair advantage in that respect)

does every applicant have an equal opportunity to attempt to reach a relevant standard?

No because compared to women men are naturally on steroids.

I suppose we could bend the rules and dope the women but i don't think they'd be too keen on ending up with a beard and al lthe toher androgenic effects.

 

[RoboCod]

I blame feminism for the demise of the family unit and thus the decay of our society and break down of our economy.

Women should be treated just like they were in the good ol' days when they were banished to the household to cook and clean. To feed and educate the children and have my dinner on the table when I come home from bread winning. She should also put out whenever I demand it as she agreed she would during our wedding vows. Bring back these days

 

[JonJ678]

There's madness in the equality politics these days. Everyone is exactly the same and everyone is unique at the same time.

If everyone is the same, discrimination is a non-issue because there's nothing to discriminate based on. If people are different, there's cause for discrimination.

Treating men and women identically when one is pregnant would be negligent if not actually abusive. The terms of work which encourage financially successful women to have children screw men over- if you need to fire someone and you have the poor judgement to choose a pregnant woman you get raped in the tribunal.

Treating everyone as equal to everyone else regardless of evidence to the contrary leads to a race towards the lowest common denominator. You can't make every child as literate as the brightest kid in the class, but you can have a decent attempt at making every child as literate as the thickest kid in the class by ignoring all the brighter ones.

 

[paradisiac]

the women that annoy, well I say annoy I guess I mean mildly confuse, me are the ones that moan that women should be treated the same, have the same opportunities etc. and then go on to say how they expect men to be gentlemen and open doors for ladies, pay for meals/cinema etc. when you go out..... how is that equal?!?

 

[exhashdotdot]

To me that's a contradiction as I believe a feminist is someone who believes women and men are equal. I don't get why some people think the term only relates to a group of people who think women should be superior to men

Some more thoughts. Do you actively use the term '****' to describe a woman who may have had sex with a lot of people or may dress in a certain way? It's thrown about so much today but its still used as an insult.

Is there a similar term for a man? I don't think so. Men aren't looked down upon for being promiscuous, they're called a 'player' and seem to be congratulated. Why is that?

It's because anti-feminist groups and patriarchy in general have stigmatised any notion of "feminism" mainly through the media. Most TV shows or documentaries will portray feminists as ugly women who don't want anyone to have any fun. It's sheer propaganda. It must be incredibly frustrating for feminists (which again, because of the stigma attached to the word, isn't every female on the planet).

I believe in equality for men and women - therefore Im a feminist. It's very simple. That's all a feminist is. If you too believe in equality of men and women, then you are a feminist too. It'd be like saying "i believe in God but I'm not an atheist".

So basically, it's not that you don't have to understand, it's just that there are several idiots in this thread who are being good little sheep and absorbing the **** the media feeds them.

the women that annoy, well I say annoy I guess I mean mildly confuse, me are the ones that moan that women should be treated the same, have the same opportunities etc. and then go on to say how they expect men to be gentlemen and open doors for ladies, pay for meals/cinema etc. when you go out..... how is that equal?!?

It's because those women aren't feminists. Again, frustratingly, 99.99% of people who are feminists don't adhere to these paradigms.

 

[Richie]

Unfortunately many women only want equal rights when it suits them.

True.

I read a report about a week back where there is an uproar that women are still under represented in some jobs e.g. government, CEO positions, head of boards for banks etc i.e. "high flying" positions

You don't see them making a fuss about being under represented as binmen (sic) or plumbers or brickies for example i.e. manual jobs


Weird

 

[paradisiac]

Here's a brilliant example of an idiot.

It's because those women aren't feminists. Again, frustratingly, 99.99% of people who are feminists don't adhere to these paradigms.

im not an idiot I never said 'the feminists that annoy.....' I said women.

 

[exhashdotdot]

im not an idiot I never said 'the feminists that annoy.....' I said women.

Sorry if I offended you, but at the end of your post, you said

"how is that equal?!?"

So you're implying these women want equality ie, they're feminists. Heck, to tell you the truth, I don't really think those women exist. I've never met a woman who wanted equality but wanted me to pay for all her **** too (not that I'd do such a thing).

 

[Dabbles]

I believe in equality for men and women - therefore Im a feminist. It's very simple. That's all a feminist is. If you too believe in equality of men and women, then you are a feminist too.

If you genuinely believe that then I would suggest you choose a different name for your label, because 'feminist', by its name, implies looking after one half of the population - females.

 

[paradisiac]

Sorry if I offended you, but at the end of your post, you said

"how is that equal?!?"

So you're implying these women want equality ie, they're feminists.

why does that make them feminists? I believe, as I have said before several times, I believe the best person for the situation is the person that should be doing it, regardless or age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion.......I don't count myself as anything, other than someone that believe in equality or at least not have discrimination.

 

[exhashdotdot]

why does that make them feminists?

Because that's what a feminist is. A person who believes women and men should be equal. I've already gone over this.

I don't count myself as anything, other than someone that believe in equality or at least not have discrimination.

If you believe in the equality of women and men, then you're a feminist.

If you genuinely believe that then I would suggest you choose a different name for your label, because 'feminist', by its name, implies looking after one half of the population - females.

It's feminism because generally, it's been females who have had the shorter end of the stick. And are you really going to form prejudice because of the name of something? How pathetic.

Also, if I "genuinely believe"? I don't genuinely believe, I genuinely know. That IS what a feminist is. Heck, the Oxford dictionary defines feminism as:

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of sexual equality.

 

[Dabbles]

It's because those women aren't feminists. Again, frustratingly, 99.99% of people who are feminists don't adhere to these paradigms.

You hit the nail on the head here in your last sentence. Feminism is knackered because of 99.9% of people who identify themselves as feminists believe in female supremacy over equality. The "it's our turn to be on top" crowd.

 

[RoboCod]

It's because anti-feminist groups and patriarchy in general have stigmatised any notion of "feminism" mainly through the media. Most TV shows or documentaries will portray feminists as ugly women who don't want anyone to have any fun. It's sheer propaganda. It must be incredibly frustrating for feminists (which again, because of the stigma attached to the word, isn't every female on the planet).

I believe in equality for men and women - therefore Im a feminist. It's very simple. That's all a feminist is. If you too believe in equality of men and women, then you are a feminist too. It'd be like saying "i believe in God but I'm not an atheist".

So basically, it's not that you don't have to understand, it's just that there are several idiots in this thread who are being good little sheep and absorbing the **** the media feeds them.




It's because those women aren't feminists. Again, frustratingly, 99.99% of people who are feminists don't adhere to these paradigms.

I think the more educated amongst them will debate that actually feminism is about equality, but only for women. It is about justice, but only for women. It is about fairness, but only for women. Just as masculinism is to men.

Alas, as already discussed, nobody is born equal, so to campaign for equality in a naturally unequal world is futile andwill usually lend to the weaker subject.

 

[RoboCod]

Because that's what a feminist is. A person who believes women and men should be equal. I've already gone over this.

So you're also a masculinist.