Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Dyakovo]

Let me guess. You're a young, white, male.

Young, olive skinned, male.

Close enough.

[Dyakovo]

Ignore this. Somehow didn't realize that this is thirty pages in.

So? This shouldn't matter beyond decreasing the likelihood of a reply. Now, if what you wrote was something likely to have already been covered in the thread? Maybe but that's generally the case for questions.

All this does is discourage the participation of new voices in thread. That's something that should be discouraged.

If it also discourages the making of inane charts, I'm all for it.

[Sefard]

Young, olive skinned, male.

Close enough.

I suppose so, though my age, skin, and sex has nothing to do with feminism being unnecessary in developed countries.

[Forsher]

If it also discourages the making of inane charts, I'm all for it.

Edgy.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Let me guess. You're a young, white, male.

Young, olive skinned, male.

If by olive skin you mean like the average Ashkenazi Israeli or southern Italian...

Exactly the same stuff to anyone but people with a traditionalist understanding of race that is already fairly outdated.

[Dyakovo]

Close enough.

I suppose so, though my age, skin, and sex has nothing to do with feminism being unnecessary in developed countries.

No, but the other two guesses, which turned out to be right, are common denominator of people who incorrectly believe that feminism is unnecessary.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I suppose so, though my age, skin, and sex has nothing to do with feminism being unnecessary in developed countries.

[Sefard]

Young, olive skinned, male.

If by olive skin you mean like the average Ashkenazi Israeli or southern Italian...

Exactly the same stuff to anyone but people with a traditionalist understanding of race that is already fairly outdated.

Somewhere between 26 and 28.

[Sefard]

I suppose so, though my age, skin, and sex has nothing to do with feminism being unnecessary in developed countries.

No, but the other two guesses, which turned out to be right, are common denominator of people who incorrectly believe that feminism is unnecessary.

Well, we are seeing in developed countries, and even less developed countries (especially in the Middle East), that women are now more educated, hold majority of university degrees, and are beginning jobs with equal or greater pay than their male counterparts, and are taking over the workforce.

[Sefard]

I suppose so, though my age, skin, and sex has nothing to do with feminism being unnecessary in developed countries.

I thought someone might say that.

[Aurora Novus]

Or you could look at the information linked, and determine whether or not it's actually valid information. Instead of, you know, dismissing it out of hand because you don't like the source. That is the definition of an ad hominem.


I have no clue if the laws are actually that bad in Sweden, but you don't exactly bolster your side by doing this. If you want to attack the site, fine. But at least attack it's claims while attacking the site. Otherwise I'm more inclined to take the site, not you, seriously.

Like I give a fuck what you think.

Well it would seem to some extent you do. You clearly care what SOMEONE thinks of you, otherwise you wouldn't bother arguing about this in the first place.

You could be entirely right, but if you want people who think with their minds, and not their hearts, to listen to you, you're going to need to do a better job than "I don't like this site therefor it's claims are invalid". That is, again, the definition of an ad hominem.

[Forsher]

So? This shouldn't matter beyond decreasing the likelihood of a reply. Now, if what you wrote was something likely to have already been covered in the thread? Maybe but that's generally the case for questions.

All this does is discourage the participation of new voices in thread. That's something that should be discouraged.

If it also discourages the making of inane charts, I'm all for it.

That said, the below is inane.

If by olive skin you mean like the average Ashkenazi Israeli or southern Italian...

Exactly the same stuff to anyone but people with a traditionalist understanding of race that is already fairly outdated.

Somewhere between 26 and 28.

You, your post was idiotic. There are still very much inequalities to address in developed countries. For one, there's the pay gap. At the same time, feminism (despite issues in this respect) is pretty much the only movement that will ever have the credibility to discuss (with results) for inequalities not relating to women (it just needs these to be pointed out to it).

Dyakovo, HetRio your means of addressing this were by attacking the poster in question. Not only does this do nothing but discredit your approach (it is a logical fallacy) it's also resulted in a thread jack away from the topic. This may have been the desired effect but that'd be stupid. In case it's unclear, an idiot can still be right and a genius wrong. Questioning whether or not a person's perspective is influenced by their background is a valid approach but not one that is relevant in this instance (especially in the combative nature seen here).

No, but the other two guesses, which turned out to be right, are common denominator of people who incorrectly believe that feminism is unnecessary.

Well, we are seeing in developed countries, and even less developed countries (especially in the Middle East), that women are now more educated, hold majority of university degrees, and are beginning jobs with equal or greater pay than their male counterparts, and are taking over the workforce.

To my knowledge, women tend to participate in the workforce at lesser rates than men. Therefore, the question is, do you have proof of that?

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

Well, imagine if a man did the same thing to his cheating abusive wife. I'm guessing there would be outrage and he'd be luck not to be the victim of mob justice.

WTF are you smoking?
I mean seriously, it looks like you're trying to imply that there wasn't outrage when Lorena did it.
Is every MRA incapable of intellectual honesty?

>Intellectual honesty
>what 70% of feminists sprout half the time
> pick one

[Sefard]

Well, we are seeing in developed countries, and even less developed countries (especially in the Middle East), that women are now more educated, hold majority of university degrees, and are beginning jobs with equal or greater pay than their male counterparts, and are taking over the workforce.

To my knowledge, women tend to participate in the workforce at lesser rates than men. Therefore, the question is, do you have proof of that?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/07/12/11938/the-state-of-diversity-in-todays-workforce/

"Women’s labor force participation has grown dramatically over the past few decades. Currently women account for 47 percent of the labor force. In absolute numbers this means that approximately 72,713,000 women over age 16 are in the labor force today, compared to 82,450,000 men over age 16, who account for 53 percent of the labor force. This is a major increase from 1950, when women represented just 29.6 percent of the workforce."

"By 2020 the number of women in the workforce is expected to grow to 77,232,000, an increase of 6.2 percent from today. Moreover, by 2020 women’s participation rate in the labor force is expected to be greater than that of men.
In terms of employment, the current unemployment rate for women is also lower than men’s—7.4 percent of women are unemployed, compared to 7.8 percent of men."

[Independent Canterbury]

Nah, it's just a bunch of man haters who need to be put in their place.

[Socialist Tera]

Of course it does. The patriarchy still exists.

[The Archregimancy]

Temporarily locked to facilitate Moderator action. My apologies for the inconvenience. The thread will be unlocked again shortly.

In the meantime, I would note the following past moderation ruling on the use of links to the AVfM [A Voice for Men] site:

AVfM itself admits to doxing ("Who let the dox out", 8 September 2013, by Diana Davison).

In general, the feminists that are doxed by AVfM are women who make a living, or seek to make a living, by promoting hatred, intolerance, injustice, or violence against men and boys.

Doxing is the first step in targeting people for speech on the Internet, cries of "oh, it would be just horrible if something happened" notwithstanding. We are not going to support such things with our traffic. If you like to browse there, that's your issue.

Linking to it here will not be tolerated and is a warnable offense.

[The Archregimancy]

With one exception, all references to A Voice for Men over the last couple of pages have been removed and sent to the Mod Evidence Locker.

The only exception is the following (and even here I've removed the actual link), which only remains to facilitate and explain the warning I'm about to hand out:

Source.

[Banned link removed by the moderation team]

*** The Swedish Realm warned for linking to a banned hate site. ***

Note that The Swedish Realm actually linked to that site twice; the second example - where the link remains intact as proof - is in the evidence locker.

The only reason I'm not handing out an extensive ban - certainly warranted given the multiple warnings and bans across several past nations - is the possibility that the ban on AVfM wasn't widely known. A warning therefore strikes me as more appropriate.



I will not hand out warnings to the individuals who then quoted the relevant links in their replies to The Swedish Realm (which have also been removed and sent to the evidence locker). I would, however, take the opportunity to firmly remind everyone that in these cases you might want to follow Dyakovo's example (also now in the evidence locker) and respond to the post without actually quoting the link.

Yes, Dyakovo, that was a moderator holding you up as an example of exemplary behaviour. I'll quite understand if you need to take a 15 minute time out and reach for the smelling salts.

I'll now unlock the thread.

[Dyakovo]

With one exception, all references to A Voice for Men over the last couple of pages have been removed and sent to the Mod Evidence Locker.

The only exception is the following (and even here I've removed the actual link), which only remains to facilitate and explain the warning I'm about to hand out:

[Banned link removed by the moderation team]

*** The Swedish Realm warned for linking to a banned hate site. ***

Note that The Swedish Realm actually linked to that site twice; the second example - where the link remains intact as proof - is in the evidence locker.



I will not hand out warnings to the individuals who then quoted the relevant links in their replies to The Swedish Realm (which have also been removed and sent to the evidence locker). I would, however, take the opportunity to firmly remind everyone that in these cases you might want to follow Dyakovo's example (also now in the evidence locker) and respond to the post without actually quoting the link.

Yes, Dyakovo, that was a moderator holding you up as an example of exemplary behaviour. I'll quite understand if you need to take a 15 minute time out and reach for the smelling salts.

I'll now unlock the thread.

To be fair, I initially had quoted the link, as I had forgotten that avfm was a banned link. It was edited out as an after thought...
And... Fuck you. I need life support after being used as a good example. You can expect a bill for my medical expenses.

[Kyuji]

Of course it does. The patriarchy still exists.

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

[The Grim Reaper]

Of course it does. The patriarchy still exists.

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

The patriarchy, like most of first and second-wave feminism, were a way of simplifying the politics of academic feminism so that it could become social feminism.

And also, in doing so, ignored the existence of coloured and black people in much of the West.

The idea of the patriarchy served a purpose, and was absolutely justified during the early days of social feminism.

Now, it's just irresponsible social activism given that it misrepresents reality by creating a single homogeneous enemy of 'men', as opposed to realizing that a lot of women in the developed world - most of the people involved in social feminism being from the developed world, purely because people outside of the West often don't have the same tools for ANY social activism - have it way fucking better than a lot of men in the developing world.

Feminism as an activist movement is, currently, obsolete. The general conclusions of feminist academic studies really aren't, even if the idea of women's studies and other similar movements that are often rolled into feminist academia are ineffectual.

[Socialist Tera]

Of course it does. The patriarchy still exists.

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

The patriarchy in-fact damages both men and women. It demonizes men with feminine qualities and feminine qualities in general. The term "grow a pair" and "man up" did not spring up from anywhere. The patriarchy still has a big part of today's culture. Men are forced to lead, not by choice, because of societies expectations. Yahweh, help if you a submissive male in a western society, you are belittled by every group. In a male driven society, females raping males are not taken seriously, men being abused by females are not taken seriously and I can state other things that males suffer because of the patriarchy. Female supremacy is not feminism, what you are referring to is a matriachist, who calls herself a feminist. Stop being a straw man.

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

The patriarchy, like most of first and second-wave feminism, were a way of simplifying the politics of academic feminism so that it could become social feminism.

And also, in doing so, ignored the existence of coloured and black people in much of the West.

The idea of the patriarchy served a purpose, and was absolutely justified during the early days of social feminism.

Now, it's just irresponsible social activism given that it misrepresents reality by creating a single homogeneous enemy of 'men', as opposed to realizing that a lot of women in the developed world - most of the people involved in social feminism being from the developed world, purely because people outside of the West often don't have the same tools for ANY social activism - have it way fucking better than a lot of men in the developing world.

Feminism as an activist movement is, currently, obsolete. The general conclusions of feminist academic studies really aren't, even if the idea of women's studies and other similar movements that are often rolled into feminist academia are ineffectual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg

[Kyuji]

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

The patriarchy, like most of first and second-wave feminism, were a way of simplifying the politics of academic feminism so that it could become social feminism.

And also, in doing so, ignored the existence of coloured and black people in much of the West.

The idea of the patriarchy served a purpose, and was absolutely justified during the early days of social feminism.

Now, it's just irresponsible social activism given that it misrepresents reality by creating a single homogeneous enemy of 'men', as opposed to realizing that a lot of women in the developed world - most of the people involved in social feminism being from the developed world, purely because people outside of the West often don't have the same tools for ANY social activism - have it way fucking better than a lot of men in the developing world.

Feminism as an activist movement is, currently, obsolete. The general conclusions of feminist academic studies really aren't, even if the idea of women's studies and other similar movements that are often rolled into feminist academia are ineffectual.

Thanks that actually explains a lot .

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The patriachy is a conspiracy developed by a small group of misandric women as a way to shift all blame of every bad thing in this world to men. It's female supremist , sexist and queerphobic.
A patriachy is a system ruled only by men , but The patriachy is the idea that the world by a group that focusses only on oppressing women,

The patriarchy in-fact damages both men and women. It demonizes men with feminine qualities and feminine qualities in general. The term "grow a pair" and "man up" did not spring up from anywhere. The patriarchy still has a big part of today's culture. Men are forced to lead, not by choice, because of societies expectations. Yahweh, help if you a submissive male in a western society, you are belittled by every group. In a male driven society, females raping males are not taken seriously, men being abused by females are not taken seriously and I can state other things that males suffer because of the patriarchy. Female supremacy is not feminism, what you are referring to is a matriachist, who calls herself a feminist. Stop being a straw man.

As someone who is an immigrant from a developing country into a developed one I have to disagree with you partially.

I have never heard about this concept of the "patriarchy" outside of NS to be frank.

However, I will admit that gender roles are still pretty alive, but I don't conform to all of them and nobody really expects me to. So I agree that that's the benefit of feminism and gender equality, that I can be me, not some stoic shadow of a man and my SO can be seen as a woman even if she doesn't act "feminine" or, if she decides to act "feminine" at least is her choice; same as my choice to act "masculine" or not.

Also, the term "man up" and "grow a pair" sprung from our inherent social structure as men should be stoic, not so much that we're supposed to be "manly" as stoicism has always been seen as a masculine quality.

[Gravlen]

(Image)

I thought someone might say that.

There are women who take it to the wire. That's what they are looking for, the ultimate confrontation. They want a smack.
- Sean Connery

Connery explains that you only beat women, "If you've tried everything else, and -- women are pretty good at this -- they can't leave it alone. They want to have the last word, and you give them the last word, but they're not happy with the last word. They want to say it again, and get into a really provocative situation. Then I think it's absolutely right."