Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

by **Llamalandia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:35 am

Betoni wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
The MRA's have raised funds for domestic abuse shelters for men.
They simply lack the pretension of being an equal rights cause. It's for that reason I don't hate them as much as the feminists.

It isn't backward. It's a fairly simple test. They claim to be for equal rights. Their track record shows otherwise.

No it does not, as I've shown their work for univeral peace and against discrimination not only directed at women. You have not shown anything of their trackrecord, in fact, I doubt you have sufficent knowledge of it to make such claims. If you insist that their track record shows otherwise, the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

Actually if one believes in peace through superior fire power and balance of power MAD concepts then by that logical because you group supports nuclear disarment they are also by extension enemies of peace. After all Nukes have made the cost of a third world war incalculably high and thus have largely deterred all but small regional conflicts and civil wars.

Also they support ending drone strikes, how the hell would use be able to target and kill terrorists with minimal collateral damage without drones? I mean they reduce rather than increase collateral casualties (relative to alternatives) so why would anyone be opposed to this more humane military technology?

by **Betoni** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:35 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Betoni wrote:
No it does not as I've shown their work for univeral peace and against discrimination not only directed at women. You have not shown anything of their trackrecord, in fact I doubt you have sufficent knowledge of it to make such claims. If you insist that their track record shows otherwise the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

That's untrue. Yours is the positive claim that requires evidence, namely, that the organization also campaigns for the rights of males.
I cannot provide evidence of an absence. You should know that. My claim stands as the default until proven otherwise.

I have provided such evidence. Your claim that "Their track record shows otherwise" is a positive claim. That claim is not supported by any evidence thus far. Care to provide some.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:36 am

Llamalandia wrote:
Betoni wrote:
No it does not, as I've shown their work for univeral peace and against discrimination not only directed at women. You have not shown anything of their trackrecord, in fact, I doubt you have sufficent knowledge of it to make such claims. If you insist that their track record shows otherwise, the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

Actually if one believes in peace through superior fire power and balance of power MAD concepts then by that logical because you group supports nuclear disarment they are also by extension enemies of peace. After all Nukes have made the cost of a third world war incalculably high and thus have largely deterred all but small regional conflicts and civil wars.

Also they support ending drone strikes, how the hell would use be able to target and kill terrorists with minimal collateral damage without drones? I mean they reduce rather than increase collateral casualties (relative to alternatives) so why would anyone be opposed to this more humane military technology?

They support sending males to go die instead of machines. (Yes, this is a rhetorical point.)

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:36 am

Betoni wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
That's untrue. Yours is the positive claim that requires evidence, namely, that the organization also campaigns for the rights of males.
I cannot provide evidence of an absence. You should know that. My claim stands as the default until proven otherwise.

I have provided such evidence. Your claim that "Their track record shows otherwise" is a positive claim. That claim is not supported by any evidence thus far. Care to provide some.

I like how you ignored the rest of the post.

A feminist organization will oppose a situation whereby women and men are being unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
It will oppose a situation where women are unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
A situation where men are being unfairly treated?

Silence.
Or mockery.
Or inaction.

Can you show otherwise? Yes or no. Find a situation where they have changed something in favor of exclusively males.

by **Betoni** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:39 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Betoni wrote:
I have provided such evidence. Your claim that "Their track record shows otherwise" is a positive claim. That claim is not supported by any evidence thus far. Care to provide some.

I like how you ignored the rest of the post.

A feminist organization will oppose a situation whereby women and men are being unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
It will oppose a situation where women are unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
A situation where men are being unfairly treated?

Silence.
Or mockery.
Or inaction.

Can you show otherwise? Yes or no. Find a situation where they have changed something in favor of exclusively males.

Moving the goalposts. You accepted the definition of feminism given by me that did not require what you are asking.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:40 am

Betoni wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
I like how you ignored the rest of the post.

A feminist organization will oppose a situation whereby women and men are being unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
It will oppose a situation where women are unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
A situation where men are being unfairly treated?

Silence.
Or mockery.
Or inaction.

Can you show otherwise? Yes or no. Find a situation where they have changed something in favor of exclusively males.

Moving the goalposts. You accepted the definition of feminism given by me that did not require what you are asking.

It isn't moving the goalposts, another fallacy you've shown you don't understand, or that you don't understand what the original claim was.
Further, even if it were an example of moving the goal posts, you've implied by this that you are admitting feminist organizations are opposed to helping males, but that this is irrelevant.
I accepted the definition of feminism given by you, but it does require what i'm asking.
it isn't equal rights to only oppose a situation that harms your demographic, but to be content to allow other demographics to suffer.

They fail to rise to your definition.

by **Forsher** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:43 am

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

He was right though, wasn't he? The thread immediately turned into a cesspool of feminazi-manhater-misandrist bullshit, didn't it? An outcome which was pretty easily predicted.

I'm only just at page three, looking at the posts up until the second page as that should be sufficient to determine whether or not there's any evidence of an MRA circle-jerk immediately afterwards. Posts marked no I feel cannot be considered (even with Insane Troll Logic) to be evidence of the proof of Page's prediction. I don't think the second page can be viewed as anything other than some back and forth between people who agree, disagree and are somewhere in between either.

by **Baiynistan** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:44 am

Yes. Malala Yousafzai is a feminist. As is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:47 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:Why do feminists frequently run into that problem?

Because ultimately feminism like any and all equality movements was newer about equality. It was about an oppressed group having enough of the oppression and wanting to fight back. A goal that any reasonable person can agree with. "Equality" is just the rhetoric used since it's simple and catchy and roughly describes the vague end goal of such a movement which is actually "stop oppressing us already". Now as is always with these kinds of movements as the rhetorical goal draws closer more and more people will gather, creating a critical mass that eventually pushes it through and forces it into legislation. And the oppression stops. Or rather it becomes illegal with the reasonable promise that it will stop over time once the new laws stamp it out. Once this happens the movement will have reached a critical breaking point. Most people who took part and who are sane and moderate will slowly start peeling off with the quite correct feeling that their goal has been achieved. And the effect of this is that given enough time the only ones who remain are the radicals and crazies who either identify with the movement on a personal level, don't trust the government and are paranoid that nothing good will come of it unless its forced on people with a big stick or feel the need to exploit it toward payback or some other nefarious goal.

by **Llamalandia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:49 am

Betoni wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
That's untrue. Yours is the positive claim that requires evidence, namely, that the organization also campaigns for the rights of males.
I cannot provide evidence of an absence. You should know that. My claim stands as the default until proven otherwise.

I have provided such evidence. Your claim that "Their track record shows otherwise" is a positive claim. That claim is not supported by any evidence thus far. Care to provide some.

Actually you seem to have a problem as I can't seem to find anywhere on their website where the WILPF actually calls itself a feminist organization. Perhaps you could point that out to me. Otherwise it seems they merely consider themselves a group of predominantly (if not exclusively) women campaigning peace, any classification by wikipedia notwithstanding.

by **Llamalandia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:51 am

Baiynistan wrote:Yes. Malala Yousafzai is a feminist. As is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yes yes no one disputes that but in west where are the true feminists left in western countries?

by **Baiynistan** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:56 am

Llamalandia wrote:
Baiynistan wrote:Yes. Malala Yousafzai is a feminist. As is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yes yes no one disputes that but in west where are the true feminists left in western countries?

I'd say that any 'Westerner' who speaks out against female genital mutilation, forced marriage, institutionalised gender oppression and for true egalitarianism worldwide is a proper feminist. People who spend all their time complaining about chain-mail bikinis and damsels in distress can go suck a fat one. They're not looking to really help people, they just want to be offended and tell people about it.

by **Llamalandia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:59 am

Baiynistan wrote:
Llamalandia wrote:
Yes yes no one disputes that but in west where are the true feminists left in western countries?

I'd say that any 'Westerner' who speaks out against female genital mutilation, forced marriage, institutionalised gender oppression and for true egalitarianism worldwide is a proper feminist. People who spend all their time complaining about chain-mail bikinis and damsels in distress can go suck a fat one. They're not looking to really help people, they just want to be offended and tell people about it.

^^^
Fair enough. Unfortunately it seems far too many wellknown and popular feminists seem to fall into the latter category and far too few (at least of much prominence) into the former category.

by **The Victorian Empire** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:04 am

Page wrote:
Wind in the Willows wrote:
I am saying that some genuine feminists do exist but the majority that claim to be feminist are just feminazis. Feminazis are not feminists.

"Femanizs" is a pejorative term by insecure men who can't get laid so yeah.

Nope.

A Feminazi is a self-proclaimed Feminist who labels all men as either sexist, perverted, or rapists, claims being Gay is sexist, claims only men can rape, etc.

You know, typical stupid shit.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:05 am

Baiynistan wrote:
Llamalandia wrote:
Yes yes no one disputes that but in west where are the true feminists left in western countries?

I'd say that any 'Westerner' who speaks out against female genital mutilation, forced marriage, institutionalised gender oppression and for true egalitarianism worldwide is a proper feminist. People who spend all their time complaining about chain-mail bikinis and damsels in distress can go suck a fat one. They're not looking to really help people, they just want to be offended and tell people about it.

And being a conservative means supporting protectionism and mercantile factions, land owning gentry, clergy, opposing the right of women to vote, and opposing American Independence.

Whatever man.
Ideologies evolve. Feminism has evolved.

by **Baiynistan** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:08 am

Llamalandia wrote:^^^
Fair enough. Unfortunately it seems far too many wellknown and popular feminists seem to fall into the latter category and far too few (at least of much prominence) into the former category.

I think its the unfortunate phenomenon in journalism that people are more likely to be given a platform and media coverage are those who are likely to cause controversy and divide opinions, rather than those who speak out for what really matters. It's why people like Anita Sarkeesian (who I can't stand) get loads of press. Because, yes, they have supporters who are going to want to visit media outlets and give sites like Kotaku lots of revenue, but they also have a lot of opponents who, despite being irritated by her, are still going to want to read about her and add to journalistic websites' ad revenue.

Ostroeuropa wrote:And being a conservative means supporting protectionism and mercantile factions, land owning gentry, clergy, opposing the right of women to vote, and opposing American Independence.

Whatever man.
Ideologies evolve. Feminism has evolved.

I'd add a 'd' onto the front of the label "evolved".

I'd say that first-world feminism has ceased to be truly constructive and has become more divisive and vapid than productive and world-improving.

I feel its the same thing as modern Leftism coming to mean people who are so anti-American that they support Far Right figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and drone on about the wrongness of the war in Iraq rather than now trying to support the fledgling democracy that now exists there, headed by a pluralist, moderate and socialist president of notable integrity.

by **Llamalandia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:08 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Baiynistan wrote:
I'd say that any 'Westerner' who speaks out against female genital mutilation, forced marriage, institutionalised gender oppression and for true egalitarianism worldwide is a proper feminist. People who spend all their time complaining about chain-mail bikinis and damsels in distress can go suck a fat one. They're not looking to really help people, they just want to be offended and tell people about it.

And being a conservative means supporting protectionism and mercantile factions, land owning gentry, clergy, opposing the right of women to vote, and opposing American Independence.

Whatever man.
Ideologies evolve. Feminism has evolved.

Perhaps but arguably feminism should presumably be present more or less across the ideological spectrum as basic fairness is value I believe many liberals and conservatives both often support.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:17 am

Baiynistan wrote:
Llamalandia wrote:^^^
Fair enough. Unfortunately it seems far too many wellknown and popular feminists seem to fall into the latter category and far too few (at least of much prominence) into the former category.

I think its the unfortunate phenomenon in journalism that people are more likely to be given a platform and media coverage are those who are likely to cause controversy and divide opinions, rather than those who speak out for what really matters. It's why people like Anita Sarkeesian (who I can't stand) get loads of press. Because, yes, they have supporters who are going to want to visit media outlets and give sites like Kotaku lots of revenue, but they also have a lot of opponents who, despite being irritated by her, are still going to want to read about her and add to journalistic websites' ad revenue.

It's because what really matters is boring. Think about it. Would you rather read a story about a crazy person being crazy or a boring long editorial about serious issues. And news agencies have realized that. News has become a form of entertainment.

by **Orham** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:18 am

Shouldn't there at least be consideration of the fact that women have a biological tendency to have a higher percentage of their body mass as fat, and so shouldn't the different rubrics for that standard at least be considered justified in that regard? I can understand moving to a universal standard for things such as pull-ups, curl-ups, run times, and so forth, there have been compelling arguments here for such things. But is accounting for the fact that women tend to have a higher amount of body mass due to fat by default really such a problem? I mean, we can argue that there might be overcompensation in the current standards, but not compensating at all? Why not?

The Grand World Order wrote: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.

Agreed on both counts.

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.

That's what I mean by overcompensation, things like that.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:22 am

Orham wrote:Shouldn't there at least be consideration of the fact that women have a biological tendency to have a higher percentage of their body mass as fat, and so shouldn't the different rubrics for that standard at least be considered justified in that regard? I can understand moving to a universal standard for things such as pull-ups, curl-ups, run times, and so forth, there have been compelling arguments here for such things. But is accounting for the fact that women tend to have a higher amount of body mass due to fat by default really such a problem? I mean, we can argue that there might be overcompensation in the current standards, but not compensating at all? Why not?

The Grand World Order wrote: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.

Agreed on both counts.

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.

That's what I mean by overcompensation, things like that.

Some men are born naturally fatter than most women. Should we not compensate when they have more fat because they are males?

See, this is the kind of nonsense feminism peddles. Their gender is, and should be, utterly irrelevant to any consideration you give them.

Oh, they have a higher body fat and it caused them to fail. Sucks for them. They can go hang out with the other fat people we failed.
As opposed to

"I demand compensations because I was born with a higher fat index."
"We fail males for that too."
"THAT DOESNT COUNT! PATRIARCHY!!!! You are oppressing women"
"No, we're telling people who are too fat to be marines that they cannot be marines. This one is a woman. She has an abnormally low fat index for a woman, but nonetheless, we let her into the corps. Because she isn't fat. Do you get it yet?"

by **Baiynistan** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:24 am

Purpelia wrote:It's because what really matters is boring. Think about it. Would you rather read a story about a crazy person being crazy or a boring long editorial about serious issues. And news agencies have realized that. News has become a form of entertainment.

Absolutely and, as frustrating as it is, you can't really fault the media for it because journalists gotta eat too! All they do is, to quote Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies, "Give the people what they want!". And unfortunately it is much more difficult to change what media consumers want than to complain about what those outlets give them.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:26 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:Some men are born naturally fatter than most women. Should we not compensate when they have more fat because they are males?

See, this is the kind of nonsense feminism peddles. Their gender is, and should be, utterly irrelevant to any consideration you give them.

Oh, they have a higher body fat and it caused them to fail. Sucks for them. They can go hang out with the other fat people we failed.
As opposed to

"I demand compensations because I was born with a higher fat index."
"We fail males for that too."
"THAT DOESNT COUNT! PATRIARCHY!!!! You are oppressing women"
"No, we're telling people who are too fat to be marines that they cannot be marines. This one is a woman. She has an abnormally low fat index for a woman, but nonetheless, we let her into the corps. Because she isn't fat. Do you get it yet?"

It kind of makes you want to stand up to the lot and tell them:
"You want to be equal? Than man up and realize that life isn't fair. And no one has any obligation to make life fair for you just because you are female. We only have the obligation and enjoyment of making it as unfair for you as it is for everyone else."

by **Ostroeuropa** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:30 am

Purpelia wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:Some men are born naturally fatter than most women. Should we not compensate when they have more fat because they are males?

See, this is the kind of nonsense feminism peddles. Their gender is, and should be, utterly irrelevant to any consideration you give them.

Oh, they have a higher body fat and it caused them to fail. Sucks for them. They can go hang out with the other fat people we failed.
As opposed to

"I demand compensations because I was born with a higher fat index."
"We fail males for that too."
"THAT DOESNT COUNT! PATRIARCHY!!!! You are oppressing women"
"No, we're telling people who are too fat to be marines that they cannot be marines. This one is a woman. She has an abnormally low fat index for a woman, but nonetheless, we let her into the corps. Because she isn't fat. Do you get it yet?"

It kind of makes you want to stand up to the lot and tell them:
"You want to be equal? Than man up and realize that life isn't fair. And no one has any obligation to make life fair for you just because you are female. We only have the obligation and enjoyment of making it as unfair for you as it is for everyone else."

I prefer grow up to man up. Man up carries sexist connotations that are used to prevent males expressing individuality.

Not whining about nonsense and demanding special treatment isn't being a man, it's being an adult.

It is funny though, how feminists are the biggest argument ever in favor of treating women like children. If the shoe fits. Maybe women should be a bit more annoyed about how they are "represented" by these petulant brats.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:33 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:I prefer grow up to man up. Man up carries sexist connotations that are used to prevent males expressing individuality.

Not whining about nonsense and demanding special treatment isn't being a man, it's being an adult.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you. But the subtle comedic undertone of the post demanded it. As in, the undertone of: "You want to be treated like a man? So man up!"

It is funny though, how feminists are the biggest argument ever in favor of treating women like children. If the shoe fits. Maybe women should be a bit more annoyed about how they are "represented" by these petulant brats.

The issue as far as I figure is that most women don't care about what these brats say because it either favors them (quotas and such) or does not effect them directly. That's the down side of being people too. People are idiots.

by **Dakini** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:59 am

Llamalandia wrote:Depends if youre a third wave feminist your probably a scumbag if you consider yourself a second or first wave one well that's all well and good but isn't that rather like someone calling themselves an abolitionist still?

So... it's only okay to be a feminist if you're a feminist that excludes women of colour and LGBTQ peoples? Including these groups makes you a scumbag?

How very interesting...

Likewise since basically all of the important battlesof feminism have essentially been won in the western world (there's likely always to be some small residual sexism just as you can still occasionally find some racists in the deep south) isn't the moniker of feminist likewise dated?

Ah, so it's because you don't have a clue. Good to know.

Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

Who is online