Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[The Grand World Order]

Forcing women to meet a three pull-up requirement, when doing so does not accurately reflect their ability to do their job, is discriminatory.

are you serious

Men are officially required to only do 3 pullups, but if they do that do you know how much shit they get from their command? There's some units out there that'll put you on remedial PT schedules and non-recommend you for promotion if you're a male and not doing at least 12.

If you can't do three pullups, regardless of gender, you do not belong in the United States Marine Corps. It's not some impossible feat for women, either, there's a female Marine in my unit who can do over 20 easily.

for the record, if a woman does eight pullups, it's a perfect score and equivalent to a man doing 20, meaning she's more likely to get promoted and get high Proficiency/Conduct Marks (which leads to more career opportunities) for doing less.

[Ostroeuropa]

When a feminist argues for male genocide, are they being a feminist in your opinion? They identify as feminist.

I'd say no. Would like a little more context though. I generally don't like loaded questions.

So we've established there is such a thing as true or false feminism. (According to your perspective. I'd argue they were feminists.)
Would you care to define it further, and better yet, provide a single example of a prominent feminist organization that fits the definition.

[Llamalandia]

So fuck equality because you don't think inequality is causing a problem yet?

And you wonder why people are critical of self-ascribed 'feminists'?

The standard of proof you demand is unmeetable, as we don't exactly receive information from the person that is killed on how they felt just before getting killed, do we?

We do however know women are serving in combat roles in positions which don't, and hold no prospective or plan from the Pentagon I can find, to bring their physical fitness standards up to those required of their male counterparts.

Again, you're argument over this point is confusing on a principal level if you believe yourself a feminist, and on an intellectual level if you refuse to accept generalizations as per the effects of physical fitness on combat performance applied to men also being applied to women. There is literally no way you can be arguing with us consistent with the 'equalism' philosophy you claim feminism is synonymous with.

The argument is that women die in combat because they are less physically able. If you cannot find evidence to support the claim, then the claim has no merit. Simple logic. That's not "fuck equality", its "fuck bullshit that has no evidence". The standard of proof is not "unmeetable" simply because it has yet to be met.

What we do know is that women are being phased into combat roles, and that the Pentagon is actively reviewing their physical standards, to create a fitness criteria that all troops must meet. My argument is, and has always been, that men and women should all have to meet a fitness standard that does not discriminate against semantical differences. How many pull-ups an individual can do does not accurately reflect the ability of said individual in their completion of real-world tasks, and should not be a determining factor in whether or not they serve on the front lines.

You aren't opposed to affirmative action. This is in essence the military's version of affirmative action. Hence i fail to see how you be ok with affirmative action and yet not allow differential standards in the military?

Also the pullup test is only discriminatory against people (regardless of gender) who can't do three pullups. There men who can't and women who can and vice versa. That's not inherently discriminatory against women. And obviously the marine corps disagrees with you (though they have also likely been forced by political pressure to allow women who don't meet the standard in anyway).

Affirmative action is not about setting different standards. It's about adjusting for systemic bias. A pull-up test is discriminatory against women because it does not accurately reflect their ability to complete a task (save for a pull-up, and because women tend to have less proportional upper body strength than men). This re-evaluation of fitness standards is not analogous to affirmative action.

THAT'S THE GODDAMNED POINT.
It's discriminatory towards men too.
Turns out, military service desires upper-body strength. It's almost like one might have to carry heavy objects or something!
Fuck me this is almost sad.
Edit: It's also frustrating that you, as one who has never said men and women should be held to different standards, you seem to have such a large problem with people advocating men and women not be held to different standards.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I have never said it doesn't discriminate against men, and carrying heavy objects requires as much lower body strength as upper body strength. If you want to test a person's ability to carry heavy shit, then have them carry heavy shit instead of doing pull-ups.
And for the umpteenth time, I have never advocated that men and women be held to different standards. I have advocated that the uniform standards they both meet not discriminate against either of them.

Jesus Christ.
You are one of THEM aren't you.
How is it discrimination to demand three pull ups. Because they can't do it?
Well fuck me, the army is discriminating against me because I can't do any pull ups. Can I have a job?

A pull-up test indicates nothing more than one's ability to do pull-ups. It's a bullshit standard, because how fucking often is a pull-up a matter of life or death in the military? If you can do your job adequately within all time and quality parameters, your ability or inability to do pull-ups should be inconsequential.

Adjusting standards for "systemic bias" will inherently create two different standards, (unless you claim there isn't any bias) that's the whole point of affirmative action to make it easier for some on the basis of some group identity.

Also if upper body strength (as indicated by a pullup test) isn't important why is the military testing for it at all. It's not as though some generals were just sitting around one day and decided, meh we need to keep women out let's change the physical fitness requirements. No everything in the military has (or at least is presumed to have) some good reason behind it. People don't just make up standards out of thin air, these things are honed and developed over taking into account both theory and real world experience from actual combat and non-combat service.

[Betoni]

I'd say no. Would like a little more context though. I generally don't like loaded questions.

So we've established there is such a thing as true or false feminism.
Would you care to define it further, and better yet, provide a single example of a prominent feminist organization that fits the definition.

A feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_International_League_for_Peace_and_Freedom

[Ostroeuropa]

So we've established there is such a thing as true or false feminism.
Would you care to define it further, and better yet, provide a single example of a prominent feminist organization that fits the definition.

A feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_International_League_for_Peace_and_Freedom

Is that your standard for true feminist?
Seems pretty arbitrary. Also, non-responsive answer.

Fits does not equal Did Fit.
Nor did you provide your definition.

You failed on all counts of the challenge.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So fuck equality because you don't think inequality is causing a problem yet?

And you wonder why people are critical of self-ascribed 'feminists'?

The standard of proof you demand is unmeetable, as we don't exactly receive information from the person that is killed on how they felt just before getting killed, do we?

We do however know women are serving in combat roles in positions which don't, and hold no prospective or plan from the Pentagon I can find, to bring their physical fitness standards up to those required of their male counterparts.

Again, you're argument over this point is confusing on a principal level if you believe yourself a feminist, and on an intellectual level if you refuse to accept generalizations as per the effects of physical fitness on combat performance applied to men also being applied to women. There is literally no way you can be arguing with us consistent with the 'equalism' philosophy you claim feminism is synonymous with.

The argument is that women die in combat because they are less physically able. If you cannot find evidence to support the claim, then the claim has no merit. Simple logic. That's not "fuck equality", its "fuck bullshit that has no evidence". The standard of proof is not "unmeetable" simply because it has yet to be met.

What we do know is that women are being phased into combat roles, and that the Pentagon is actively reviewing their physical standards, to create a fitness criteria that all troops must meet. My argument is, and has always been, that men and women should all have to meet a fitness standard that does not discriminate against semantical differences. How many pull-ups an individual can do does not accurately reflect the ability of said individual in their completion of real-world tasks, and should not be a determining factor in whether or not they serve on the front lines.

Pulling yourself up is an action never needed on the frontlines?
I think you should probably quit talking about tests reflection of military needs before you embarrass yourself further.

Physical fitness and ability affects battlefield performance. If you accept that statement, then you're railing against my not finding you an example where a woman's lower physical standard of fitness lead to her death is so much hooey.

Ignoring that, if you believe yourself to actually be a feminist, whether those lowered standards have directly caused a death is irrelevant as they are unequal and something which needs to be changed. If they truly bear no relevance on survivability and effectiveness then the military can hold a discussion about adjusting male standards down to the women's level.
But, based off your evaluation of the usefulness of pull-ups, I'm going to take your apparent assertion of such with more than just one grain of salt.


Edit: And, to inform you of some stuff, the equal standards are being developed by the Pentagon for combat units. Unless you're privy to something I'm not, the current organization of phys. fitness standards in noncombat units will remain. Which is still a problem for feminists.

THAT'S THE GODDAMNED POINT.
It's discriminatory towards men too.
Turns out, military service desires upper-body strength. It's almost like one might have to carry heavy objects or something!
Fuck me this is almost sad.
Edit: It's also frustrating that you, as one who has never said men and women should be held to different standards, you seem to have such a large problem with people advocating men and women not be held to different standards.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I have never said it doesn't discriminate against men, and carrying heavy objects requires as much lower body strength as upper body strength. If you want to test a person's ability to carry heavy shit, then have them carry heavy shit instead of doing pull-ups.
And for the umpteenth time, I have never advocated that men and women be held to different standards. I have advocated that the uniform standards they both meet not discriminate against either of them.

You're doing so rather poorly.

As mentioned earlier, pull-ups are probably going to be necessary on a battlefield. Lets leave the judging of what physical exercises are applicable to the folks who know what they're talking about and just see that they're equal, hmm?

Because they sure as FUCK had better be discriminatory. That's their entire purpose.

[Betoni]

A feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_International_League_for_Peace_and_Freedom

Is that your standard for true feminist?
Seems pretty arbitrary. Also, non-responsive answer.

No it is not, I do not claim to be able to come up with any standard, in fact that seems unnessecary. Why not judge each organization or individual on its own. How is it a non-responsive answer when you specifically asked for a single example of a feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide?

[Ostroeuropa]

Is that your standard for true feminist?
Seems pretty arbitrary. Also, non-responsive answer.

No it is not, I do not claim to be able to come up with any standart, in fact that seems unnessecary. Why not judge each organization or individual on its own. How is it a non-responsive answer when you specifically asked for a single example of a feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide?

You already indicated you have a standard.
Is your entire definition of feminist "Someone who doesn't advocate male genocide."?
Because that isn't what I specifically asked for, i'll ask you again below in bulletpoints. At this point, i'm comfortable saying you have too poor an understanding of how questions are phrased and why that's important to ever be able to adequately answer, but i'll try once more.

1. What is the definition of feminist you are operating under.
2. Why this definition (if it's arbitrary, come out and say so.)
3. Can you name a single prominent feminist organization that fits this definition.
4. Is it, or is it not, an equal rights organization.

[Big Jim P]

The argument is that women die in combat because they are less physically able. If you cannot find evidence to support the claim, then the claim has no merit. Simple logic. That's not "fuck equality", its "fuck bullshit that has no evidence". The standard of proof is not "unmeetable" simply because it has yet to be met.

What we do know is that women are being phased into combat roles, and that the Pentagon is actively reviewing their physical standards, to create a fitness criteria that all troops must meet. My argument is, and has always been, that men and women should all have to meet a fitness standard that does not discriminate against semantical differences. How many pull-ups an individual can do does not accurately reflect the ability of said individual in their completion of real-world tasks, and should not be a determining factor in whether or not they serve on the front lines.

Pulling yourself up is an action never needed on the frontlines?
I think you should probably quit talking about tests reflection of military needs before you embarrass yourself further.

Physical fitness and ability affects battlefield performance. If you accept that statement, then you're railing against my not finding you an example where a woman's lower physical standard of fitness lead to her death is so much hooey.

Ignoring that, if you believe yourself to actually be a feminist, whether those lowered standards have directly caused a death is irrelevant as they are unequal and something which needs to be changed. If they truly bear no relevance on survivability and effectiveness then the military can hold a discussion about adjusting male standards down to the women's level.
But, based off your evaluation of the usefulness of pull-ups, I'm going to take your apparent assertion of such with more than just one grain of salt.


Edit: And, to inform you of some stuff, the equal standards are being developed by the Pentagon for combat units. Unless you're privy to something I'm not, the current organization of phys. fitness standards in noncombat units will remain. Which is still a problem for feminists.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I have never said it doesn't discriminate against men, and carrying heavy objects requires as much lower body strength as upper body strength. If you want to test a person's ability to carry heavy shit, then have them carry heavy shit instead of doing pull-ups.
And for the umpteenth time, I have never advocated that men and women be held to different standards. I have advocated that the uniform standards they both meet not discriminate against either of them.

You're doing so rather poorly.

As mentioned earlier, pull-ups are probably going to be necessary on a battlefield. Lets leave the judging of what physical exercises are applicable to the folks who know what they're talking about and just see that they're equal, hmm?

Because they sure as FUCK had better be discriminatory. That's their entire purpose.

Indeed. You want to weed out the weak (regardless of gender) BEFORE you send them into combat. Otherwise, you have not only just murdered the weak person you sent, but their fellow soldiers who are depending on them.

[Betoni]

No it is not, I do not claim to be able to come up with any standart, in fact that seems unnessecary. Why not judge each organization or individual on its own. How is it a non-responsive answer when you specifically asked for a single example of a feminist organization that does not advocate male genocide?

You already indicated you have a standard.
Is your entire definition of feminist "Someone who doesn't advocate male genocide."?
Because that isn't what I specifically asked for, i'll ask you again below in bulletpoints. At this point, i'm comfortable saying you have too poor an understanding of how questions are phrased and why that's important to ever be able to adequately answer, but i'll try once more.


1. What is the definition of feminist you are operating under.
2. Why this definition (if it's arbitrary, come out and say so.)
3. Can you name a single prominent feminist organization that fits this definition.
4. Is it, or is it not, an equal rights organization.

That was the standard you chose. I provided an example that fits that standard. If you really wan't to have a coherent discussion why not really ask what you want to, instead of bombarding me with loaded questions.

1. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women." From wiki. Though if an organization also advocates equal rights for other gruops such as racial minorities and LGBT groups that does not disqualify them from being feminist.
2. It seems to be the accepted definition. I don't think its particularly arbitrary.
3. I already did.
4. It is.

[Shilya]

1. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women." From wiki. Though if an organization also advocates equal rights for other gruops such as racial minorities and LGBT groups that does not disqualify them from being feminist.

I think this is lacking a critical point: That is, they seek equality in fields where they are disadvantaged. I doubt you'll find feminists working for equality where it wouldn't benefit them. Someone fighting for actual gender equality would be egalitarian.

So, feminists fight for raising the baseline for women towards equality, while being perfectly happy with being above it in other areas.

[Llamalandia]

I think I can partly articulate a standard of a true feminist. I would say they are someone who supports real equality and not merely pop culture feminism. Take for example this Ban Bossy campaign. If being called this one word occasionally is somehow supposedly going to deter all young girls from becoming leaders later in life, then should they really have even been leaders to begin with? I mean I'm sure just about every great civil rights leader was called the N word all the time did that stop them, hell no.

Or this nonsense about "teach boys not to rape." WTF everyone knows that rape is wrong. Some people do it anyway. It's not a matter of teaching, everyone is taught and knows that rape is wrong. What would be more helpful would be some feminist gun training so that potential victims could "teach" would be rapist that rape is very very wrong.

True feminists don't buy into affirmative action or quotas or broadly conceived notions of "social justice". they focus on women's and men's individual rights as people first and not as mere group identities. It's about the individual I don't see why feminist's always seem to be so hell bent on the group identity.

[Ostroeuropa]

You already indicated you have a standard.
Is your entire definition of feminist "Someone who doesn't advocate male genocide."?
Because that isn't what I specifically asked for, i'll ask you again below in bulletpoints. At this point, i'm comfortable saying you have too poor an understanding of how questions are phrased and why that's important to ever be able to adequately answer, but i'll try once more.


1. What is the definition of feminist you are operating under.
2. Why this definition (if it's arbitrary, come out and say so.)
3. Can you name a single prominent feminist organization that fits this definition.
4. Is it, or is it not, an equal rights organization.

That was the standard you chose. I provided an example that fits that standard. If you really wan't to have a coherent discussion why not really ask what you want to, instead of bombarding me with loaded questions.

1. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women." From wiki. Though if an organization also advocates equal rights for other gruops such as racial minorities and LGBT groups that does not disqualify them from being feminist.
2. It seems to be the accepted definition. I don't think its particularly arbitrary.
3. I already did.
4. It is.

Where did I choose that as the standard? You shouldn't assume things, it demonstrates a bias. I'm not bombarding you with loaded questions, a loaded question is a philosophical term that doesn't fit what i'm doing here, so you've demonstrated you don't understand what you are talking about with that.

I'll accept 1 and 2 as the common definitions put forward by feminists sure.

3. No, i'm afraid you did not. You provided a link to an organization that advocates for the rights of women. NOT for equality. Oops. Find a single issue where they campaign for equality for males and i'll accept i'm wrong as regards that organization.
4. Afraid not.

[Conscentia]

I imagine that most feminists do not identify as such.

[The Risen Jaguar Warriors]

Yes. As Feminazism.


Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

[Tubbsalot]

Well, this thread started bad and got worse. What a waste of bandwidth.

The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

I feel like you'd benefit from learning about the origins of feminism, and the goals of those early feminists.

[Betoni]

That was the standard you chose. I provided an example that fits that standard. If you really wan't to have a coherent discussion why not really ask what you want to, instead of bombarding me with loaded questions.

1. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women." From wiki. Though if an organization also advocates equal rights for other gruops such as racial minorities and LGBT groups that does not disqualify them from being feminist.
2. It seems to be the accepted definition. I don't think its particularly arbitrary.
3. I already did.
4. It is.

Where did I choose that as the standard? You shouldn't assume things, it demonstrates a bias.

I'd say no. Would like a little more context though. I generally don't like loaded questions.

So we've established there is such a thing as true or false feminism. (According to your perspective. I'd argue they were feminists.)
Would you care to define it further, and better yet, provide a single example of a prominent feminist organization that fits the definition.

I'm not bombarding you with loaded questions, a loaded question is a philosophical term that doesn't fit what i'm doing here, so you've demonstrated you don't understand what you are talking about with that.

When a feminist argues for male genocide, are they being a feminist in your opinion? They identify as feminist.

I'll accept 1 and 2 as the common definitions put forward by feminists sure.

3. No, i'm afraid you did not. You provided a link to an organization that advocates for the rights of women. NOT for equality. Oops. Find a single issue where they campaign for equality for males and i'll accept i'm wrong as regards that organization.
4. Afraid not.

From the wikipage: "WILPF envisions a world free of violence, poverty, pollution and dominance. WILPF stands for equality of all people in a world free of racism, sexism and homophobia; the building of a constructive peace through world disarmament; and the changing of government priorities to meet human needs. [1]"

[Tubbsalot]

Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

A girl you may be, but your opinions are just as wrong as most of the boys in this thread. As I said to Ostroeuropa, you might consider learning anything about early feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, this thread started bad and got worse. What a waste of bandwidth.

The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

I feel like you'd benefit from learning about the origins of feminism, and the goals of those early feminists.

I'm quite sure the christians can ramble about early christians and how they were persecuted nice people.
It doesn't change anything.
They organized, and the organizations warped the doctrine.
Feminists are no different.

That they emerged to fight real prejudice against women is largely undisputed by me.
What i'm disputing is that, as it dawned on us that sexism was a legit thing, and a big social problem that effects both genders, the movement became irrevocably corrupted by female chauvinists, and female supremacists, and warped the ideology and language beyond recognition.
There was no chance to keep these people out of the movement before we came to such a realization.
At this point, people identifying as a feminist are inviting ridicule and scorn by identifying with a label that is predominantly perceived as a sexist label, and lends power and credibility to sexists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where did I choose that as the standard? You shouldn't assume things, it demonstrates a bias.

So we've established there is such a thing as true or false feminism. (According to your perspective. I'd argue they were feminists.)
Would you care to define it further, and better yet, provide a single example of a prominent feminist organization that fits the definition.

I'm not bombarding you with loaded questions, a loaded question is a philosophical term that doesn't fit what i'm doing here, so you've demonstrated you don't understand what you are talking about with that.

When a feminist argues for male genocide, are they being a feminist in your opinion? They identify as feminist.

I'll accept 1 and 2 as the common definitions put forward by feminists sure.

3. No, i'm afraid you did not. You provided a link to an organization that advocates for the rights of women. NOT for equality. Oops. Find a single issue where they campaign for equality for males and i'll accept i'm wrong as regards that organization.
4. Afraid not.

From the wikipage: "WILPF envisions a world free of violence, poverty, pollution and dominance. WILPF stands for equality of all people in a world free of racism, sexism and homophobia; the building of a constructive peace through world disarmament; and the changing of government priorities to meet human needs. [1]"

If you look at their actual accomplishments, you'll see that regardless of any lip service they pay, this is a nonsense on their part. To advocate requires more than lipservice.

[Llamalandia]

Well, this thread started bad and got worse. What a waste of bandwidth.

The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

I feel like you'd benefit from learning about the origins of feminism, and the goals of those early feminists.

Idon't think there's really anyone here disputing that for sure first and quitel likely second wave feminism are pretty legit. The issue is modern feminism and whether or not it follows the same ideals or serves any useful beneficial purpose in society. I haven't really run across many third wave feminists who fit that description. Of course in the mideast there are still tons of first and second wave fights to waged. But in western societies it mostly just seems to be internet pseudo celebrity feminists harping on about how bad and misogynistic video games are. Or how there aren't enough strong women in Hollywood movies.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

A girl you may be, but your opinions are just as wrong as most of the boys in this thread. As I said to Ostroeuropa, you might consider learning anything about early feminism.

I don't care about early feminism.
This post is just fucking nonsensical.
You don't catch Republicans telling people who say
"You guys are sure pretty racist."
"Hey, you should go read up why our ideology was founded!"

Well, occasionally you do, but we rightly dismiss it as claptrap.

[Llamalandia]

Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

A girl you may be, but your opinions are just as wrong as most of the boys in this thread. As I said to Ostroeuropa, you might consider learning anything about early feminism.

This really isn't a discussion of early feminism though, that's all in the past over and done with in western countries. Women can vote, own property, marry and divorce freely etc etc. this is more a discussion of contemporary feminism. Also for the record wasn't Susan B Anthony a hardcore prolifer? By that metric most modern feminists absolutely fail.

[Forsher]

I know what you are probably thinking. Of course feminism exists! It's stronger than ever! However some 'feminists' want more than equal rights for females, and for them to be given an advantage in jobseeking and other areas.

As you seem to be aware, people who want inequal "rights" aren't feminists. However, they're more common on the internet than they are in real life. Generally, I think they misunderstand the point. With this example here, the basic idea is 1) men and women aren't so different 2) therefore we'd expect similar proportions in various occupations as seen in the general population (or, at least, those in the labour force) of the area we're interested in 3) this isn't what we see. From that we can conclude 4) there's something wrong in society preventing this from being the case. Any reasonable person would then think 5) we should try and fix this.

Quotas are a way that is proposed. To my knowledge, in the US, this is illegal (I'm not sure for what reasons, I imagine the obvious problem about excluding better candidates but it could be something else). Here in NZ, this isn't the case but most people think the concept is wrong (because it is). However, this is not to say that other means of correcting the problem at heart shouldn't be pursued. A typical answer is to set up programmes like Te Kotahitanga which seek to help improve Maori performance at school because basically everything should flow from that (this particular example is apparently discontinued, bad govt.).

[blah blah quotas]

What I think is even worse though is how the BBC, and indeed other companies, use more women and racial minorities. The whole idea of having quotas for women, and indeed ethnic minorities, in my opinion is wrong. I would define true feminism as what Margret Thatcher said. How would you define true feminism and what are your views on quotas?

Quotas are wrong yes. The general idea isn't. Don't confuse the two.

Encouraging more minorities and women in things like the BBC etc. is an admirable goal. The only times when there are problems in this regard are when the methods used to pursue these goals are, in themselves, flawed (like quotas, not like having official targets to try and reach).

Blah blah blah MRA circle jerk.

Fourth post (i.e. third reply). Three minutes after OP. Asserts that there's a "circle jerk". I mean, that's just nuts.

Yes, but the majority of feminists these days are feminazis.

Then are they really feminists?

No. Actually it depends.

I was using feminazi for a time as short-hand for "people who dress misandrist ideas in aspects of feminism in order to creep them in by stealth" but it was informed that doing so was incorrect because that's typically not how feminazi is used. So the answer is "no" if this is the meaning being conveyed. However, there's a very real chance that "feminazi" is being used to just mean "feminists, but I don't like the movement so therefore I need a derogatory term to degrade the movement". Obviously, the answer is likely yes if that second sense is what's being used.

These "feminists" who want more rights than men are an extreme minority. They are not nearly as widespread or influential as people like you make them out to be.

Yes, but the majority of feminists these days are feminazis.

Tumblr Internet Discussion feminism is not in any way representative of real world feminism.

Fixed. Well, not really because nothing you said was wrong and I completely agree but I think it is important to point out that feminism in real life is quite distinct to that typically seen on the internet. NSG Feminism is distinct itself (or was).

Blah blah blah MRA circle jerk. Warn me fuck you fuck MRA's.

While I agree to an extent with sentiments about MRA's (theyre largely about as credible as most feminists) do you really find it helpful to insult and attack the OP? I don't really see how that advances youre position in any meaningful way. Perhaps you could offer some elaboration as to why you believe this "an MRA circle jerk" ?

MRAs are less credible than feminists. This is in part because the MRM itself is less credible than feminism (it's pretty much an internet thing full of people whose ideas are more rebuttal than points) but also because the word MRA is poison is more than anyone ever wants to assert feminism is (recall anyone who talks about the baggage feminism, that's what I mean). I wrote this a while ago.

If feminism's popular image is of a plane filled with reasonable people being flown by nutjobs then MRM's popular image is of an aeroplane with one sane guy trapped in the loo while the rest of the passengers and pilots do loop-de-loops.

Attacking the OP, as in the poster, shouldn't do anything but supply evidence for people who want to attack feminism.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm quite sure the christians can ramble about early christians and how they were persecuted nice people.
It doesn't change anything.
They organized, and the organizations warped the doctrine.
Feminists are no different.

That they emerged to fight real prejudice against women is largely undisputed by me.
What i'm disputing is that, as it dawned on us that sexism was a legit thing, and a big social problem that effects both genders, the movement became irrevocably corrupted by female chauvinists, and female supremacists, and warped the ideology and language beyond recognition.
There was no chance to keep these people out of the movement before we came to such a realization.
At this point, people identifying as a feminist are inviting ridicule and scorn by identifying with a label that is predominantly perceived as a sexist label, and lends power and credibility to sexists.

I don't care about early feminism.
This post is just fucking nonsensical.
You don't catch Republicans telling people who say
"You guys are sure pretty racist."
"Hey, you should go read up why our ideology was founded!"

Well, occasionally you do, but we rightly dismiss it as claptrap.

You've missed my point - which I suppose isn't surprising, given that I only posted one sentence. Early feminism was defined by its goal of sexual equality, which I'm sure you agree is admirable. So was the feminism after that. And after that. It never stopped being the case. Almost everyone supports sexual equality now; that means most people are feminists. There are certainly idiotic radicals who have labelled themselves 'feminist' and gone on a crusade to castrate all men or whatever, but that doesn't mean all feminists are now man-hating caricatures.

Incidentally, you're not saying "christian organisations are bad" - you're saying "all christians are bad." I'm sure you'll recognise the weaknesses of that assertion.

Idon't think there's really anyone here disputing that for sure first and quitel likely second wave feminism are pretty legit. The issue is modern feminism and whether or not it follows the same ideals or serves any useful beneficial purpose in society. I haven't really run across many third wave feminists who fit that description. Of course in the mideast there are still tons of first and second wave fights to waged. But in western societies it mostly just seems to be internet pseudo celebrity feminists harping on about how bad and misogynistic video games are. Or how there aren't enough strong women in Hollywood movies.

We've covered most of the distance, certainly. Which means it's now a relatively minor issue. Which means people who define their lives according to their extreme stance on this minor issue are probably slightly fucked up. That shouldn't tar all feminists.