Feminism discussion

[VantagePoint]

VantagePoint - right, but women aren't actively campaigning against men, either. And most feminists do support getting rid of gender roles, it's just that their focus is heavier on women's issues. Men are fully welcome to start telling other men that it's okay to exhibit feminine traits.

This only proves my point, they don't have to be actively against it, but for it to be an equality movement, it would have to champion equality for both sides, not just for woman. Hence me saying it's not a movement for equality.

And most states now have it written in law that neither parent be given preference automatically in custody cases. The best way for more fathers to get custody is to start encouraging fathers to do more of the day to day parenting duties. Courts look at things like who does bathtime, bedtime, who feeds the kids, who arranges dr appointments, etc. It's also worth noting that custody doesn't equal visitation; a divorce where the woman has primary custody may still see the kids going to their father's house on a regular basis.

According to feminists, the law hasn't stopped the wage gap from existing, so I could make a similar case here.

But seriously, the law doesn't account for the inherent societal bias towards oman as caretakers.

Have you read through the entire thread, taking into account everyone's stance, before posting? If not, I strongly suggest reading through it.

The thing is, I'm more concerned about how feminism manifests itself in terms of effects than what a few feminists say, and unfortunately, the most toxic of your group are the ones that get the spotlight and the decision making power.

It's nice, in theory, that you guys are concerned bout men's rights, but feminism has shown itself to NOT be the answer to these issues and that they aren't interested in taking drastic action to solve it.

Edited September 18, 2016 by VantagePoint

[Time the Crestfallen]

VantagePoint - right, but women aren't actively campaigning against men, either. And most feminists do support getting rid of gender roles, it's just that their focus is heavier on women's issues. Men are fully welcome to start telling other men that it's okay to exhibit feminine traits.

The way I've always looked at it is you have your Egalitarian Movement, and then you have your MRAs focusing on men's issues and Feminism focusing on women's issues. I've always felt that a lot of problems with gender equality could be fixed if the MRM and Feminism treated each other as allies and two facets of the same ideology rather than sitcom arch-nemeses who only exist to tear each other down.

And most states now have it written in law that neither parent be given preference automatically in custody cases. The best way for more fathers to get custody is to start encouraging fathers to do more of the day to day parenting duties. Courts look at things like who does bathtime, bedtime, who feeds the kids, who arranges dr appointments, etc. It's also worth noting that custody doesn't equal visitation; a divorce where the woman has primary custody may still see the kids going to their father's house on a regular basis.

I hadn't heard about that. Nice. But even still, I don't see how it can be proven that preference is being given to women barring the most extreme cases of bias i.e. giving custody to a mother who is provably abusive.

[eclipse]

The thing is, I'm more concerned about how feminism manifests itself in terms of effects than what a few feminists say, and unfortunately, the most toxic of your group are the ones that get the spotlight and the decision making power.

It's nice, in theory, that you guys are concerned bout men's rights, but feminism has shown itself to NOT be the answer to these issues and that they aren't interested in taking drastic action to solve it.

I don't think you took the hint.

You're sort-of preaching to the choir, and you'd realize that if you took the time to read through this topic. This isn't a place for a crusade against feminism, because I feel that's just as toxic.

[VantagePoint]

It is worth noting that it is less common to consider yourself a feminist today in polls - I've seen ones that place Americans at only 18% that say they consider themselves feminists. I believe this was higher in the past such as 33% in 1992.

With the rise of the radical feminists, and them getting the majority of the spotlight, it's inevitable that woman and men would want to distance themself from people like this:

Feminism is becoming a dirty word because radicals like this have effectively become the vocal portion of the feminist movement and as such, it's easier to associate feminism with... that, than equality.

[Res]

They can; but it's still seen as a woman's disease (again, another issue) and it was brought up in this thread as an equivalent to prostrate cancer originally. But yes, it's absolutely worth noting that men can get it, too.

Tryhard - I completely understand wishing to dissociate oneself from the feminist label especially as it's often White Feminists that dominate the news. It would be interesting how many of those people not identifying as feminist identify as womanist or egalitarian, though. Because I still do come across a fair number of women who believe themselves inferior to men. If they choose that for themselves, that's fine, but if they actively vote against other women because of the position they themselves wish to take - that's an issue for me.

Phillius - right, I think getting accurate statistics on court bias is probably impossible.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Res

[eclipse]

With the rise of the radical feminists, and them getting the majority of the spotlight, it's inevitable that woman and men would want to distance themself from people like this:

Feminism is becoming a dirty word because radicals like this have effectively become the vocal portion of the feminist movement and as such, it's easier to associate feminism with... that, than equality.

My patience is beginning to wear thin. You're free to hold that opinion, and I won't stop you. However, pointing to the radicals and going "well that's feminism!" is closer to trolling than discussion. So, go and read through this topic, and then figure out a more tactful way of getting your point across.

[VantagePoint]

You're sort-of preaching to the choir, and you'd realize that if you took the time to read through this topic. This isn't a place for a crusade against feminism, because I feel that's just as toxic.

There's no "crusade against feminism" here. Just against the idea that it's an equality movement. It isn't and neither is the MRA movement, but both existing in tandeem means the existance of one of them is okay.

It's a completely valid point and I don't appreciate it being labeled "toxic" because you don't agree with it.

My patience is beginning to wear thin. You're free to hold that opinion, and I won't stop you. However, pointing to the radicals and going "well that's feminism!" is closer to trolling than discussion. So, go and read through this topic, and then figure out a more tactful way of getting your point across.

My point is that people like that are the vocal members of the feminist movement, which is a problem. There are people in the movement unconcerned about men's rights issue, and unfortuately, that's also the people that get media attention and enact change.

It's less me pointing to that video and saying "well, that's feminism!" and more me pointing to the video saying "these are the vocal people that currently dominate the actions of the movement." As a result, it's easier for people to associate feminism with extremism.

Edited September 18, 2016 by VantagePoint

[eclipse]

There's no "crusade against feminism" here. Just against the idea that it's an equality movement. It isn't and neither is the MRA movement, but both existing in tandeem means the existance of one of them is okay.

It's a completely valid point and I don't appreciate it being labeled "toxic" because you don't agree with it.

So what is there to discuss about feminism not being an equality movement? You're in Serious Discussion, not Serious Soapbox.

Also, you've misread my post. My problem with you is HOW you're presenting yourself, not the opinion itself.

[VantagePoint]

So what is there to discuss about feminism not being an equality movement? You're in Serious Discussion, not Serious Soapbox.

Someone asked my stance on feminism, I answered. Someone else engaged in reasonable discourse with me, and I responded in turn. Simple as that. I don't see the issue here.

Also, you've misread my post. My problem with you is HOW you're presenting yourself, not the opinion itself.

Please elaborate.

Edited September 18, 2016 by VantagePoint

[Tryhard]

The way I've always looked at it is you have your Egalitarian Movement, and then you have your MRAs focusing on men's issues and Feminism focusing on women's issues. I've always felt that a lot of problems with gender equality could be fixed if the MRM and Feminism treated each other as allies and two facets of the same ideology rather than sitcom arch-nemeses who only exist to tear each other down.

That's what I found. They treat the other as deadly enemies and reject their ideas on a visceral level.

It's nice, in theory, that you guys are concerned bout men's rights, but feminism has shown itself to NOT be the answer to these issues and that they aren't interested in taking drastic action to solve it.

she said she was egalitarian and not a feminist, dude.

With the rise of the radical feminists, and them getting the majority of the spotlight, it's inevitable that woman and men would want to distance themself from people like this:

Feminism is becoming a dirty word because radicals like this have effectively become the vocal portion of the feminist movement and as such, it's easier to associate feminism with... that, than equality.

Sure, some might decide not to associate with that label any more but the radical existence doesn't really mean anything. I've got friends who are feminists (insert joke here) and I don't really think going after the easy radical targets is particularly helpful.

Feminism just isn't for me, and that's why I don't consider myself one. But I also don't consider it a harmful ideology.

Tryhard - I completely understand wishing to dissociate oneself from the feminist label especially as it's often White Feminists that dominate the news. It would be interesting how many of those people not identifying as feminist identify as womanist or egalitarian, though. Because I still do come across a fair number of women who believe themselves inferior to men. If they choose that for themselves, that's fine, but if they actively vote against other women because of the position they themselves wish to take - that's an issue for me.

Why would that be, though? I mean from what I've seen most of the popular or prominent feminists kinda suck at being a feminist and are ironically sexist like Lena Durham and Anita Sarkeesian in my opinion, because a lot of their rhetoric is that women are dumbasses that are just controlled by men and have no free will of their own. It beggars belief why they are in that position. Edited September 19, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

My patience is beginning to wear thin. You're free to hold that opinion, and I won't stop you. However, pointing to the radicals and going "well that's feminism!" is closer to trolling than discussion. So, go and read through this topic, and then figure out a more tactful way of getting your point across.

I disagree entirely Eclipse. And I'll be very upset if you do because it is not trolling.

He is equating third wave feminism ideology with the general ideology of feminism because that is what third wave feminism wants you to do that.

Look at the Kristin Bell video. Women make $0.77 on the dollar! They want you to think that this is what feminism is. So he is doing just that.

That's not trolling. Do not warn him for that.

[eclipse]

Someone asked my stance on feminism, I answered. Someone else engaged in reasonable discourse with me, and I responded in turn. Simple as that. I don't see the issue here.

That's a problem.

Please elaborate.

Pay attention ladies and gentlemen, THIS is the appropriate response to what I said earlier. So, I'll elaborate. First, I'm going to cheat a little and use a nifty search function from the mafia subforum. It shows all posts from a single user in a single topic. These are all of your posts in this topic.

First post. Okay, okay, and. . .wait.

- Men being less interested in college as time goes on. (Woman make up the majority of people in college)

- Inherent societal bias for woman (Woman are wonderful effect) (Men can stop rape) (Man up and marry)

First point: It's possible that men are going to trade school instead of college. This isn't a bad thing, because stuff like welding pays decently enough. I can't speak for every woman, but I know that I don't have the physical strength for that.

Second point: There's also phrases like "grow a pair", "stop being a pussy" and the entire song of "I'll Make a Man Out Of You", as counterpoints. If you want to argue this point, I suggest arguing against gender stereotypes, instead of focusing only on one side. BTW, this is a running theme through your posts, and one of the things that bothered me.

Second post. I'm going to argue WHY I have an issue with your presentation, because this is a great example of it. Since this will be long, I'm gonna put it in spoiler tags, to save space.

That tells me there's a negative stigma towards not falling in with your traditional gender roles, and feminism has only made progress in regards to woman exhibiting masculine traits by claiming it' an attempt to keep woman barefoot and pregnant. For men that exhibit feminine qualities, you don't see feminists get particularly outraged in their favor beyond "it's okay to not conform toyour traditional gener roles. When you have marriage rates declining and one of the cited reasons is "woman aren't woman anymore", then I don't think you have any argument saying that we live in a patriarcial society that favors men.

1. "Barefoot and pregnant?" How is this relevant? Is this just what you've derived, or is this a quote from someone? If it's the latter, what's the source?

2. If you READ THROUGH THE TOPIC like I asked several times, you would've seen that point come up. Do you think Crysta is the type of feminist who doesn't believe that?

3. What is the source of your assertion that marriage rates are declining because "women aren't women anymore"? And why is a declining marriage rate a bad thing?

4. The last part is another sticky point. Assuming the other person doesn't have an argument reads like an attempt to dominate, not discuss. If you want to attempt to dominate people in argument, please head to the mafia subforum. Another game should be starting up soonish, and shutting people's arguments down is encouraged.

Quite simply put, there's just been a ton of activism for the idea that woman can be more than homemakers, but very little in terms of getting rid of the root socetial belief that men are more disposable than woman and thus, getting rid of the negative stigma of men not being the shining paragons of chivalry.

Source this.

So? Who cares about who perpetrates the crime? The argument isn't that woman can just murder men in the streets and no one cares, the argument is just that society just doesn't care as much about the wellbeing of men as the do woman, and by extension, the "patriarchy" can't exist.

Source this assertion, too. Also, I see blanket statements regarding society and how much it cares about men/women.

And the movement hasn't shown much in the way of assistance towards the issues of men, their main concern is the issues of woman. This is fine, but you can't present feminism as benefiting everyone when it's majorly benefiting woman and by extension, you can't label everyone that does't identify as a feminist as a bigot. You can't have things like the Duluth Model, which completely dismisses domestic violence perpetrated by woman by attributing it to men, created by feminist theory, then claim they are concerned about men's rights.

You're arguing against a very nebulous movement with people who have already argued FOR your points. But again, you would've seen this if you read backwards.

I see an actual reference that I can look up - the Duluth Model. A quick read-through on Wikipedia (not the absolute best source, but it'll do) shows that the criticism of the model are already out in the open. Again, do you think that Crysta is arguing for the type of feminism that you are arguing against?

Just a small taste.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11911629/Babysitter-spared-jail-after-having-sex-with-boy-aged-11.html

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2016/09/16/former-scottsdale-teacher-and-coach-gets-10-years-prison-sexual-conduct-student/90507784/

SOURCES! And actual news sites, too!

However, two news stories is NOT a statistic. If you can find a peer-reviewed paper that shows just how often this happens, it would help your case a lot more.

Third post is short, and what I was looking for, so I'll just quote the thing:

My only stance of feminism is that it's not an equality movement. You can't effectively ignore an entire side's problems and claim it's equality. It's just a cheap way of creating a false dichotomy between "feminist" and "bigot" so that anyone that doesn't agree with you is just a bigot. I feel that the feminists that ARE for equality are in no way the majority and they most certainly aren't the ones that get press coverage and enact change, which is a problem if your equality movement has been effectively highjacked. Feminists that pay more tha lip service to men's right issues are just egalitarianists.

The first issue I have is with your logic - if you don't agree with feminism, then you're a bigot. First off, WHICH branch of feminism are you arguing against? It's a very large issue with a lot of moving parts. Second, what kind of logic is your argument aimed at? Third, how do you know that the person you're arguing against IS the type of person who you should be arguing against? By simply throwing out assertions and arguments, with no mind as to who you're arguing against or why, I get the impression that you're here to pick a fight.

Next:

This only proves my point, they don't have to be actively against it, but for it to be an equality movement, it would have to champion equality for both sides, not just for woman. Hence me saying it's not a movement for equality.

According to feminists, the law hasn't stopped the wage gap from existing, so I could make a similar case here.

But seriously, the law doesn't account for the inherent societal bias towards oman as caretakers.

The thing is, I'm more concerned about how feminism manifests itself in terms of effects than what a few feminists say, and unfortunately, the most toxic of your group are the ones that get the spotlight and the decision making power.

It's nice, in theory, that you guys are concerned bout men's rights, but feminism has shown itself to NOT be the answer to these issues and that they aren't interested in taking drastic action to solve it.

Okay, you have an idea as to WHAT you're arguing against. However, is this the person that espoused the view that feminism is for equality?

With the rise of the radical feminists, and them getting the majority of the spotlight, it's inevitable that woman and men would want to distance themself from people like this:

Feminism is becoming a dirty word because radicals like this have effectively become the vocal portion of the feminist movement and as such, it's easier to associate feminism with... that, than equality.

First part - I won't comment, because I don't want that video on my play list.

Second part - Radicals taint the views of everything. If your issue is with radicals in general, then please lend your support against the militants in politics/religion/environmentalism/nutrition/health care/literally any other field where people associate a side with the radicals within the movement. Otherwise, I think that associating feminism with JUST its radical elements is intellectually dishonest, and reads like you have a bone to pick with feminism in general, not just the radicals.

There's no "crusade against feminism" here. Just against the idea that it's an equality movement. It isn't and neither is the MRA movement, but both existing in tandeem means the existance of one of them is okay.

It's a completely valid point and I don't appreciate it being labeled "toxic" because you don't agree with it.

My point is that people like that are the vocal members of the feminist movement, which is a problem. There are people in the movement unconcerned about men's rights issue, and unfortuately, that's also the people that get media attention and enact change.

It's less me pointing to that video and saying "well, that's feminism!" and more me pointing to the video saying "these are the vocal people that currently dominate the actions of the movement." As a result, it's easier for people to associate feminism with extremism.

I'll assume you STILL haven't read backwards through the topic, and are making assumptions off of people based off of I-don't-know-what. Do the people in this topic hold the views you're arguing against? If so, why or why not? Please back this up with quotes and your interpretation of them.

For the rest, please refer to the point regarding radicals above.

Someone asked my stance on feminism, I answered. Someone else engaged in reasonable discourse with me, and I responded in turn. Simple as that. I don't see the issue here.

I disagree entirely Eclipse. And I'll be very upset if you do because it is not trolling.

He is equating third wave feminism ideology with the general ideology of feminism because that is what third wave feminism wants you to do that.

Look at the Kristin Bell video. Women make $0.77 on the dollar! They want you to think that this is what feminism is. So he is doing just that.

That's not trolling. Do not warn him for that.

I'm going to respond to both of you, since you both have the same issues.

If you're going to make assertions, make sure that you're responding to people who actually hold the views you're arguing against, not some mental construct of what you think they're arguing against. Second, I want to see assertions backed with logic and possibly sources, especially if you're prone to making blanket statements and judgments. By not paying attention to who you're talking to, you're showing both a lack of basic respect and a mindset that what you have to say is more important than the other person. The second is not discussion, it's a soapbox - go make a blog if you want the world to know your views that badly. Trolls emulate a similar behavior - lots of assertions with little to no credible sources, with no regards to others. I haven't given any trolling warnings, and hopefully I won't have to. However, I want EVERYONE to keep those points in mind - if you're going to be contrary, go ahead, but it MUST be done with respect for the other person. And that means reading their entire stance, understanding their logic, and showing some basic empathy.

[VantagePoint]

Sure, some might decide not to associate with that label any more but their existence doesn't really mean anything. I've got friends who are feminists (insert joke here) and I don't really think going after the easy radical targets is particularly helpful.

Feminism just isn't for me, and that's why I don't consider myself one. But I also don't consider it a harmful ideology

When you have a presidential Candidate championing ideas of the "easy radical targets" like "1/5 college woman will be raped", or "woman make 77 cents compared to a man's dollar and campaigning to enact social reform based on it, that those radicals go far beyond the scope of just being some insignifigant statistic.

she said she was egalitarian and not a feminist, dude.

Then that's my bad, but my statements still stand.

The way I've always looked at it is you have your Egalitarian Movement, and then you have your MRAs focusing on men's issues and Feminism focusing on women's issues. I've always felt that a lot of problems with gender equality could be fixed if the MRM and Feminism treated each other as allies and two facets of the same ideology rather than sitcom arch-nemeses who only exist to tear each other down.

The problem is that the MRA movement begun as a result of the feminist movement only tackling woman's issues. The MRA movement begun bitter from the start, because, in their eyes, they weren't fighting for equality, just for woman, while feminists saw the MRAs as some group made to ditract from the issues woman face.

And the cycle of hate goes on... and on... and on...

[Life]

I'm going to respond to both of you, since you both have the same issues.

If you're going to make assertions, make sure that you're responding to people who actually hold the views you're arguing against, not some mental construct of what you think they're arguing against. Second, I want to see assertions backed with logic and possibly sources, especially if you're prone to making blanket statements and judgments. By not paying attention to who you're talking to, you're showing both a lack of basic respect and a mindset that what you have to say is more important than the other person. The second is not discussion, it's a soapbox - go make a blog if you want the world to know your views that badly. Trolls emulate a similar behavior - lots of assertions with little to no credible sources, with no regards to others. I haven't given any trolling warnings, and hopefully I won't have to. However, I want EVERYONE to keep those points in mind - if you're going to be contrary, go ahead, but it MUST be done with respect for the other person. And that means reading their entire stance, understanding their logic, and showing some basic empathy.

That's not consistant logic, eclipse.

He states a stance. In it, he refers to third wave feminism as feminism in general. That is mainstream feminism in social media. Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian... They are the figureheads of today's feminism in the social media. And since they have control of the feminist market even while being a minority, they have projected that stance that they are feminism and anything less is sexism.

After that he is saying "I disagree with feminism because of that". If it turns out that people agree with him, great. If it sparks debate because someone doesn't agree, better. But it is a valid starting point for a conversation.

You're trying to stop him because "not all feminists are like that". We know that. But social media doesn't agree. It's the same think with Radical Islam. We know that all Muslims aren't bad. But we can make the argument that Islamic countries are not good places to live with regards to human rights because of religion. Or that Radical Islam is bad.

If you allow a conversation of the second topic, you have to do the same with the first. Otherwise, you're not logically consistant. And stifling conversation too.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Deplorable Pepe

[eclipse]

That's not consistant logic, eclipse.

He states a stance. In it, he refers to third wave feminism as feminism in general. That is mainstream feminism in social media. Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian... They are the figureheads of today's feminism in the social media. And since they have control of the feminist market even while being a minority, they have projected that stance that they are feminism and anything less is sexism.

After that he is saying "I disagree with feminism because of that". If it turns out that people agree with him, great. If it sparks debate because someone doesn't agree, better. But it is a valid starting point for a conversation.

You're trying to stop him because "not all feminists are like that". We know that. But social media doesn't agree. It's the same think with Radical Islam. We know that all Muslims aren't bad. But we can make the argument that Islamic countries are not good places to live with regards to human rights because of religion. Or that Radical Islam is bad.

If you allow a conversation of the second topic, you have to do the same with the first. Otherwise, you're not logically consistant.

My issue was with the HOW, which also applies to you. I've said repeatedly that he's free to have his opinion, just as you are. However, both of you have a similar approach, which is throw assertions and see what happens. There's a fine line between discussion and trolling by using that method, and toeing the line is not healthy. First and foremost comes respect for the other person.

Also, you actually read the topic, unlike the other guy, whose content strongly suggests that he hasn't. That's a pretty big strike for someone who wants to throw a controversial opinion into the ring.

[Life]

My issue was with the HOW, which also applies to you. I've said repeatedly that he's free to have his opinion, just as you are. However, both of you have a similar approach, which is throw assertions and see what happens. There's a fine line between discussion and trolling by using that method, and toeing the line is not healthy. First and foremost comes respect for the other person.

Also, you actually read the topic, unlike the other guy, whose content strongly suggests that he hasn't. That's a pretty big strike for someone who wants to throw a controversial opinion into the ring.

Let's talk about me for a second. And I want people to understand this about me.

Here, I exaggerate sometimes on my opinions but they are reflections of my beliefs. I'm willing to defend anything I put up and if I am proved wrong, I admit it to myself even if I might not type it out. I have personally conceeded some points to Raven but until this post, I have never admitted it. And I won't again.

But his opinion is that third wave feminism represents feminism as a whole at this moment at time and it is a valid opinion that brings up debate. Ask a feminist that today and she'll say yes, never minding if she's Anita Sarkeesian or Christina Hoff Summers who hates third wave feminism. Third wave feminism "paced and led" feminism until it started wearing it as a skin.

Throwing out an opinion (a very valid one) is absolutely acceptable and required to start a conversation. Especially if it is controversial.

Is feminism bad? In it's current state, absolutely. And that state is third wave feminism which has hijacked the movement.

You are making the assumption that we think all feminists are like that. No. But the fringe group is not fringe. It has a monopoly on social media. Who gets tweeted more: Christina Hoff Sommers or Lena Dunham?

If someone gets a warning (me or him), I will lodge a formal complaint, eclipse. I don't think what you're doing is right and that's threatening him with a warning for an absolutely defensible and acceptable position that exists on social media.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Deplorable Pepe

[Time the Crestfallen]

Can I just ask are we still in third-wave feminism? I honestly thought that the stereotypical tumblr nonsense was fourth-wave.

[VantagePoint]

First point: It's possible that men are going to trade school instead of college. This isn't a bad thing, because stuff like welding pays decently enough. I can't speak for every woman, but I know that I don't have the physical strength for that.

Second point: There's also phrases like "grow a pair", "stop being a pussy" and the entire song of "I'll Make a Man Out Of You", as counterpoints. If you want to argue this point, I suggest arguing against gender stereotypes, instead of focusing only on one side. BTW, this is a running theme through your posts, and one of the things that bothered me.

In response to your first point, it's certainly possible, but it's not a statistic that can be dismissed based on the hypothetical. It's still an issue that needs proper investigation into it, especially considering boys are performing badly in school.

As for your second point, I don't mention it because it's merely a symptom of the underlying problem that there is a large empathy gap between men and woman. It's why harsher prison times for men occur. It's why there's such a disproportionate amount of attention on woman's rights. It's why false rape statistics are taken more seriously than the increasing trend of male suicides. Statements like those are very low on the totem pole of my concerns, as I'm more concerned of the actual effects of this empathy gap than the statements themself. Those statements were meant to highlight that men are just inherently held responsible for crimes that effect both genders, the Dulith Model is just longstanding proof of that.

1. "Barefoot and pregnant?" How is this relevant? Is this just what you've derived, or is this a quote from someone? If it's the latter, what's the source?

2. If you READ THROUGH THE TOPIC like I asked several times, you would've seen that point come up. Do you think Crysta is the type of feminist who doesn't believe that?

3. What is the source of your assertion that marriage rates are declining because "women aren't women anymore"? And why is a declining marriage rate a bad thing?

4. The last part is another sticky point. Assuming the other person doesn't have an argument reads like an attempt to dominate, not discuss. If you want to attempt to dominate people in argument, please head to the mafia subforum. Another game should be starting up soonish, and shutting people's arguments down is encouraged.

1) It's just a term used to refer to men opposed to woman taking more masculine roles and having careers. My point was that feminism has directly confronted and continues to directly confront, society regarding that, hence why woman exhibiting masculine traits aren't as vilified as men exhibiting feminine traits. True traditionalists were just as critical of woman exhibiting masculine traits as they were of men exhibiting feminine traits, the difference is the former was taken as a platform and vehemently argued against for years, while the latter it seems is just left up to men to ignore those people.

2) Crysta: "If there was an inherent bias towards woman/womanliness,I don't think there would be such a fear of men being percieved as feminine or less manly: That tells me that there is a preference and it isn't in my favor."

There was an implied belief that, yes, there is a bias against femininity because a man exhibiting it is something people are affraid of while people are far less concerned about woman exhibiting masculine qualities, ignoring the huge amount of campaigning that went into having society accept woman take on traditionally masculine qualities and the footnote by comparison men taking on traditionally feminine qualities has recieved.

3) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore It's certainly not the only reason, but traditionally feminine woman were just as valued as traditionally masculine men. The traditionalists weren't relieved when woman begun exhibiting trats associated with masculinity, and they fought tooth and nail in all the waves of feminists regarding this, and the feminists fought back and won. As I've said before, for men that exhibit feminine qualities, there just wasn't anything comparable in terms of scale, so as a result, less progress has been made for those men compared to woman.

4) Not with what he's currently presented he doesn't. Of course, that can change, but you can't just cite the greater resistance towards men exhibiting femininity compared to woman exhibiting masculinity and ignore the huge difference in how much backing the two sides were given as proof that masculinity is seen as inherently superior to femininity.

Source this.

See: All the cited men's rights issues, most of which have very little coverage in comparison to woman's rights issues. (Woman and children first?)

You're arguing against a very nebulous movement with people who have already argued FOR your points. But again, you would've seen this if you read backwards.

I see an actual reference that I can look up - the Duluth Model. A quick read-through on Wikipedia (not the absolute best source, but it'll do) shows that the criticism of the model are already out in the open. Again, do you think that Crysta is arguing for the type of feminism that you are arguing against?

No, Crysta is just arguing that society values masculinity more than femininity.

The Duluth Model's existance is just an one example of that assertion being inaccurate.

SOURCES! And actual news sites, too!

However, two news stories is NOT a statistic. If you can find a peer-reviewed paper that shows just how often this happens, it would help your case a lot more.

http://archive.is/yv4VX

[eclipse]

Let's talk about me for a second. And I want people to understand this about me.

Here, I exaggerate sometimes on my opinions but they are reflections of my beliefs. I'm willing to defend anything I put up and if I am proved wrong, I admit it to myself even if I might not type it out. I have personally conceeded some points to Raven but until this post, I have never admitted it. And I won't again.

But his opinion is that third wave feminism represents feminism as a whole at this moment at time and it is a valid opinion that brings up debate. Ask a feminist that today and she'll say yes, never minding if she's Anita Sarkeesian or Christina Hoff Summers who hates third wave feminism. Third wave feminism "paced and led" feminism until it started wearing it as a skin.

Throwing out an opinion (a very valid one) is absolutely acceptable and required to start a conversation. Especially if it is controversial.

Is feminism bad? In it's current state, absolutely. And that state is third wave feminism which has hijacked the movement.

You are making the assumption that we think all feminists are like that. No. But the fringe group is not fringe. It has a monopoly on social media. Who gets tweeted more: Christina Hoff Sommers or Lena Dunham?

I'm the lazy mod, so have a lazy source: this. Please tell me how many of the people you named are cited here. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is a pretty bad source of detailed information. However, I use it to find important concepts and names (namely, "what do I need to enter as a search parameter to get more details?"), and if I was doing any sort of research, that's where I'd start.

So tell me, when you "throw out an opinion", do you think of how it will be received? Why do you want it to be discussed? What is your end goal to actually posting that opinion? I trust that you'll answer these honestly, because what I asked is one of the criteria I use in order to figure out who's trolling and who's not.

This, however, is gold.

[Res]

Yes, the focus of feminism has been women fighting for women. Because historically, women had far fewer rights than men. These days in many countries women have equal rights, although not always equal opportunities. However, even where women do have equal rights and equal opportunities, there's still quite a lot of sexism and misogyny; Rezzy and I both gave personal examples of that from the workplace.

Feminism has never tried to take men's rights away, just give women more rights.

Given that feminism is largely led by women, is it really appropriate to ask that those women put in the work of fighting for men as well? Men have legwork to do, too.

To take an example: I'm not an active feminist in that I'm not participating in campaigns or drives. When I donate, it's to charities and places that aren't gender specific. And I most certainly actively avoid doing anything to support White Feminists (I'll never watch Girls, for example). I do actively speak up against the likes of Lena Dunham. What I can do is teach equality to my kids, and yes, that includes letting my son wear feminine clothing and telling him it's okay to cry, too.

What I do encounter time and time again (and yes, this is anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure how you'd really measure it scientifically) is that it's the fathers who aren't doing the work. They call their sons fags for liking My Little Pony or for playing with dolls. I recently had a friend whose husband's friend threatened her for letting her own son wear makeup. This was a man with zero relation to her son. And I don't know of any marriage where the mother prevents the father from participating in parenting duties - I do know many, many women who would love (and often beg!) their husbands to take on an equal share of the parenting duties.

[Moblin Major General]

I'm the lazy mod, so have a lazy source: this. Please tell me how many of the people you named are cited here. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is a pretty bad source of detailed information. However, I use it to find important concepts and names (namely, "what do I need to enter as a search parameter to get more details?"), and if I was doing any sort of research, that's where I'd start.So tell me, when you "throw out an opinion", do you think of how it will be received? Why do you want it to be discussed? What is your end goal to actually posting that opinion? I trust that you'll answer these honestly, because what I asked is one of the criteria I use in order to figure out who's trolling and who's not.This, however, is gold.

My answers are yes, it could be relevant and/or I need to off it from my chest, and to try opening up my mind and other people's. Also, what does the article prove? That she's antisemitic?

[VantagePoint]

The first issue I have is with your logic - if you don't agree with feminism, then you're a bigot. First off, WHICH branch of feminism are you arguing against? It's a very large issue with a lot of moving parts. Second, what kind of logic is your argument aimed at? Third, how do you know that the person you're arguing against IS the type of person who you should be arguing against? By simply throwing out assertions and arguments, with no mind as to who you're arguing against or why, I get the impression that you're here to pick a fight.

I'm not saying that all feminists are like that, but yes, it is a common tactic. Feminism is for equality, therefore, if you aren't for feminism, you aren't for equality (A bigot). The logic my argument is aimed at is an "actions speaks louder than words" type of logic and feminism are far and away more interested in woman's issues than men's despite commonly being labeled as a movement for equality. This means that no, feminism as far as it effects the world isn't about equality, hence why the MRAs came to be, so that someone could focus on the other side of the coin. If you identify as a feminist and are concerned with Men's right's issues, that's great, but the feminist movement itself hasn't done much to remedy these issues, so even if you, personally are a feminist for equality, you can't claim the entire movement is when it's actions largely benefit woman. As for your last point, I already explained why I begun my line of argument with Crysta. They implied that masculinity is held by society as more important than femininity, so I argued against that.

Okay, you have an idea as to WHAT you're arguing against. However, is this the person that espoused the view that feminism is for equality?

I'm not sure, but my answer was made with the assumption that what he said was common knowledge. I know that most feminists aren't fighting against Men's Rights, but it was unrelated to my point, hence why I reasserted that I believe feminism isn't an equality movement.

Radicals taint the views of everything. If your issue is with radicals in general, then please lend your support against the militants in politics/religion/environmentalism/nutrition/health care/literally any other field where people associate a side with the radicals within the movement. Otherwise, I think that associating feminism with JUST its radical elements is intellectually dishonest, and reads like you have a bone to pick with feminism in general, not just the radicals.

I'm not associating the movement purely on radicals, but I AM associating the movement with the tangable actions that they've taken in regards to securing equal rights. There have been presidential promises from Hilary Clinton to fix the debunked wage gap, meanwhile factual male issues are just ignored in lieu of them. Feminism has devolved to the point of arguing the theoretical existance of the patriarchy and have taken more tangable steps towards fixing that than any male problems, hence why I said the radicals are spearheading your movement.

I'll assume you STILL haven't read backwards through the topic, and are making assumptions off of people based off of I-don't-know-what. Do the people in this topic hold the views you're arguing against? If so, why or why not? Please back this up with quotes and your interpretation of them.

You asked my opinion on feminism and I gave it.

Another poster acknowledged my points, but countered that feminists aren't actively fighting against Men's Rights.

I said it was irrelevant, as my original post was arguing that feminism isn't an equality movement and they don't have to be actively against men's rights for this to be true.

[VantagePoint]

Yes, the focus of feminism has been women fighting for women. Because historically, women had far fewer rights than men. These days in many countries women have equal rights, although not always equal opportunities. However, even where women do have equal rights and equal opportunities, there's still quite a lot of sexism and misogyny; Rezzy and I both gave personal examples of that from the workplace.

I'd argue that men and woman simply had different roles to play. The right to vote was only afforded to land owning citizens and those registered for the draft of which men were the overwhelming the majority due to men being expected to be the breadwinners. The few woman that were land owners, could vote. Men could work and earn money with less scrutiny, but they also put themselves at risk working dangerous jobs and had to spend less time with their children. Woman were kept away from the workforce because the ability to reproduce was simply held at a far higher value than it originally was.

An example would've been the draft. Men can be punished harshly for not registering for the draft, not being able to reap government benefits, could technically face jail time, while woman never needed to register for the draft, simply because they were consicered more valuable than men. (Woman and children first) wasn't a term coined because men were just privileged.

Given that feminism is largely led by women, is it really appropriate to ask that those women put in the work of fighting for men as well? Men have legwork to do, too.

All I said is you can't claim it's a movement for equal rights when it works primarily for the benefit of woman. I'm not asking feminists to do anything, besides maybe reign in the radicals.

What I do encounter time and time again (and yes, this is anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure how you'd really measure it scientifically) is that it's the fathers who aren't doing the work. They call their sons fags for liking My Little Pony or for playing with dolls. I recently had a friend whose husband's friend threatened her for letting her own son wear makeup. This was a man with zero relation to her son. And I don't know of any marriage where the mother prevents the father from participating in parenting duties - I do know many, many women who would love (and often beg!) their husbands to take on an equal share of the parenting duties.

All remnents of a society long past. Men weren't given any more flexibility than woman were in terms of gender roles, both were locked rigidly into the system.

Edited September 19, 2016 by VantagePoint

[eclipse]

I'm not saying that all feminists are like that, but yes, it is a common tactic. Feminism is for equality, therefore, if you aren't for feminism, you aren't for equality (A bigot). The logic my argument is aimed at is an "actions speaks louder than words" type of logic and feminism are far and away more interested in woman's issues than men's despite commonly being labeled as a movement for equality. This means that no, feminism as far as it effects the world isn't about equality, hence why the MRAs came to be, so that someone could focus on the other side of the coin. If you identify as a feminist and are concerned with Men's right's issues, that's great, but the feminist movement itself hasn't done much to remedy these issues, so even if you, personally are a feminist for equality, you can't claim the entire movement is when it's actions largely benefit woman. As for your last point, I already explained why I begun my line of argument with Crysta. They implied that masculinity is held by society as more important than femininity, so I argued against that.

I'm not sure, but my answer was made with the assumption that what he said was common knowledge. I know that most feminists aren't fighting against Men's Rights, but it was unrelated to my point, hence why I reasserted that I believe feminism isn't an equality movement.

Oh, I'm well aware it's a tactic. But it's not limited to JUST feminism. Here's a better explanation of what I mean, by a certain someone else who posted in this thread.

I'm not associating the movement purely on radicals, but I AM associating the movement with the tangable actions that they've taken in regards to securing equal rights. There have been presidential promises from Hilary Clinton to fix the debunked wage gap, meanwhile factual male issues are just ignored in lieu of them. Feminism has devolved to the point of arguing the theoretical existance of the patriarchy and have taken more tangable steps towards fixing that than any male problems, hence why I said the radicals are spearheading your movement.

I'm not going to dignify this (and the rest of your post) with a response until you read backwards (ALL THE WAY BACKWARDS) and apologize for misrepresenting me. While I believe that a debate should show respect on both sides, it's clear that you don't respect the opinions of those who you talk to, and that's unacceptable.

Also, don't post twice in a row. You have a handle on the Edit button, so use that if you want to update your latest post (like what I'm doing, but that's because I forgot something).

My answers are yes, it could be relevant and/or I need to off it from my chest, and to try opening up my mind and other people's. Also, what does the article prove? That she's antisemitic?

How likely are you to turn away from Christianity if someone phrased it as "you're asking a magical sky fairy for gifts"? If your goal is to change other people's minds, you MUST have a good grasp on what they're arguing, and why. Then, any arguments you make must be crafted such that the other person is likely to listen to it, as opposed to take offense to it and dismiss you.

The article itself is mostly for humor's sake. Dunno if she's still dating the guy, though.

Edited September 19, 2016 by eggclipse

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yes, the focus of feminism has been women fighting for women. Because historically, women had far fewer rights than men. These days in many countries women have equal rights, although not always equal opportunities. However, even where women do have equal rights and equal opportunities, there's still quite a lot of sexism and misogyny; Rezzy and I both gave personal examples of that from the workplace.

That's the impression I get, at least in first-world countries. Women had fewer rights than men historically, so feminism has been about addressing the ways in which women aren't on equal footing with men. For men however, we were in a, for lack of a better word, privileged position years ago but in many ways, it's been a lateral movement in terms of equality and the non-shitty side of the MRM is about addressing the ways in which men are stuck in the same place they were 50/60 years ago.

Feminism has never tried to take men's rights away, just give women more rights.

Well, the majority of feminists anyway.

For example, there's this piece from the daily mail about how being a 50/50 custody mother is bad for mothers and how fathers winning equal access to children is a bad thing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573927/Agony-50-50-mum-Women-held-upper-hand-custody-battles-fathers-winning-EQUAL-access-mothers-struggling-cope.html

Also this:

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

There's also a lot of pressure on men's only spaces to be more open, but women's spaces are allowed to remain exclusive.

Edited September 19, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God